Opinion or Law

For my final original editorial post, I wanted to go back to a case that was hot topic in the media, and with my personal family and peer group, People of the State of California v. Brock Turner. For anyone whose is not familiar, I’ll attempt a brief summary.

Turner was a male student attending Stanford University. On January 28, 2016 he was indicted on five charges to include: rape, felony assault and attempted rape. The incident occurred on the campus in early 2015. Two passing males spotted Brock Turner on top of an unconscious female. Upon realizing he was recognized, Turner proceeded to flee the scene. In the hours before, Brock Turner and the victim were attending a party together where both admittedly consumed alcohol. I won’t scrutinize every single detail between the party and the accused rape, but I highly recommend you read up on it. I won’t give my opinion of guilt or innocence in this case.  I wasn’t there and it’s not my position to judge the accused. What I will offer is the fact that on March 30, 2016, Brock Turner was found guilty by a jury of the following charges: assault with intent to commit rape on an intoxicated/unconscious person, penetration of an intoxicated person with a foreign object, and sexually penetrating an unconscious person with a foreign object. The controversy though is not in what he was found guilty of, but with the sentence Judge Aaron Persky gave Turner: 6 months in jail with 3 years probation.

The public was outraged by the sentence Judge Persky handed down; accusing him of being lenient because of Brock Turner’s race and social status. Numerous cases have surfaced in the media to shed light on the partial treatment Turner was given, including: Brian Keith Banks and more recently, Raul Ramirez. With the public’s perceived injustice, many protests and petitions have been enacted in an attempt to remove Judge Aaron Persky from his judicial position. While the fury and effort is understandable, California law has blurred lines on what constitutes rape, defining it as a” non-consensual act of sexual intercourse.” The law is not specific in addressing penetration and what is classified as sexual intercourse.  Simply put, under California law penetration with any type of foreign object including fingers is not classified into the category of “intercourse”, therefore it is not rape.  So, yes under the law, Brock Turner’s sentence is justified, and Judge Persky was within the law’s definition regarding his sentencing.  Fortunately, efforts are currently underway to mend these discrepancies. But unfortunately, these details were not outlined under the law when Judge Persky sentenced Brock Turner. Although I do not support Persky’s decision, I cannot condemn him for straying from what the law defines as just.

 

Colleague Commentary

“Islamophobia and Social Thought”, a blog posted by fellow classmate Madeline S., really stood out to me in its straight forward and honest approach. I’m surprised on a daily basis by some of the remarks and opinions of people that I believed were more nondiscriminatory on issues of faith. Many of them follow and develop their opinion, solely off what they hear and see being offered through mass media. They are being presented with only the information that makes headlines; which in turn is hampering their ability to offer a truly informed stance on immigration. Although some media outlets attempt to show a full picture, that is not what is popular in the mainstream. The statement from Madeline’s blog, ”Fear stems from a mystery, a lack of information or understanding”, is spot on. When I have conversations with conservative peers that have a negative perspective on the Muslim community, it is almost always due to lack of knowledge. They do not have Muslim friends or acquaintances nor are they interested to. The statements they offer to support their perspective are often in the realm of, “well my friend said”, or “I saw in my newsfeed”. They are often referencing an opinion based editorial that offers only the authors perspective. But, because they see the article associated with an established news source, it becomes fact to them. We need an educated public in order to see progress. It’s important for us to seek out opportunities to give possible insight to our community and peers; not in an attempt to ridicule or discredit, but to show other aspects of the issue.

Making Change

In this entry, I am going to continue with what’s shaping up to be the running them in all my blog posts, gun control in America. In light of recent events in Orlando, I’ve been exposed to many views on what changes should be made to minimize mass shooting occurrences.  I’ve spent a good amount of time researching this topic and looking at options that we have and decisions that we are facing. I know the argument that is being stood firm by people against change. I’ve heard the case, “if more people were equipped with handguns, then someone could intervene and stop these killers”. Also, there is the argument that criminals will acquire guns regardless of any changes we inforce.  My stance is this; restrictions NEED to be made, not on our right to bear arms, but on WHO has that right.  

There is in fact no correlation to the claim that more guns equate to more violent crime. I’m referencing mass shootings specifically; where guns have been put into the hands of people that were clearly incapable of that immense responsibility. If you have been watchlisted by the FBI, at any point, you lose that right. If you suffer from a mental illness that may impede your decision making with a weapon that can take people's lives, you lose that right. There are current proposals to address some of these issues, but the likely hood that may pass is unsure.

I also think the responsibility lies in the hands of all Americans to stay proactive.  We need to be aware of each other. If we see a family member, friend or relative that displays behaviors that concern us, we should bring awareness to the situation. When I look at happenings of teens involved in mass shooting, I wonder; if the assailant’s prior actions were addressed, would there have been such a tragic loss of lives. Being innovative to solutions should become an additional focus. Following the Aurora theatre shooting, Colorado student Kai Kloepfer developed a gun prototype that could only be used through fingerprint verification. Kloepfer claims that this measure could prevent anyone unauthorized, from using the firearm. This includes children & assailants attempting to disarm an officer. I hope that we, as a society, will continue to make necessary progress so that our communities are safe from these types of violent acts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Five Words to Make Change

In writing my second critique, I set out with the intent to avoid an article that repeated the topic of my previous post…guns. I found it difficult, as this is what is in our headlines currently. I’ve read many articles about the tragic, mass shooting that occurred in Orlando, Florida on June 12^th. There have been many disputes over the intent of the shooter and countless outpourings of love and support for the community. But what connects with me are discussions and insight, as to what we need to do as a country to make change that will minimize the occurrence of events like these.

The article I am going to reference is excerpted from a book written by John Paul Stevens, and was published by The Washington Post on April11, 2014. Although this article is dated, it is entirely relevant to current events, and offers pertinent information and perspective. Stevens is a retired associate justice of the Supreme Court, who served close to 35 years. He was enlisted in the U.S. Navy from 1942-1945. After served time, he attended law school at the Northwestern University School of Law. He earned the highest GPA in the history of law school and received his Juris Doctor in 1947. His book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution,” was published in April, 2014. Although he was registered as a Republican, he was considered to be on the liberal side of the Court. When asked in a 2007 interview if he still considers himself a Republican, he declined to comment.

In Steven's writings, references are made to the many killings that have occurred due to our lenient and unclear laws on guns.  He continues by breaking down the history the Second Amendment in our court systems and how we have failed to put necessary restrictions into place. He states that “anomalous result can be avoided by adding five words to the test of the Second Amendment”…….

               “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”

I found Stevens excerpt to be extremely informative and offer insight and facts that I previously did not have. His career experience absolutely adds to the validity of the case he is making. I found it so absorbing to read, and followed well with what the author was saying. It is so important that we act to make change. This was an amazing read on how we can began to do so.

 

                                              

                                                                John Paul Stevens 

                                     Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

 

Guns and Our Schools

In researching an article to critique, I immediately went to Fox News, as I consider myself pretty liberal and thought I’d definitely find some strong opinions there. The piece I decided to reference is written by columnist Todd Starnes. It’s titled, “School rejects teen's gun-toting, flag-waving photo”. This is interesting because it touches on many of our basic rights, our right to bear arms and freedom of press.

Basically the story goes as follows: Fifteen year old Josh Bruner, a high school student in New Jersey, was given a photography assignment to take a self-portrait representing self-expression.  You have to know that Josh is blatantly proud of the rights he is afforded as an American. He is a lifetime NRA member, a member of two shooting teams and a United States Sea Cadet. So the photo he chose to submit represented these things.

Josh stands proudly holding the American flag in one hand and his 12 gauge shotgun in the other.

The problem is this; the assignment was to be uploaded to a school website and the school strictly prohibits any depiction of the students with weapons. This is the case, as far as I know, at most schools and for justified reasons; Sandy Hook Elementary, Columbine High School and Virginia Tech, just to name a few.

In writing this column, Todd Starnes makes the case that the message they are sending is, it is not okay for Josh to take pride in his country by showing his patriotism. He even makes a quick whip, that, it’s not pornography. It's Old Glory and a shotgun. He also makes a strong statement that, “These days Gay Pride is in vogue and American Pride is passe.”

Here’s the deal, Josh Bruner has every right to be a proud, gun toting American. And I am frankly, proud and inspired to see someone with such pride for our country. But, there is a clear issue of gun violence with our youth. And while Josh can proudly display what he believes and stands for anywhere he pleases, it can’t be posted to a public school website. The disastrous events of mass shootings that have occurred in our schools must be considered in this case. And yes, you can show pride in issues such as your sexual identity.  But, the difference is, being gay is not a weapon that can kill people. Although, you can make the argument that is has. I’m just surprised that as a journalist, Todd Starnes would make this reference. Now to be fair, it is his legal right to express his standpoint. Todd Starnes is a conservative with some history of being controversial. He aims his comments and articles towards an audience with his strong conservative views. And likely they are also intended to, “stir the pot”, in people with opposing views.  He has worked in news since he was a teenager. Included on his resume are jobs with Chattanooga Times Free Press, Blue Ridge News Observer, and the Baptist Press. He also had success in talk radio before moving to Fox News.

I get that Todd Starnes is trying to make a point, and that his aim may likely be to do it in a way that strikes a chord with other conservatives. But, I don’t agree with his argument or his approach. It’s not necessary or beneficial to mock another cause in the process. And it’s important to notate why things are the way they are, when it comes to school policies and gun control. But, that’s what is great about having the rights that we have. We are allowed our own opinions and to express them how we choose, except in this case, Josh Bruner.

School suspension costing tax payers billions?

Huffington Post recently published an article highlighting the large amount of money that school suspension is costing tax payers. I personally found this article intriguing as I work in the public school system. Specifically, I am a teacher’s aide, working in SPED as well as behavior classrooms.  The claim is that suspending a child from school greatly increases the likelihood that they will drop out. This in turn raises the risks of them becoming involved in the criminal justice system and later receiving government aide, which cost taxpayers. The exact amount referenced in the article, $35 billion dollars! While I’m not entirely confident in these numbers, I can agree with the idea that new practices should be studied and implemented if found successful. Personally working at a campus that is classified as high poverty, I see a large population of kids with behavior. I’m not claiming that these two things correlate, but it is what it is. Our policy is NOT to suspend the kids. And I absolutely do not believe doing so would be beneficial for the students or staff. It’s important for us to find the source of the behavior and to support the student in any way possible to change it. Once that trust is built, the behavior decreases, the child’s attitude toward school and staff improves and academic progress follows. So yes, keep these kids in school. It’s a win for the students’ future and for all those concerned tax payers. I believe everyone should show interest and become involved when it is concerning our education system. We need the support of our community in order to enact positive changes towards the future of our youth.  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/school-suspension-money_us_574efcbae4b0ed593f12dd4b

Hello class