Sad as it is, but I want to state this on the side with JD's stance on juvenile crimes and punishment in her article. No matter how we try to relate it to the underdevelopment, environmental abuses, faults of others, pressure of fellow students or family, psychological disposition, or whatever the excuse might be, I contend that juvenile offense is no different from an adult's with the same malice and be dealt in the alikeness of that of an adult, even in capital punishment.
You can't deny the past and the depictions in scripts, studies, and criminial records listed here, a crime is still a crime and in the ages of 11-12+ they are fully aware of the notion of pain, death, and calculated, methodological murder, as modern psychologists in scrupulous studies. I've read the news and the ones that are embedded in me with most striking force are the killing in April, 1999 in Colorado where two teenagers (Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris), armed with contempt and with homicidal plans they had formulated more than an year ago, a cold blooded killing spree that was carefully planned and carried out all the way, killing 13 acqaintances and injurying 24, and dispatched themselves out with a gunpoint to their heads.
There can't be any excuses, the teenagers were fully captivated by their delusions or act of violence I might not comprehend, but can attribute to my own innate emotions of anger and murderous thoughts and I'm not shy to admit them. Even though I cannot, no I do not, vent my disconcerted exasperation and frustration, I can always find a way to simply ignore or walk away from the scene before violent acts may follow up, and I forget about it. We're not in the age of the gentry where we can formally challenge the offender to a duel or anything, we're in a painstakingly litigious society where the pen champions the sword, the law attacks and defends the people, not by a gunpoint. I cannot comply enough to show empathy for those juvenile offenders who might've acted in a haphazard act and blame on their genes and hormones for it. But the hormones and genes ARE essentially a part of you, the good and bad, all the little detail forms the human existence. It is just simply not result of childish implications, it is an act of corrupt violence the child acquired or familiarized with oneself in his/her own experience, and it cannot be condoned.
I cannot be conviced of the systematic rehabilitation quality the nation can provide now for the convicted. Because the inculcated ideology and uncontrollable anger cannot be easily suppressed once it has settled down during the age where development of abstract thought and self-awareness is established firmly. There are several movies I watched depicting juevenile homicide such as in "Blood Diamond" (the would-be doctor kid who is forced and brainwashed to a militant during the South African Border War) and another movie I can't recall the title but a teenager who gets his attorney to receive protection from charges of homicide (an adulturous and corrupt priest I recall) and feigns dissociative identity disorder until his makes a single blunder and the attorney walks away. Children are aware and may exploit its advantage of their nature of their vunerability. We just can't tell when they're telling the truth or not, really, and that's the grey area when the children are not perceptive of their own actions and consequences, but the offense have been made; the verdict will be made.
JD's blog: http://jdusgovblog.blogspot.com/
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Murder_committed_by_minors
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/juvmurders/timeline.htm
http://www.childdevelopmentinfo.com/development/piaget.shtml
http://history1900s.about.com/od/famouscrimesscandals/a/columbine.htm
2010년 8월 13일 금요일
2010년 8월 10일 화요일
Selfless Sacrifice
The Congress, by constitutional rights, have the legislative power to declare war on a different nation, but in past U.S. warfare history, it has done only five times. In the times of national crisis, an emergency that demands swift response from the federal government, the our presidents, bestowed with the War Powers Act establish in 1973 during the Vietnam war, can prompt war without congressional consent for 60 days. And the presidents weren't shy to command such rise up in the time of need. America's iconic figure of political clout and success, also as a dependable ally and aegis of the citizens, the speech of the Presidents engenders national unity and comfort for the battalion troops and the homestead citizens. Such is the case with the President Obama's speech in D.C. on The Washington Post.
President Obama, in his acknowledgement to his audience and on behalf of the civilians and military personnel involved in the Afghan war, opened up with a general status report on the outstate war campaign. The "new strategy" he points out is what caught my attention, seemingly simple yet effective as long as the other ends meets its cost. It involves the idea of gradually, and eventually, pushing the responsibilities and garnering the Afghan nation to be manageable and cooperative, basically self-capable of bringing its forces and intelligence to a level where U.S. and NATO wouldn't have to worry about Al Quaeda and its spawning franchise of violent terrorist groups hiding in the safeguard of the regions of Afghan and Pakistan.
Since september 11, 2003 U.S. and NATO, with other nations, have launched a series of operations to battle aginst the dangers of terrorism sperading through the armed, multi-national, extremist group, namely Al Quaeda, founded by Osama Bin Laden. It is still unbeknownst to us whether he is still alive and and on the run but the federal intelligence denotes to his infrequent video messages to his survival in the safehavens of his muslim advocates, and trying their best to root him out. The threat is still hiding and waiting for retaliation like thieves in the night, and we want rid of it. But the mounting costs and number of troops sent to hostile grounds are formidable and citizens are getting tired of the war.
In response, President Obama announces this new comprehensive and smarter strategy to zoom in on the war without overhauling resources. The common enemy is quartering and moving throughout the clandestine regions of Afghan/Pakistan, so the president plans to integrate civillian and military effort with the international allignance with the NATO nations and most importantly, support of the Pakistan democracy with the infrastructure, medical services, and education offered by the U.S., specifically and gradually assimilating them and coaxing them out of extremism of the Sunni ideology and bring relief to the violence-infested areas in the aftermath of the war. It is a costly payment, and the taxpayers will express dissent in a already deteriorating economy, but such level of commitment is required to reach this goal.
The other part of the "comprehensive strategy" quote, "we and our friends and allies must reverse the Taliban's gains and promote a more capable and accountable Afghan government." An obvious but complicated and obscure task that is no easy task. But this is such a necessary step to make long-term goals plausible, which is ultimately suppressing the terrorist groups and taking our troops back, by making their government capable to withstand and counter internal conflicts and manage to oversee the adversary's movements. This is the plan that will allow returning resources and impose responsibility for the Afghan as well, again quote, "we will prepare Afghans to take responsibility for their security and how we will, ultimately, be able to bring our own troops home."
The burdens of the citizens and military are heavy but the national security is at stake. To borrow the president's words, "We cannot turn a blind eye to the corruption that causes Afghans to lose faith in their own leaders." and "there will also be no peace without reconciliation among former enemies." These are true words that exhorts people to contribute support into the hopeful conclusion of this costly war and unyield to the justice that the American society believes in. Sacrifices have been made, and will continue to spill blood as the time of conflict ensues, but the commitment is shared and in the remembrance of those lost and girding the cause, the "selfless sacrifice" will be upheld to fight and defend America.
Source:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/obama-speeches/speech/40/
Since september 11, 2003 U.S. and NATO, with other nations, have launched a series of operations to battle aginst the dangers of terrorism sperading through the armed, multi-national, extremist group, namely Al Quaeda, founded by Osama Bin Laden. It is still unbeknownst to us whether he is still alive and and on the run but the federal intelligence denotes to his infrequent video messages to his survival in the safehavens of his muslim advocates, and trying their best to root him out. The threat is still hiding and waiting for retaliation like thieves in the night, and we want rid of it. But the mounting costs and number of troops sent to hostile grounds are formidable and citizens are getting tired of the war.
In response, President Obama announces this new comprehensive and smarter strategy to zoom in on the war without overhauling resources. The common enemy is quartering and moving throughout the clandestine regions of Afghan/Pakistan, so the president plans to integrate civillian and military effort with the international allignance with the NATO nations and most importantly, support of the Pakistan democracy with the infrastructure, medical services, and education offered by the U.S., specifically and gradually assimilating them and coaxing them out of extremism of the Sunni ideology and bring relief to the violence-infested areas in the aftermath of the war. It is a costly payment, and the taxpayers will express dissent in a already deteriorating economy, but such level of commitment is required to reach this goal.
The other part of the "comprehensive strategy" quote, "we and our friends and allies must reverse the Taliban's gains and promote a more capable and accountable Afghan government." An obvious but complicated and obscure task that is no easy task. But this is such a necessary step to make long-term goals plausible, which is ultimately suppressing the terrorist groups and taking our troops back, by making their government capable to withstand and counter internal conflicts and manage to oversee the adversary's movements. This is the plan that will allow returning resources and impose responsibility for the Afghan as well, again quote, "we will prepare Afghans to take responsibility for their security and how we will, ultimately, be able to bring our own troops home."
The burdens of the citizens and military are heavy but the national security is at stake. To borrow the president's words, "We cannot turn a blind eye to the corruption that causes Afghans to lose faith in their own leaders." and "there will also be no peace without reconciliation among former enemies." These are true words that exhorts people to contribute support into the hopeful conclusion of this costly war and unyield to the justice that the American society believes in. Sacrifices have been made, and will continue to spill blood as the time of conflict ensues, but the commitment is shared and in the remembrance of those lost and girding the cause, the "selfless sacrifice" will be upheld to fight and defend America.
Source:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/obama-speeches/speech/40/
2010년 8월 4일 수요일
The Relationship We Seek (with our government)
This is a commentary on my colleague's work on
Indeed, the government have undergone many tweaks and redefined itself over the years, and in the years to come, continue to do so as the social patterns of its constituents continue to change. But I would like to call out the title of this commentary and its address in ambivalence and confusion. The title, "Today's United States government", I would like to pull out and with all due respect and proper permission, criticize on various topics of the author's writings.
First of all, the title itself mentions and positions the article to express the current state or denote a change in today's government. The sentence I could not bring myself to agree on would be the "Most things remain the same: U.S. Constitution grants citizens unalienable rights, Checks and balance system." most of the foundation our current constitutioin is based upon would be very likely the same as it was devised in 1989, but the slight renovations have been made in the national law-bound architecture. Through the course of history, our rights have been challenged and reinterpreted many times. Just a few to note, one of the innate, unalienable rights of the citizenship would be the freedom of speech. This is also included in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution but has been ruled out by the Supreme Court to be inhibited and abated ineffectiveness and subject to governmental control as it may noted from the "clear and present danger" opinion of Oliver Wendell Holmes in the case of Schenck v. United States (1919) which prohibited citizens from making harmful comments on the government or the public in "immediate" effect and "obvious" harm. This can be considered as a change and impediment upon the inalienable rights of a U.S. citizen. Notwithstanding, that's not all, the limits of free speech is further subject to tighter regulation by the Miller test and the Bad Tendency test. So many changes are made to just one amendment, and some states outright rebuke the rights in their jurisdiction by a selective process.
The development of technology and the coming of Infomation Age do improve the proliferation and swiftness of polls and surveys, but at the same time makes us vulnerable to exploits such as push polls and lack of participation in the public issues on foot and actual experience for some. It has both pros and cons in the changing public participations and available utilities.
The change for open-mindedness and diversity of the people in the government is exciting matter that would probably make the older generations to jump out of their shoes, it is fascinating that the general public is getting more and more accepting people of different nationalities, sexual orientation, and age groups to become active in political life and live in this so-called "free nation."
More or less, better or for worse, the government is indeed changing today and in the lives of people, adjusting itself as fit. But definitely so, a government that can represent better and adhere to the voice of the people would become even more efficient and effective towards the idealistic democracy as our Founding Fathers envisioned it. Representation among the many of us can be definitely achieved through many mediums and actions such as political participation through lobbying, endorsing and supporting political parties and their upholding views, participating in a jury, protesting out in the streets, do community service, or even taking up a seat in office in the government eventually. The more intimate the citizens are with the government and informed of its affairs and vice versa, the better the life for all of us.
피드 구독하기:
글 (Atom)