The Death Penalty – Should It Be Outlawed?

The debate over the death penalty has been a debate that has taken place for years on end, ever since America instituted its practice in the judicial system. History shows that the death penalty is not merely an American practice, but it is conducted world wide.  So much so, that it’s history goes as far back as in the 18th Century BC.  Many civilizations have incorporated capital punishment as a means of retribution towards an offender or violator of humane law.  However, regarding America, the death penalty was adopted based on influence from another country.  The interesting fact is that the history of capital punishment in America has early ties to Great Britain.

According to deathpenaltyinfo.org, the following is known about the death penalty in its beginning phase, concerning America:

“Britain influenced America’s use of the death penalty more than any other country. When European settlers came to the new world, they brought the practice of capital punishment. The first recorded execution in the new colonies was that of Captain George Kendall in the Jamestown colony of Virginia in 1608. Kendall was executed for being a spy for Spain. In 1612, Virginia Governor Sir Thomas Dale enacted the Divine, Moral and Martial Laws, which provided the death penalty for even minor offenses such as stealing grapes, killing chickens, and trading with Indians.

Laws regarding the death penalty varied from colony to colony. The Massachusetts Bay Colony held its first execution in 1630, even though the Capital Laws of New England did not go into effect until years later. The New York Colony instituted the Duke’s Laws of 1665. Under these laws, offenses such as striking one’s mother or father, or denying the “true God,” were punishable by death. (Randa, 1997)“

So, it would seem that Great Britain (now our ally) was the chief influence in America’s inception of capital punishment.  Aside from that, we can see the death penalty is and has usually been based upon what is called, “moral law”.  Moral law is the concept that is derived out of the system of ethics, which is often surrounded between right and wrong, or good and evil.  Moral law has been a basis for the death penalty for centuries, and even goes as far back to Biblical times.  Societies enacted death penalties as a way to create examples within a structure, of what would happen if someone violated as set of laws. Also as stated, capital punishment is largely based on exacting retribution upon a person who has committed a crime, meaning it is a form of justice.

However, as we fast forward into 2014, the death penalty remains on the books as legal in 32 states.  Only 18 states do not utilize the death penalty or have made it illegal based on the state legislature’s authority.  Clearly, we can see that the death  penalty is an issue of states rights, instead of it being a Federal mandate.  However, with the majority of states still standing by the death penalty and it’s practice, does that mean that it should not be outlawed on a total scale?

Let’s first examine the issue in a total context.  Going  back to the issue of state rights vs. Federal law, states have  certain rights to ratify and or draft laws proposed, within their state legislatures.  The issue of the death penalty, is one that is isolated to states rights.   Which means, it isn’t likely that the death penalty (as a practice) won’t be outlawed unless it comes through the states legislature.  Each representative and state Senator, must have enough support and votes, in order to have the law overturned.  It would mean that many within state caucuses, would see this as a moral issue, rather than merely an issue of criminal punishment.

Secondly, the most argued point (as far as supporters of capital punishment) is that of justice for the accused.  Basically, anyone who commits a heinous crime, deserves to be punished in the same or greater way, to vindicate the innocent life or lives that experienced  tragedy.  This goes back the area of “moral law”.  Based on that concept, there is an ethical responsibility on behalf of a government, to establish a legal precedent that is based on right or wrong.  Anything that errs on the side of wrong or evil behavior, deserves to be sought after by capital punishment.  This is based on the brutality of the crime of course, but the notion is that the death penalty is the criminal’s punishment for their crime against humanity, or against a statute.

On the flip side, opponents to the death penalty believe that it is a harsh and inhumane way to exact justice. The idea behind the lack of support is that we as  humans are essentially playing God, because we are deciding who lives and who dies.  It is also based on the sentiment that a justice system that oversees and executes a person, is no better  than the individual that committed the atrocity.  In other words, “two wrongs don’t make a right”.  It would seem that as time moves forward, we will see our society leaning more so towards this side of the argument.  For one, a new poll which was published by Politico.com suggests a change in thought pattern:

“According to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll released Thursday, 52 percent of Americans say they would prefer that people convicted of murder spend life in prison with no chance of parole, compared to 42 percent who prefer the death penalty for those people. That marks the first time in the Post-ABC News poll that a majority of Americans have preferred a life sentence for convicted murderers.”

Of course, polls can change at any time, but polls also show a trend in a specific or even general demographic.  That particular piece of  information shows that perhaps the institution of capital punishment is no longer supported as it once was.  It goes back to the very argument (opponents make) which suggests that there is an inhumanity associated with killing a person.  There is also the issue of botched executions, which have led to further controversy.  In some cases, executions went unexpectedly wrong, leading to questions of how the criminals were treated, and with what substances.

The point is that there has and will always be a debate over whether capital punishment should remain legal and in practice.  So, should the death penalty be abolished under state law?  My personal opinion is that the death penalty is an inhumane way of justice.  While it was a practice both biblically and even in a world view, I personally do not believe in the practice of killing a person, just because someone else had their life taken.  Government was meant to govern, and courts (when established) were meant to exact rulings that protect citizens.  However, by allowing capital punishment to exist in America, we are essentially offering the same sentence that perhaps a deranged person inflicted upon an innocent life.  The point is, a criminals death will not satisfy the pain and loss a family feels.  It may satisfy for the moment, but the overall gap and loss remains.  However, like it or not, for the for-seeable future capital punishment will be a way of human civilization and justice.

Minimum Wage Increase – Practical Or Un-Necessary?

This particular posting will be one where I inject some of my opinion, but before I share my thoughts on this issue, I want to dive into what has already surfaced regarding this issue.

Currently, the issue of the national minimum wage has reached a debate over whether to increase it, or to keep it at the same rate.  The current rate for the federal minimum wage is $7.25.  There have been multiple occurrences of not only President Obama, but other politicians that have encouraged the idea of the overall Federal minimum wage being increased.

At the moment, the President has come a step closer to this becoming a reality.  As stated in his State of the Union speech, he will take Executive action’s where he can, in order to get certain objectives accomplished.  So, as a result, it is reported that today President Obama will sign an Executive order, which raises the minimum wage for Federal contract workers to $10.10.

Proponents of this measure agree with him, in that it will increase economical growth, while creating stability for those that need more income to live on.  Opponents of this act, state that it weakens the economy, because jobs will be lost, if there is an increase in the minimum wage.  Basically, those that disagree believe that less jobs will be created because it will cause businesses involved to be discouraged when hiring, because they could not afford to pay someone more.

This has sparked a growing debate on the national scale, over whether or not businesses should increase their wages past the mandated minimum wage.  Most states adhere to some form of this Federal law, in the sense that they either meet or exceed the Federal minimum wage rate which was made effective in 2009.  However, since states are not required by law to match the Federal minimum wage rate, then there are states such as Georgia and Minnesota that pay less than the Federal rate.  There are also a few states such as Tennessee and South Carolina that are not required to institute a minimum wage at any rate.

Regardless of what states have done or are doing, the question for many still remains.  Is raising the overall minimum wage for workers beneficial to the economy and  to workers?  Or should states continue to maintain autonomy for their minimum wage?

The first issue that is evident is the issue of states rights vs. federal rights.  This means, that states have the right to decide what is best for their own jurisdictions and citizens.  States have the ability to maintain a separation from some Federal laws, because states can and do have individual rights.  Thus far, this is the case for the minimum wage argument.  Most states institute their own minimum wage, which exceeds, matches, or is below the minimum wage of that of the Federal law.  States should continue to have the option to create and manage its own laws to a degree, because states should be sovereign in their own rights, even if not completely.

Secondly, there is an issue over whether or not minimum wage being increased is beneficial in the long term.  While raising the rate may be a good idea for the sake of the worker (for those that state that they cannot live on it as it is) we must also examine if this is a good idea going into the future.  The question to ask is, shouldn’t worker’s be recognized for past experience and even education, which means they can demand more pay?  It is true that the current rate isn’t enough to live on.  However, from a practical stand point, this rate whether $7.25 or $10.10 shouldn’t be the target for someone to make.  The target if possible should be for employers to create jobs at a higher salary giving opportunities for employees to live on.  This is done by providing educational experience and opportunities so that workers can demand more.

Finally, the issue that many detractors have stated and that is, businesses cannot afford to hire if the wages increase.  Here is what is true:

According to a recent report from Kiplinger.com, businesses are estimated to spend 4.5%-5% more on equipment which means business expenditures, in 2014.  Basically, due to global trends in economic growth, businesses will have opportunities to spend more because they have surpluses in which they can utilize to increase hiring.  The point is, there are businesses that have the ability to spend, but some are using the excuse that they cannot increase their wages.  This is in fact is true for some, but not for businesses whose revenue allows for more expenditures.

 
So, what is the point to be made here?  The point is, there are two sides to this argument.  Both sides have valid points.  One side has a point in which states that some businesses can suffer from loss of revenue if there is a Federal mandate overall.  However, those businesses are not necessarily in the majority.  Also,  states rights vs. Federal rights is a legitimate case to make.  However, on the flip side, the other argument also has valid points in that, there are many who cannot live on what the current minimum wage is.

I think overall, both sides need to be viewed accurately, and looked at in a proper stance.  There isn’t a one size fits all method, because this is a complex argument.  I think however, the best solution is to provide jobs for employees which make it easier to live upon, and provide on the job training to give employees opportunities to grow within the company for promotions and higher salary during their careers.

The Debt Ceiling – What Does It Really Mean?

It is already on the front page of most newspapers, and that is the headline of the GOP coming to a compromise with the Senate Democrats to once again raise the debt limit.  Since this raising of the debt limit is now passed in the House, it is up to the Senate to pass the bill (which is likely) which means the bill will be ready for President Obama to sign.

According to various reports and of course opinionated Republican supporters who see John Boehner as problematic and a traitor to conservatism, they believe that he went against Conservative principles which was to raise the debt limit.  Boehner’s position here, was to vouch for a debt limit increase, to avoid another catastrophe with the image of the Republican party (i.e. government shut down & near default).

There has been so much clamoring over Boehner’s decision, that there is a website called replacethespeaker.com which is devoted to gathering petitions to unseat the 3 year speaker of the House.  The signatures have already reached over 30,000 and counting.

However, regardless of his call for removal or the fact that the debt ceiling has been raised close to 80 times since 1960, and counting, the issue of this discussion remains as to what raising the debt truly means.

Raising the debt limit is controversial, because on one hand, you have those that believe our country should have the ability to freely spend on various financial obligations or even discretionary spending, which is of course at the expense of the Federal government.  Then there are those that believe we need a balanced budget approach, which would eliminate or at least cause our current debt (over $16 Trillion) to dwindle.

The known truth is that, neither the Republicans or the Democrats have a viable solution to decrease spending.  While there are politicians that have various talking points about spending cuts, the issue of the debt limit continues to loom even closer over future generations of those in America.  So, what does this debt limit really mean?

1. The debt limit is a cap that was instituted in 1917 when Congress passed the 2nd Liberty Bond Act which was put into place as a war bond to create a limitation on funds or bonds issued by the Federal government.

2. This debt ceiling or limit, was designed as a way to control spending of the Federal government which meant added responsibility for future expenditures.

3. Since having a debt ceiling in place, it has seen continuous raising which has increased America’s total budget deficit over years and years of spending.

The point to be made regarding the debt ceiling is, it was supposedly put into place to be a cap, but it has essentially become an imaginary budget that politicians have created as a means to sound as if they are responsible.  The debt limit is nothing more than an imaginary line that doesn’t exist.  How do I know this?  If the debt ceiling existed as it were in its inception, then it would mean that politicians would be forced to make actual cuts and to halt spending.

However, our debt ceiling has become nothing more than a credit card.  Credit cards can be maxed out, but as long as the lender (in this case the Federal government) has the power to raise the limit on how much you can spend, then spending will not cease.  So, in effect, the debt limit increases, which means the debt increases also.  Even if that means no real solution will be reached, our government continues to spend and spend, creating a future of Americans that will inherit more and more debt. This isn’t a Republican or a Democratic problem, this is an American problem.