Anchor Babies

     In my critical thinking class we had to participate in a debate with a fellow classmate.  My partner and I chose anchor babies.  Before this selection I have never heard of the term so I knew I was in for a treat.  For those of you who are in the same position that I was previously in an anchor baby is a baby who was born in the United States by an illegal immigrant.  Since the baby is born in the U.S. they automatically become a citizen.  As they grow older some use their citizenship to their advantage and put in a request that their family joins them in the U.S. That is where the term "anchor" comes in, they pull in more immigrants into the country the legal way.  Unsurprisingly, that causes a big fuss in the U.S. 
     In a Time magazine article one of the House of Representatives introduced a bill to exclude anchor babies from the 14th amendment which states : 

SECTION 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

SECTION 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

SECTION 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

SECTION 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

SECTION 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

   Excluding anchor babies from the 14th amendment is basically trying to prevent their citizenship if they were born here.  It is also said that they should not gain the same type of benefits that a U.S. citizen has. In another article from CNN they stress that the legal children of these immigrants have access to public and social services that our society provides.  They feel as if we are rewarding these immigrants by granting their child citizenship even though they have broken the law and illegally entered our country.  

     I am at a complete understanding as to where all of these legislators are coming from.  It is a touchy situation for many people, but it is also an important one.  But everything is simple.  If you were born here you are a citizen, it has been a common law from the beginning of the American nation.  Even if we were to alter the 14th amendment so that anchor babies would not become legal, a whole new group of problems will arise.  There will be arguments that fetuses are people under the 14th amendment which will cause even more abortion and speech issues.

    As far as anchor babies receiving benefits as an U.S. citizen, they are entitled to it.  There are plenty of immigrants out there working and paying taxes and not receiving anything back.  The children are just getting what their parents deserve.  
Honestly, a lot of congressmen and senators are realizing the increase of Latinos.  They know that once these children gain the right to vote they will be able to vote their oppressors out of office. 

    

Black in America

    I really really really tried not to focus on race throughout my blog.  I am not saying that it is not a big factor when it comes the justice system, I just did not want it to be my main focus.  Unfortunately, it is something that cannot be avoided.  Most of the scenarios that I came across dealt with African Americans.
     AWashington Times article displays some statistics about the minorities in prison throughout the last couple of years.  It is said that sentencing has become "more certain and predictable".  It has also been reported that the "gap between sentences for blacks and whites widened".
    A Final Call articles titles itself, America's New Slavery: Black Men in Prison. The title itself sums it all up without any explanation.  The majority of  inmates today are Black and Latino.  There are even people who buy finance on the prison stock market.  Money is being made by keeping people enslaved.  It is said that the "majority of prison costs support guard unions and pay enormous base and overtime salaries of prison guards and other staff."
    Overall, we are not dealing with a fair justice system.  There are way to many discrepancies that take place in our system.  The bigger question is how do we fix them?

Six and in Handcuffs

   On April 13th the unbelievable happened.  A six year old girl who goes by the name Salecia Johnson was arrested at school.  According to school officials Salecia had a temper tantrum in class so the police were called.  Out of all the things to do, such as calling her parents, the police were called.
    Little Salecia was not only handcuffed but she was charged with battery.  She was in police custody for a hour before her parents found out anything. Although her charges were dropped, Salecia still has an arrest record.  
    Her mother is stressing due to the fact that the whole situation has traumatized her daughter. She has started a petition demanding that the arrest record is removed from her daughters name.  The petition also requires that the elementary school should stop involving police in school discipline.
    To sign the petition please visit : http://www.change.org/petitions/justice-in-the-handcuffing-and-arrest-of-6-year-old-salecia-johnson#
    Personally, if this was my child I would be furious.  I can understand arresting a teenager for misconduct, but a child under the age of 10? That is ridiculous.

Still no freedom

      Imagine yourself being released from jail after a period of 20 years.  The first thing that comes to mind is where to go?  Will people remember you?  Does everything still work the same?  With all these questions rummaging through your mind, you know first things first, you need to find a job.
      Interview number one does not go so well, you are nervous, you are just getting back out there, no worries.  Interviews number two through four are satisfactory, but number six is perfect.  Perfect job, perfect benefits, and you fit the qualifications perfectly. Uh-oh there goes that background check and your prison record pops up! One problem you were found innocent. Why is this falsified record still appearing?
      Kerry Cook spent twenty two years of his life on death row for a murder that he did not commit.  He was accused of the death and rape of a 21 year old woman.  After four trials he was found innocent in 1999, yet he is still listed as a murderer in the state of Texas.  It is now the year of 2012, mathematically speaking Mr.Cook was released 13 years ago.  He is still suffering.  He is unable to get a job or sign leases.  He suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder after being raped in prison. It is like he never left prison.
       I came across a National News article that mentioned three men with similar stories to Kerrys'.  What I found interesting is that there is an Innocence project that compensates you monetarily for the time you spent in prison.  For example, Mr.Taylor, a man who suffered in prison even though he was innocent,"can collect the maximum amount allowed under North Carolina law, $750,000, for his 17 years in prison." Although this is in consideration of those who suffered, it still does not fix things.  No amount of money can remove the post traumatic stress that Kerry is experiencing. I am not discrediting the program but it is not even in full effect.  There are 23 states who do not offer compensation.
       Yes, they help you get on your feet and even at times provide job training, but what happens when you get to that job?  If hired, you are stereotyped, treated awkwardly by your co-workers.  If not hired, you are still stereotyped, no one wants to hire a felon.
       According to www.innocenceproject.org, in 2007  "The Texas Senate Committee on Criminal Justice approved bills that would significantly improve the state's justice system. The bills, introduced by Senator Rodney Ellis (the chairman of the Innocence Project Board of Directors), would create an innocence commission, improve eyewitness identification procedures and increase compensation for the wrongly convicted."

      All that is wonderful, there is still no mention of clearing their record.  I understand that after criminals are released they are still listed as a felon, as they should be.  But it is not fair for someone to suffer for something they did not do.  The majority of Kerry's life was already taken away, the least that can be done is provide him with a fresh slate.

Stand your ground law only protects Zimmerman

   These past couple of days I have came across some people who are baffled that George Zimmerman has been released on bail.  As you know he claimed self-defense in the Trayvon Martin case, he is now awaiting his second trial. After witnessing this case for the past two years I wondered how many other people got away with this "stand-your-ground" law.
    Marissa Alexander, a victim of domestic violence, claimed self-defense fighting for her life from her abusive husband.  She is facing up to 25 years in prison for three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon with no intent to harm, but the sentencing will not take place until April 30th.  Contrary to the Trayvon Martin case no one in this situation ended up dead.  Marissa simply shot a firearm towards the ceiling to scare her husband from attacking her.
    The blogs and websites that I have read all display a public letter written from Marissa herself. The letter explains the circumstances the day the situation happened and why she feels she deserves justice.
     Based off of what I read I personally believe that Marissa has the right to demand her freedom.  The gun that she used was registered and she had a permit.  After escaping from the grip of her husband she was able to get to the garage (where she retrieved her gun) but was not able to get out due to problems with the garage door.
    Assuming that her husband left out of the front door with his two sons she decided to slip out to the kitchen and slide through the back door. Once they crossed paths in the kitchen he viewed the gun and said "Bitch I'll kill you". In terror Marissa shot the gun in the air leaving her husband to flee with his two sons.  He called the police claiming that Marissa shot at him and his two sons. She was arrested in 2010 and has been in jail ever since.
      The thing is her husband has a history of domestic violence towards multiple women.  He has even admitted that he tried to attack her.  However, the judge on her trial did not believe that firing a gun was the right solution to self-defense. He claims that she could have exited to safety through a window or door instead of crossing paths with her husband.
     As a person fearing for your life you act on basic instincts.  Marissa did not have time to sit there and concoct a plan on exiting the house.  She had to react before she was attacked once again.
     It is funny how she was instantly taken to jail for releasing a bullet that was not even directed towards a person but it took forever for Zimmerman to be arrested for actually putting a bullet through someone. Now he is free, once again, waiting for a trial that may not even happen until next year.
     If there are confessions and proof that Marissa was attacked why isn't she free? The stand-your-ground law must not work for the minorities in Florida.

Treated like an 18 year old

                      Should children who have committed horrendous crimes be tried as an adult?

    
    Juvenile delinquents can be tried as adults in criminal court by being “transferred” to adult court from the juvenile justice system.  Upon transfer to adult court, juvenile defendants lose their legal status as minor children and become fully culpable for their behavior. If a child is convicted, they could be sentenced to juvenile detention until they reach the age of 18. Since the death penalty is a punishment for adults in some states, it does not apply to a child who was under the age of 16 when the crime occurred due to the case of Thompson v. Oklahoma. Today, over 2200 juveniles nationwide have been sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.



There are five major ways that children can be prosecuted in adult court:
Judicial Waiver:
45 states allow juvenile court judges the discretion to have a youth's case tried in the adult criminal
court.
Direct File or "Prosecutorial Discretion":
15 states allow prosecutors the discretion to have a youth's case tried in the adult criminal court.
Mandatory Waiver:
15 states require juvenile court judges to automatically transfer a youth's case to adult criminal court
for certain offenses or because of the age or prior record of the offender.
Statutory Exclusion: 
29 states automatically require a youth's case to be tried in the adult court based on the age of the
youth, or the alleged crime, or both.
Age of Majority Statutes: 
Three states automatically prosecute 16 and 17 year olds as adults – Connecticut, New York, and
North Carolina.  Ten states automatically prosecute 17 year olds as adults – Georgia, Illinois,
Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, and
Wisconsin.

A writer for the Time magazine article gives insight on both sides.
     The writer argues that children should not be sentenced as adults question whether a child is aware of their wrongdoings.  A child's prefrontal lobe is not fully developed until the age of 20. Children are unable to fully understand the consequences of their actions. 

  Those who argue that children should be tried as adults state believe children should be held responsible for their actions.  They believe that "light sentences don't teach kids the lesson they need to learn". It is also argued that children today are much more smarter at a younger age, therefore they understand violence and violent weapons.  If they know how to load and shoot a gun, they know what they are doing. 

     Those who argue that children should not be tried as adults believe that the juvenile system can help turn lives around.  A young person coming from the juvenile system will turn out way better than someone coming out of an adult facility. They feel that children also lack intelligence to even stand on trial. Most of the blame should be put on the parents of the children.  They should have not been able to obtain a deadly weapon in the first place.  The Time magazine writer also stresses that the system is full of racism. "Statistically, black juvenile offenders are far more likely to be transferred to adult courts... than their white peers who've committed comparable crimes."

In a Criminal Justice magazine article give great reasoning as to why they feel children should not be tried as adults.

     The writer of this article, Laurence Steinberg, makes it very clear on his beliefs that children should not be tried as adults.  A boy who pleaded guilty gave his understanding of what would happen if found guilty.  He simply stated, "It's like when you do something bad and your mother sends you to your room for the whole weekend."  It is a simple argument, children can commit the same crimes as adults but they cannot think like adults.  The law states that defendants in criminal cases must be "competent to stand trial".  Just like an mentally unstable person would not be able to stand trial neither should a person who has reached a developed mentality.
     The studies conducted show that many children do not understand the role of the jury and judge.  They do not know the difference between the prosecuting and defense attorneys.  And they do not understand their rights even when explained to them. Most children confess quickly thinking that there will be a reward for doing so.  
    He also obtained research that shows "60 percent of youths in the juvenile justice system, compared to 20 percent in the general population, have mental disorders such as depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation."

   I honestly cannot make a set decision on my opinion.  Some of the cases that I have come across are so crazy that I believe children should receive a life sentence.  There are others where I believe that the child was not aware of what they were doing therefore rehabilitation would be the perfect choice.

      However, I do not condone a child entering an adult prison at a young age if tried as an adult.  Anything can happen in there, for example, sexual abuse.  A solution to that would be keeping them in the juvenile system under rehabilitation until they reach the legal age, 18, and then be transferred to a prison to finish out their full sentence.
             After thoroughly thinking about it I thought that that would be stupid as well.  Say if a 12 year old was tried as an adult and received a life sentence.  He would spend his 6 years in the juvenile system and in rehab then transferred to prison. If he did not have psychological problems before he definitely will now.  He just spent 6 years trying to get his thoughts together and become mentally stable.  Being transferred will trigger a mental breakdown.  Not only will it not be something he is used to but it is a whole new environment.
           This subject takes a toll on many people, especially the parents of these young children.  A child's environment does have a lot to do with these circumstances, which is out of their control.  Their whole upbringing and train of thought is instilled by their parents, therefore should we blame the parents?
    To check out some active court cases regarding children go to http://www.justice4juveniles.com/.

R.I.P to the Death Penalty

    Sadly , we as human beings are not perfect.  We are filled with imperfections and flaws. The thing that worries me is that we put certain human beings on a pedestal as if they can do no wrong. The people who control our justice system are human beings right? What gives them the right to judge whether a person lives or not?
    There are numerous cases where the convicted have been found innocent 10-20 years later after the incident.  After you are released you are just thrown back into the world with no type of direction and countless years spent isolated from the world.
     What if this is the case with those sentenced to death? A person will be killed based on the "evidence" presented in court while the person who is truly guilty will be roaming around freely.  I am not saying that the justice system is not doing their job but one little aspect missed can revolve the whole direction of a case.  Like I said before no one is perfect.
      Today in the U.S. 34 of the 50 states still allow the death penalty.  Those states include :

• Alabama
• Arizona
• Arkansas
• California 
• Colorado
• Connecticut
• Delaware
• Florida
• Georgia
• Idaho
• Indiana
• Kansas
• Kentucky
• Louisiana 
• Maryland
• Mississippi
• Missouri
• Montana
• Nebraska
• Nevada
• New Hampshire
• North Carolina
• Ohio
• Oklahoma
• Oregon
• Pennsylvania
• South Carolina
• South Dakota 
• Tennessee
• Texas
• Utah
• Virginia
• Washington
• Wyoming

     I wonder how many imperfect government officials, politicians, lawyers, judges, and police officers reside in these states?

Life without Evidence

Did Howard Morgan deserve a 40-year sentence?

     On April 5th, 2012 sixty-three year old Howard Morgan was sentenced to 40 years in prison. On February 21, 2005, early morning, he was pulled over for driving in the wrong direction on a one way street and allegedly his tail lights were not on. In conclusion he was shot 28 times , 21 times in his back and 7 times in his chest .
      According to the four police officers who shot him, John Wrigley, Eric White, Timothy Finley and Nicolas Olsen, the incident occurred like this:
     They claimed Morgan pulled out his gun and began firing to resist arrest. Officer Finley spotted that Morgan had a gun and yelled "gun" to he remaining 3 officers.   It is said that Morgan shot 17 times and the officers had no choice but to shoot back.
       Facts that do not support this claim :

• Why would Howard Morgan fear being arrested if he was just driving on the wrong street and did not have lights on? At the most that it would just be a ticket, right?
• Being that Mr. Morgan was a cop, I am pretty sure he was aware of the consequences that would take place if shooting at another cop.
• Howard was just leaving his job and was minutes away from home. What would cause him to act in such a manner and decide to start shooting cops?
• There were 4 cops, Howard's basic instinct before shooting obviously knew he was not going to leave out of that situation alive. 
• The one and only eyewitness seen something totally different. Charice Rush claimed  she saw police snatch Morgan out of his car, push him to the ground, and shoot him. 

      Fortunately Howard Morgan lived to tell his side of the story, despite being shot 28 times. His version of the story had a different type of twist to it:

          Once he was pulled over he claims he was ordered out of the car and was searched.  During the search his holstered gun was spotted and a cop yelled "Gun" and from there on he was an open target. He explained that he had no time to produce his police identification.

          Facts about this claim:

• Howard was a former Chicago police officer and at the time was a Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad police man so he was authorized to carry the gun that he had.
• Howard was never tested for gun residue to prove that he shot at police officers, so is there something to hide?
• The one eye witness statement that supported Morgan's side of the story was said to be influenced by the state attorney who solicited the police report . 

        Nothing at all adds up in this case. Does this man really deserve to spend the rest of his life in prison?