Capital Punishment: Cruel and Unusual?

A "comfortable" death bed.

Wikipedia Article on Lethal Injection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_injection

Article from Time Magazine: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1699855,00.html

Blog from the Innocence Project: http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/1160.php

ABC News Interview with an executioner: http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=4015348&page=1

In 1791, the first ten amendments to the United States' Constitution were ratified and became known as the people's Bill of Rights. These ten amendments to the Constitution explicitly state the rights of each and every American citizen, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a speedy trial by jury, etcetera, etcetera. Also, in the Eighth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, the use of cruel and unusual punishment is deemed immoral, and thus, illegal. Within the past few weeks, all capital punishment via lethal injection sentences have been suspended with regards to the Eighth Amendment. This once "humane" way to die is now called into question because the mixture of the drugs and the possible severity of excruciating pain or paralysis that they may cause may violate the rights of American citizens. This suspension leads me to my next question: Is the use of lethal injection for capital punishment-- with our without suffering-- constitutional in the first place?

The concotion of three drugs-- Potassium chloride, Pancuronium bromide, and Sodium thiopental-- make up the substance of lethal injection, also known as the Oklahoma cocktail. The combination of these three drugs is supposed to provide comfort for the person being executed. If just one of these lethal drugs does not properly do its job, however, the victim may endure a slow and painful death, violating the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights. Researchers have recently proven that the administration of barbiturate by itself may be an alternative form of a more humane lethal injection. We keep trying to discover and invent more humane and "comfortable" ways to execute criminals and murderers, but no matter how "humane" the method may be, we are still killing people. By executing those who serve time on death row, are we not doing exactly as they have done? Indeed, those who have been truthfully convicted of rape, murder, or other heinous crimes that are socially unacceptable, must be punished. However, if United States law allows for legal execution, is it not also allowing for legal murder? I mean, someone has to administer the lethal injection of drugs.

Just recently, two men who had been convicted for the murder and rape of a three-year-old girl were released from death row in Mississippi. DNA evidence proved that these men had been wrongfully convicted, and now, they are waiting to have their convictions overturned. What if they had already been executed? The men would have been wrongfully convicted, wrongfully placed on death row, and wrongfully murdered. The arguments for the death penalty, nonetheless, prove valid points. Yes, keeping a convicted criminal in a cell for life costs more than injecting them with the three lethal drugs, and yes, some of the convicted criminals are so twisted and perverse that the world just might be better off without them. But, do these reasons justify murdering them? In an ABC interview with an executioner, Jerry Givens-- the one actually performing the "dirty work" -- has decided that he is against capital punishment. If he has executed an innocencet man, Givens admits that it takes a large toll on him. He is merely doing his day job, killing people because the government says so.

We like to think that lethal injection is an "easy" way to go. Just get the shot, wait a bit, and that's all there is to it. Plus, knowing capital punishment is the result of murder, people hope that it will serve as a deterrent for others who have considered commiting the same crime. However, we never actually witness the lethal injection, so really, how could we actually be deterred from commiting that same crime? We look back on history when people were hanged, burned at the stake, decapitated, pressed to death, crucified, etcetera, etcetera, and we grimace when we think of the excruciating pain and misery that these people went through. Also, in modern times, countries in the Middle East or in Africa, people are beaten, ridiculed, cut, or even killed in town squares. Those types of punishments are what actually deter criminal acts. For obvious reasons, these forms of punishments are considered barbaric, immoral, and inhumane. Yet, we do not consider ourselves barbarians or savages for executing people. Of course not! We are "humane" when we kill our criminals. We strap them down, inject them with serum (of which we do not know the exact effects until after they are dead), and we are finished. A job well done. We deserve a pat on the back.

Link Between Media Violence and Child Aggression

National Institute on Media and the Family article:
http://www.mediafamily.org/facts/facts_vlent.shtml

Article from Children's Advocate:
http://www.4children.org/news/1-97toxl.htm

The advancement of modern tecnology has made, and continues to make, every day life easier, faster, more fun, and a bit more organized. When we need to remember an important date or appointment, we set a reminder in our Blackberries or Palms. We can now check our e-mail without direct acces to a computer. For entertainment, we can play video games or watch movies from the comfort of our own living rooms. However, when selecting the types of movies or video games we are watching/playing, people often do not take into consideration the amount of violence and obscenity they are about to endure or how the violence present will affect them or the others around them. Today, many argue over the controversial debate of whether or not media violence is directly linked to an increase in aggressive behavior. Several studies have shown that children who are more exposed to television or video game violence are more likely to exhibit and/or imititate the aggressive and violent behavior as opposed to those who were not exposed to media violence.

When televisions were fresh on the market in the 1950's, prime time television shows were along the lines of I Love Lucy, Lassie, Leave It to Beaver, etcetera, etcetera. Situational comedy entertained thousands of viewers each and every week. The best part? These shows were "clean." They exhibited classic humor that we still laugh at today, and they did so without guns, swearing, or other types of violence evident in the media today. Now, we have movies like Untraceable, Saw, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the list could go on and on, that broadcast killing, violence, and most of the other negative qualities people probably don't want their children to be subjected to. Granted, there were violent films in the 1950's as well, but I feel comfortable saying that the movie/television industry has grown increasingly violent throughout the years. Each new film or T.V. show tries to surpass the others by adding more gore, violence, or psychologically twisted killers. We as viewers -- in order to cope with the increasingly graphic shows and movies -- have become more accepting and desensitized toward this media violence, and because of people's lack of sensitivity (and, perhaps, because of the lack of shows with zero violence), they allow their children to watch this violence without thinking of the consequences.

Although many studies have proven that exposure to media violence can alter a child's level of aggression, parents often disregard the warnings. Several psychologists claim that younger children who are exposed to this violence are not mature enough to separate the fantasy of movies, such as Saw, with reality. Because violence brings an end to conflict in the movies, children think violence may solve their problems. Also, in a study done by the National Institute on Media and the Family, the study showed that younger children do not have the mental capacity to comprehend the motives for killing or for other forms of graphic violence. According to a survey that appeared in the magazine Children's Advocate, 25 to 33% of younger people who had commited crimes had copied what they had seen on television or in the movies. The statistics are startling, but there is more. The National Institute on Media and the Family also found that, with normal viewing, by age eighteen, children will see roughly 200,000 violent scenes, of which 40,000 are murders. All of that, on television, and those statistics exclude the movies! To make matters worse, the psychopathic killers are not always caught (in order to add the suprise twist to the ending, of course!). Ergo, the children do not see the consequences that accompany violence. They, like the rest of us, become desensitized to the violence (and its effects), and because of their inability to distinguish fiction from reality, act out the violence they see glorified on the big and small screens.

How do we stop children from being invaded with media violence? How do we keep them from acting out what they see in action and horror flicks? Simple. Stop them from being exposed to violence and aggression in the media. We like to think that we don't condone violent and aggressive behavior. In fact, most of society turns their nose up at this type of "unacceptable" -- and rather "barbaric" --behavior. Yet, we continue to finance the horror genre of games and films because it is entertaining and suspenseful, and why should filmakers discontinue to produce this horror genre when it sells? They need money, and the viewing public is quick to pay them. We have been exposed to media violence, and as the National Institution on Media and the Family predicted, we desire to see more. In order to meet our needs, more and more movies are being produced in the horror genre and being viewed by younger children. Who's to blame for corrupting the children watching violent programs? We (the benefactors of this epidemic) are.

In "Style"

Kate Moss

Nicole Richie

Marilyn Monroe

Thank goodness for magazines! What would people do if they did not have something to tell them who was doing what, what's in style, or the latest and greatest diet tricks? Everyday, people across the world raid magaines stands to get the latest "Hollywood gossip," fashion tips, or newest styles for the upcoming season. Teenagers -- and maybe even adults -- who buy these magazines look to these models and movie stars with envy and jealousy of how they look, dress, or live their daily lives. Because the super thin models and Hollywood icons are labeled as beautiful and glamorous, we change our diet, spend a few extra minutes in the gym, or even change how we dress in order to mirror the people on the pages of magazines. But who says changing diets or working out longer is a negative thing? Cutting soft drinks out or an extra five minutes on the treadmill is great, but when people become so obsessed with looking like a model or movie star, they may develop a life-threatening eating disorder. The fashion magazines are constantly placing über skinny models in clothing ads and photo shoots and ultimately defining beautiful as tall and thin with collar bones jutting out of shoulders and chests; yet in the same magazine, the writers will include an article about being "healthy" rather than "skinny" because the writers realized, believe it or not, that people are built with different body types.

The "Fashion Industry" and clothing designers claim that long and lean girls better show of their clothes; however, many may safely assume that over half of the people buying the designer clothes are not 5'10 with a size 25 waist. Magazines, such as Teen Vogue or InStyle, have published a multitude of articles addressing super skinny models and what is actually a healthy weight. Nonetheless, with the flip of a page, we see a super thin model posing in a bathing suit, and suddenly, we don't really care what the article on being healthy just said-- we want to look like that skinny model (perhaps, not even realizing the contradiction that the magazine just made). Obviously, we would be much more inclined to buy that bathing suit if a young, thin model was wearing it rather than a middle aged woman with a "pooch" and "love handles." The fashion magazines' motives are completely understandable and ethical: put up pictures of people who will sell their products. However, their motives and strategies for raising profits are increasing people's desires to look like the super skinny, almost anorexic models.

Several years ago, people associated modeling with beauty, grace, and poise. Marilyn Monroe, for example, is a modern day icon because of her timeless and classic beauty, but she was no toothpick. In fact, according to her biography, she wore a size 8 in pants! Today, when people hear the word model, they think of height and weight (or lack thereof). These fashion magazines and tall, thin models give people a distorted view of what "beautiful" really is. Girls who do not have the long, thin, and sleek body build consider themselves to be ugly, fat, or even out of style. Most girls would much rather be considered as having "model-like" beauty instead of a healthy weight for their body type. If a person --who is not naturally thin -- wants to be super skinny, she may develop an eating disorder, such as anorexia, bulimia, or maybe even a little of both, in order to achieve her desired wieght. Consequences of seeing these models on every page can lead to things other than eating disorders. Being constantly bombarded with tall, über thin models in magazines may lead to physical discontent with a person's body which can further develop into psychological unhappiness and insecurity.

Although the magazines seem to present a serious concern for girls suffering from eating disorders, they continue to place über thin models on the covers and on every other page inside magazines in attempt to sell their products. Because the magazines print more pictures of skinny models instead of articles proclaiming that being healthy is more attractive than being thin, readers disregard the articles and strive to be thin rather than healthy. The definition of the word pretty has slowly transformed from "pleasing to the eye" to something along the lines of "long, lean, and a very low percentage of body fat." In September of 2006, CNN.com reported that a Madrid fashion show placed the a ban on "overly thin" models in attempt to "project an image of beauty and health." After realizing that the number of eating disorders was on the rise in women trying to obtain the "model-like" look, the Madrid fashion week turned away several models who did not meet the body mass index requirements. Fashion magazines should follow in the steps of the Madrid fashion show by showing that women of all shapes and sizes can be beautiful. If the fashion industry was really concerned with the health of its readers, it would include pictures of average sized models rather than girls with unnaturally pencil-thin figures. However, as long as the fashion industry continues on the same path, people will forever be surrounded with super thin models and women with eating disorders, hoping to achieve magazines' definition of "style" and "beauty."