A Question of Freedom: Initial Thoughts

The book A Question of Freedom is written by a man named R. Dwayne Betts. I chose to read this book for my second semester Issues in Modern America class. Mr. Betts was only sixteen years old when it only took thirty minutes to change his life forever. Mr. Betts writes "thirty minutes changed my life. It took less thank thirty minutes for me to find the sleeping man in his car, it took less than thirty minutes for me to get to jail" (7). At age sixteen Mr. Betts was with a friend at a mall in Springfield, Virgina when they found a man sleeping in his car. At that time he pulled out a pistol and tried to take the mans car. He committed six felonies in thirty minutes. At age sixteen Mr. Betts was thrown in jail to await his sentence. Upon his time waiting in jail he met a boy named Chi. Chi was only fifteen years old at the time and was being charged as an adult for attempted murder. He told Mr. Betts that he was not guilty. Chi had gotten in a fight at school. A fight at school leads to an attempted murder charge. Mr. Betts writes "Judges learned to read our complexions, crimes, and communities as reasons why we needed the bars of a jail. And anyone telling me that isn't true should take a look at the shades of brown I watched walk in and out of the system. Couldn't tell me then this wasn't true, when I'd seen one white child locked up in three months. Chi told me he wasn't guilty, and I told him it probably didn't matter" (16-17).
The introduction to Mr. Betts story was not surprising to me, but it was still disturbing. In particular Chi's story. A school fight, which happens at my own school, leading to an attempted murder charge? If Chi was charged with assault as a juvenile that I would understand, he could still get an education, take courses on anger management, and pay his debt to society. I believe when young offenders are charged with exaggerated crimes and are put into an adult prison it is going to really hurt them in the future, except Mr. Betts is different. The judge gave him a nine year sentence. This lead Mr. Betts to get out of prison around the age of twenty-five. The human male brain does not fully develop until the age of twenty-five, so that is nine years of Mr. Betts' young life that was developed in prison. Now I believe that Mr. Betts is different because when he came out of jail, we went on to do something different unlike the majority of inmates released each year, which end up back in the prison system. Mr. Betts went on to write this book, A Question of Freedom. In this book he reflects on his time in prison and his crime that he committed. That thirty minutes it took to change his life forever.

Juvenile Offenders Tried in an Adult World

In America we take our amendments in our Constitution very seriously, especially the first ten. The first ten amendments provide us with essential rights and freedoms as well as protects us from being taken advantage of by the justice system of government. If you are being taken to trail for a crime, you have the right to a trail by jury. The jury consists of twelve members with diverse religions, ethnicity's, and gender. The jury are a selection of the defendants peers. Peers. In order to serve jury duty, you must be at least eighteen years old, you must legally be an adult. This means that juveniles who are tried as adults, yet are not adults have a jury of adults, not their peers. I came across an interesting article titled "A Jury of Their Peers". In this article it talks about a method of punishment called peer court. Peer court is a new branch of court. It is a court made for juveniles who commit small offences. In peer court the members of the jury, judge, and lawyers are all peers. They are all under the age of nineteen. According the article "sentences are generally creative forms of community service, never jail time, and the records show that 99% of those sentenced complete their tasks. Doing so keeps their criminal records clean, which helps their college and job applications". I believe the most important part of this system is that it is a jury of their peers.
Although this system would not be reasonable for any serious juvenile offenders, how about Anthony Laster. In my previous blog I told the story about Anthony Laster and his school yard dispute made him face fourteen days in jail and the possibility of up to seven years in an adult prison. Peer court seems like it would have been the better option for Anthony. In peer court his own peers would have been able to think in the same way that Anthony might have at the time of the "crime". I believe providing real peers for juvenile offenders would make the justice system more fair to juveniles. A thirty-four year old man cannot think the same way that a young offender would, but a seventeen year old teenager would have a more realistic insight. Now, this does not mean that a sixteen year old who commits car jacking with a deadly weapon should go home and with some fines and community service, but is it fair to take away a person's life and replace it with the misery of jail for one mistake?


http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=107&sid=01408fa0-ac33-4f7a-8f1e-fe5b61b90dc3%40sessionmgr104&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=tth&AN=17575039

Juvenile Justice Research

Anthony Laster was only fifteen years old when he was charged as an adult for crimes that he did not understand. He was facing "strong armed robbery and extortion" and sat in jail for four weeks because his family could not afford his bail. His crime? He stole two dollars from another kid from his school. Anthony cannot communicate more than the level of a five year old. Although Anthony's charges were dropped that does not remove the trauma that he faced. There is a fine line between giving consequences to juveniles who commit crime and ruining their entire life. Let's say that the charges against Anthony had not been dropped, then what? According to Florida Department for Corrections the average jail time for a robbery conviction in the year 1997 is 6.9 years. That is almost seven years of hard time that Anthony Laster would have served. He would have come out roughly around twenty two years old, all for stealing two dollars. Let us consider Anthony Laster to be lucky. Laster is an excellent example of the justice system being too hard on juveniles.
Now let's look at the case of Ronnie Vera. Washington Monthly posts "He and a friend were caught stealing a bike in a neighborhood by a prominent community activist in Tuscon. Ronnie turned to run. His friend pulled out a gun and shot and killed the community activist. One year later, a jury convicted both Ronnie and his friend of murder." Ronnie was only sixteen years old at the time. He is now serving a twenty-five to life sentence in an adult prison. Ronnie was charged with first degree murder and burglary in the first degree. Ronnie is in no doubt guilty of theft, but murder? No. This is yet another example of the justice system being too tough on juveniles.
Cracking down on juvenile crime does not work as a deterrent. It does not work because adult prisons are too harsh. The adult prison system does not correct inmates. Juveniles who go into adult prisons at a young age and come out in their midlife will struggle with finding a job, not violating their parole, and adjusting to life in the real world. Howard Husock, the vice president for policy research for The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research said "About 700,000 inmates are released from state and federal prison each year. Of those released, about two-thirds re-offend within three years." While I do not believes that the crimes that juveniles commit should be taken lightly, a mistake a person made as a kid should not ruin their whole future. The two-thirds of the inmates who are released then return, return with a reason, but for those who are juveniles at the time of their incarceration were not taught any better. The human male brain is not fully developed until the age of twenty-five, so a young man who is incarcerated let's say at the age of seventeen will still be developing mentally for eight years in prison. Eight years. What they have learned and developed in those eight years sets them up to be re-incarcerated.


http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2001042700&type=hitlist&num=0
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/1999/9906.twohey.littleton.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35263313/ns/business-careers/

Race in America

In the article "Behind the Scenes: Black and shopping in America" from CNN.com Leah Wells, a shopper at GAP who was followed with her two friends and accused of shop lifting, said "No matter your education, your status or profession, some still only see the color of your skin". She could not have been more right. It does not matter how educated a person is or how important society might view them, what defines black people is the color of their skin. Americans everywhere need to learn to look at personalities first, rather than the appearance of someone different than you. I believe that the segregation comes from all ends. In another article on CNN.com it talks about Sunday churches still having segregation. It talks about a small church in California that more white people have started to join. The pasture talks about how the black people of his church have had some serious concerns about this. I believe this starts with a white issue. Although many people may claim to not be racist, is this how it truly is? I believe that black prejudice is greater than many people think. I believe many people are naive to how big prejudices are. In this article it said that only about 5 percent of America's churches are integrated. 5 percent. Integration should come naturally, but in places where integration is forced such as schools it is not truly integration. Church is a place of option and a place to be comfortable, so reading that only five percent of churches are integrated truly shows how comfortable people are. I believe that every town in America needs to be integrated, clearly it already can be by law, but by choice. People must become more comfortable so America can finally become one nation united.

Mock Trial Recap and Response

The trial that I worked on in issues class was Elyse Roberts' case. I thought that the verdict was the right one. The verdict was that the District of Columbia's district attorneys office was guilty of not stopping nor preventing the sexual harassment of Elyse Roberts. I believe that our side of the case proved that. Sexual harassment is defined as "creating an offensive working or learning environment by repeated written, verbal, physical and/or visual contacts with sexual overtones". The lawyers for Elyse Roberts proved that Keven Murphy did this. His comments about seeing her in a swim suit, pictures of models as sexual objects with Elyse's name on them, and the lack of action her superiors took to reprimand Kevin proved that Elyse was a victim of sexual harassment in the work place. I believe that her employer should be held responsible. She went to her direct superior twice and their manager of human resources once, and nothing was done to change Kevin's behavior, they did not even move her office. She was demoted to a lower burro. In their handbook it is stated that all burros are created equal. It is true that they are equal in pay, but they are not equal in responsibility. It was a clear demotion that Elyse received because she had filed a complaint of sexual harassment. Another way the law defines sexual harassment is "retaliating against a person for reporting or threatening to report sexual harassment", which is what Elyse suffered. She was demoted because she was suffering from the trauma of sexual harassment. This is why I believe the verdict turned out as it should have.
The other trial I also believe should have turned out as it should have. I think that David did rape Rachel (?), but I do not think that prosecution did a good enough job of proving it beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe the defense did a very good job at proving that David was a nice guy with good intentions, and the prosecution did not focus enough on his violent and threatening actions towards Rachel. I believe that he is guilty but they could not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. David could not have been locked up with the way the evidence was presented because there was so much doubt in Rachel's story. I believe the prosecution should have focused more on her torn shirt and bruised arm rather than her just saying no. I think because the defense claimed that actions speak louder than words, but much doubt in the jury because many of Rachel's actions said yes.
I believe that sexual harassment is something that is very hard to define. It is hard to find the line between harassment and joking. I believe that the reasonable victims stand point needs to be used. It is not how it makes other people feel, but it is about how the victim feels. I do not think that Deerfield High School as a big problem with sexual harassment, but I believe that there is some. I think that the sexual harassment that goes on at Deerfield is looked at as teenagers being teenagers, and a lot of it is probably teenagers being teenagers. The problem is is that the victim of the sexual harassment may not feel that way. I believe comments and actions with sexual overtones need to be looked at more seriously because for some people it can be the worst form of bullying and going to school can become demeaning. It is the teachers and administrators job at Deerfield to protect their students from all types of harassment.

State of the Union Address

In President Obama's State of the Union address he said "Over the next ten years, nearly half of all new jobs will require education that goes beyond a high school degree. And yet, as many as a quarter of our students aren't even finishing high school. The quality of our math and science education lags behind many other nations. America has fallen to 9th in the proportion of young people with a college degree. And so the question is whether all of us – as citizens, and as parents – are willing to do what's necessary to give every child a chance to succeed." What is America willing to do? Education is the most essential factor in youth's lives. It defines their actions and determines their view and value in society. Something new needs to be done in America in order to improve education. Public education needs to become affordable and successful, but this cannot just start from the government. There needs to be a bigger push in order to get parents and all communities involved in better education. As technology advances the demand for better education is higher.
As Obama said "as many as a quarter of our students aren't even finishing high school." In a country that values their youth so highly twenty-five percent of them do not finish high school. It is hard to find way to be valuable in society without having a proper education, but it is not the youth's fault. The way youth in America now view education all depends on how they were raised and the environment that they were raised in. Something needs to be done to improve over all conditions. Something new must be done. Their needs to be new legislation that allows kids to succeed, more funding that gives kids opportunities, and a new overall approach to how parents and their kids view the value of education. America needs to value education more because education defines actions and what values individuals bring to society.

Cycle of Suppression Rises in Libya and Elsewhere

In an article in the New York Times reporting about updates in Libya it said, "the events appeared to mark a decisive turn in four days of protests that have shaken Libya, a North African nation rich in oil. By nightfall, a deadly cycle had clearly emerged in a city where thousands have gathered in antigovernment demonstrations: Security forces fired on funeral marches, killing more protesters, creating more funerals." The people of Libya have been protesting for change in their government. These protests drove the government to fight. They are doing everything they can to stop the protests and remain in power in their country. The government has also cut of their internet so the information about what is going on is very limited. This further shows the control that the government is trying to have over its people. The government is responding to controlled protest for change with violence. The death toll is near two-hundred and growing. The more violent the government gets, the more the people protest. As a Benghazi resident said “Too much blood has been shed. The more brutal the crackdown will be, the more determined the protesters will become.” This is a cycle that will not end unless the government backs down or the population of Libya is destroyed.
Issa Abed al-Majid Mansour said that they cannot go back to their homes because "If they do, he’ll finish them off. They know the regime very well. There’s no to way to go back now. Never, never." The protests can no longer just stop. The government needs to stop, because if the protesters do then the government will be ruthless towards the people of Libya. Both groups seem to be unwilling to back down and determined to fight for their cause. I think it is very important for the people of Libya to be strong and not back down. If they win this will show the rest of the world that their is hope through peace and that violence will not always prevail.