For the girl with the salmon shirt

5.24.2012

A temporary hiatus from anything associated with the words social and network. 2 weeks till finals. 3 weeks till my arrival in the greatest city on the west coast. Time for sleep deprivation, copious amounts of caffeine consumption, and relentless encoding and consolidation of information in the medial temporal lobe. 

“The difference between a successful person and others is not a lack of strength, not a lack of knowledge, but rather a lack in will.”

With the upcoming election on whether to overturn Capital Punishment in California, the brief argument I’ve written below may be pertinent to those who are on the fence about the issue. 

Humans and the environment in which they live are part of a continually evolving world, changing not only physically but culturally. We are a species of reform. We constantly make changes to better adapt to new and existing situations. Historically progressing from the barbaric era where competition drove our species to kill for survival, to modern day where we are being able to coexist in a civilized society working together to improve the conditions of survival. We reform by removing behaviors and other aspects in life that are no longer necessary, and adding those that are. Capital punishment is one of those aspects of our culture that is neither necessary nor useful.

            This November, Californians will have the ability to vote on whether to retain or repeal capital punishment. While at the polls, Californians should keep the Constitution in mind and ponder whether civil rights are being infringed in the process of capital punishment. The Sixth, Fourteenth, and Eighth Amendments should be of the main concern, for they guarantee us the right to a fair and speedy trial with an impartial jury, and counsel, equal protection, and preventions from cruel and unusual punishment (US Constitution).

            The use of death penalty dates back to colonial times, where methods of punishment were used such as public hangings viewed by children and townspeople and burning at the stake if you were convicted of witchcraft and heresy (History of the Death Penalty in America).  However, the state has exponentially progressed from those times. It has created the Constitution, a guide for the enumerated rights we the people are now promised, which would have prevented those unseemly forms of punishment. Now a new more civilized form of punishment has been developed and readily available, incarceration in the modern penitentiary system.   Due to the methodological cultural and ethical progressions of society, capital punishment should be abolished, for it is an archaic form of justice that is excessively flawed, inconsistent with the morals of society, ineffective and thus proven to be no longer needed.

            Capital punishment has undergone numerous changes in the nation. The state uses capital punishment to exhibit its authority, to keep others from committing capital offenses and to restore the justice that was lost through heinous crimes. Only a capital offense such as first degree murder, invokes capital punishment.  The first methods of executions were by hanging, beheading and electrocution. Now criminals are executed by the lethal injection of three fatal chemicals.

            In California, Capital punishment was first authorized in the state Penal Code in 1872. In 1972 in Furman v. Georgia, “the Supreme Court declared the death penalty unconstitutional, as cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eight Amendment, and finding that the administration of the ultimate punishment was arbitrary and capricious” (Death penalty 101).  Furman v. Georgia was overturned by Gregg v. Georgia, and in 1974 the death penalty was reinstated (California: General Information). Other landmark cases such as Atkins v. Virginia, Roper v. Simmons and Ford v. Wainright, forbade the execution of the mentally retarded, juveniles under the age of 18, and the mentally insane offenders.

            A common misunderstanding among citizens is the cost of capital punishment. The prevalent fallacy is that invoking the death penalty will cost less than incarceration. Although the cost slightly varies from state to state, the cost of capital punishment greatly exceeds the cost of incarceration in every state. “A new study in California revealed that the cost of the death penalty in the state has been over $4 billion since 1978.” In North Carolina the average cost of a death penalty case is $2.16 million, in Texas it is $2.3 million, and in Maryland it is $3 million. These are roughly about “three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years” (Facts about the Death Penalty). In California alone, the total cost of the death penalty has been over $4 billion since 1979 (Facts about the Death Penalty). Currently in California, there are 723 inmates on death row, the largest among all the states.

            Although there are many arguments to reason why the death penalty should be abolished, the following arguments: the death penalty system’s flaws and moral/ethical inconsistencies are what I found to be the most compelling. As I stand at the polls this fall these arguments will be what guides my pencil in the direction of the box that would repeal capital punishment.

            There is no room for flaws in a system where mistakes are irreversible.  In the death penalty system, there are flaws on every level. It is flawed in police investigations, in the trials, in its application, and in its accuracy in guilty convictions. These errors in the system have been observed in various death penalty cases, including the cases of Henry Quaker, Walter Buckley, and Max Soffar. As humans, we are naturally flawed beings, so mistakes are inevitable. Something as precious and as delicate as life should not be put in the hands of a system run by flawed human beings, whom are capable of bias, discrimination, and mistakes       

            The first flaw in the death penalty system lies within the execute branch. The first errors in a death penalty case occur in the pre-death penalty phase, the police investigations. If police make errors in the investigation, they can wrongly link an innocent to the crime. In the case of Henry Quaker, he was wrongfully convicted of killing his family. The first error in his case was the faulty police investigation. The police had fallaciously correlating evidence that “linked” him to the murder: The blood in Quaker’s car and the insurance. The evidence had simple explanations that would unlink him to the murder; the blood was from his sons frequent nose bleeds, which was confirmed by a school nurse and the insurance was only bought because of his wife’s incessant plead to buy it.  Police also failed to find the gun used in the murder, another instance of shoddy police work. Quaker was convicted, even though his innocence could have been easily proven had he not been assigned to a notoriously inept lawyer known to sleep through his client’s trials.  Although he was innocent, Quaker was never exonerated, and eventually he was unjustly executed.

            The second flaw in the system lies within the cheap legal representation of capital cases. The fate of the accused is largely dependent on the ability of the counsel to do its job well. Under the Fifth Amendment, we are guaranteed the right to a speedy and fair trial. If counsel is inept and shows the inability to perform its job well, that trial would constitute as unfair, and in Walter Buckley’s case this notion held true. Walter Buckley, an African American bordering on mental retardation, was convicted of murder and sentenced to death row. Walter Buckley’s lawyer was inept, and did not argue Atkins v. Virginia that adjudicated that the state cannot execute people who are mentally retarded. Had Buckley’s lawyer argued this case in the trial, Buckley would have been able to evade capital punishment. However, due to the incompetency of his lawyer, Buckley was executed. It is clear that Buckley’s death was unconstitutional since “executing a mentally retarded offender is a cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution” (Death Penalty 101).  The case of Walter Buckley reinforces the idea that only by having competent legal representations will the trial be deemed fair under the Constitution.

            The third flaw in the death penalty system is its socioeconomic discriminatory application. “Discrimination against the poor (and in our society, racial minorities are disproportionately poor) is well established. [Money] is a prominent factor in the availability of counsel… and approximately 90 percent of those on death row could not afford to hire a lawyer when they were tried” (The Case Against the Death Penalty). The amount money on has should not be a dependent factor on how well one defendant is represented. All defendants no matter their socioeconomic status should be given equal privileges of adequate counsel so that it may ensure a fair legal trial.

            The fourth flaw in the system lies within the jury selection in capital cases. An impartial jury is supposedly guaranteed to us by the Constitution under the 6^th Amendment. A jury is such a crucial aspect of any legal case because they whether or not the accused is guilty. Any bias in jury selection can have perilous effects on the fairness of a case, and the civil rights of the accused. There has been evidence to prove that race plays an important role in jury selections. If this were to hold true in a legal trial, it would render the jury impartial, and the case unconstitutional. In North Carolina, a controversial death penalty case with Marcus Robinson showed racial bias in the jury selection of his trial. Judge Weeks declared that “race was a materially, practically, and statistically significant factor in the jury selection process not only in Mr. Robinsons trial but in trials across the country and state” (Robertson A1). If the death penalty cannot uphold the simplest Constitutional rights of the accused, then it is fair to have skepticisms on the validity of the system that often defies the Constitution.   

            The fifth flaw in the death penalty system is its racially discriminatory application. The Constitution guarantees the people equal protection under the law; however the death penalty system often contradicts this. There is an ostensible trend in the death penalty system that shows that race is a dominant factor in whether capital punishment is enforced. “A study in California found that those who killed whites where over 3 times more likely to be sentenced to death than those who killed blacks and over 4 times more likely than those who killed Latinos. In Louisiana, the odds of a death sentence were 97% higher for those whose victim was white than for those whose victim was black” (Facts about the Death Penalty). Although states may have differences in the laws and frequencies of capital punishment use, one similarity between states is the prevalent racial discriminatory application of this “justice” retrieval tool.  In 96% of states there was a pattern of either race-of-victim or race-of-defendant discrimination, or both (Facts about the Death Penalty). The statistically proven racially discriminatory application of capital punishment shows that the state is failing to uphold the Fourteenth Amendment promise of equal protection. Having a predisposition to be convicted based on race, does not inspire much confidence in the system that assures that justice is being upheld.

            The multiple flaws in the system can have perilous and irrevocable outcomes.        

The flaws in this unstable system can lead to the conviction of innocents. Nationally, at least one person is exonerated for every 10 that are executed (The Case Against the Death Penalty).  This flaw is most egregious because it results in the irreversible and unjust death of innocents, where retributive justice cannot be restored. The case of the State of Texas v. Max Soffar exhibits the states potential for a wrongful conviction of an innocent given capital punishment.

            After a shooting in a bowling alley, Max Soffar who was mentally ill, was found guilty of the murders, and sent to death row. “After trying to turn in an acquaintance for the bowling-alley murders, Soffar eventually implicated himself in a series of written statements that he signed but were written by the police and based on mostly unrecorded interrogations. The police discovered almost immediately that one of Soffar’s claims – that he had burglarized the bowling-alley the night before – was completely false” (State of Texas v. Max Soffar). A year after the shooting in 1981, Soffar went to trial and was represented by a notoriously inept lawyer known for sleeping through his clients capital murder trials. Based on Soffar’s fallaciously incriminating statements, he was convicted and sentenced to death. Exculpatory evidence surfaced much later in the trial because of negligent police work. The day after the bowling-alley murders, police interviewed a witness who worked at the bowling alley, who said that he had to kick out an unruly customer shortly before the crime. The unruly customer called the bowling alley afterward and threatened him saying that he was going to “blow your head off.” This exculpatory witness report “sat unnoticed in a file for nearly 28 years until it was found by [new] lawyers for Soffar”( State of Texas v. Max Soffar). Only in 2008, 27 years after his conviction did the real culprit surface. “ In 2008, the bowling alley witness was shown a photograph of Paul Reid from the 1980’s and immediately identified him as the person they had kicked out of the bowling alley, and who later called to threaten to kill them” (State of Texas v. Max Soffar).

            This case not only shows the potential dangers of condemning innocents to capital punishment, but it also reinforces the argument of the other flaws present in the system that were previously discussed, such as faulty police work and ineffective counsel. From 1976 to 2010 there have been 1233 executions and 138 exonerations from death row (Death Penalty 101). Based on these numbers, one must consider if it is worth it to keep the death penalty system, knowing the likelihood of errors and the possible irrevocable mistakes it can make.  The mistake of condemning an innocent to death poses as the greatest threat to society. The place where injustice is caused is the same place where one is supposed to look to for the assurance of justice. How can one trust a system that has wronged so many? It is difficult to achieve retribution for innocents harmed by the system. The only way the state can restore these injustices imposed on the innocents wrongfully condemned and executed, would be to get it of the defective system altogether.   In addition to understanding what technical things can go wrong with the death penalty, it is important to realize the morally wrong aspect of it as well, and how its practices clashes with societal principles.

            Capital punishment is where justice ends, and where revenge begins. We must contemplate whether reciprocal punishments are a valid method of achieving justice, or a valid method of achieving revenge. The death penalty system exemplifies the archaic “eye for an eye” principle. If one is injured or wronged, it is fair to reciprocate an amount of hurt proportionate to the hurt that was caused. Capital punishment was created to restore “justice” and so that someone who committed a capital offense would have a punishment proportional to their crime, death. If the system supports this “eye for an eye” principle, wouldn’t it deem methods such as raping the rapists, robbing the robbers, and torturing the torturers, sufficient retributive justice? It is unjust and vengeful behavior to rape the rapists and in the same effect to murder the murderers. The system uses justice as a mask for vengeance. “We as humans should not create laws that reciprocate the evils perpetrated against society” (Applebome Governor A21). 

            Capital punishment ultimately uses killing to show killing is wrong. The moral argument for abolishing the death penalty highlights the hypocrisy paradigm and the ethical inconsistencies embedded in the modern penitentiary system. The death penalty system “is the worst possible example to set for the citizenry, especially the children” (The Case Against the Death Penalty). How can we teach children that it is okay for the government to kill, but it is not okay for them to? (Applebome A21). Capital punishment is too inconsistent with the morals instilled in society. Although these transgressions in the system are obvious, the state keeps the system because it still feels the need to enforce its authority over society. The state is no longer a tribal system, and thus there is no need for the state to prove its power. These ethical inconsistencies that clashe with societies’ morals are one of the many reasons why the death penalty system is unjust, hypocritical and moot.

            Citizens look to systems like capital punishment to uphold and maintain its useful purposes to society. Supporters say “the death penalty prevents future murders” (Arguments for and Against the Death Penalty). It is often argued that capital punishment is useful and needed because it is a preventative measure used to deter people from committing crimes.  The claim that capital punishment is a deterrent for crime is hotly disputed. Such claims have never been conclusively proven. Supporters of the death penalty even agree to this absence of proof; “even though statistical demonstrations are not conclusive, and perhaps cannot be, capital punishment is likely to deter” (Arguments for and Against the Death Penalty).  There is more evidence to counterattack the deterrence argument, rather than support it. “States in the United States that do not employ the death penalty generally have lower murder rates than states that do” Arguments for and Against the Death Penalty). As a result of the opposing side’s failure to produce an iota of conclusive evidence to prove that capital punishment will deter criminal acts, one must question whether it still serves a useful purpose. You wouldn’t buy a microwave if it were likely to work; you would buy it only if it were guaranteed to work. One should treat the death penalty system as you would this microwave—get rid of it and return it if it does not assure definite working results.

            The risks in keeping the unstable system of capital punishment are too great. We risk the erosion of our civil rights. We risk unequal protection of minorities. We risk the unjust convictions of innocents. We risk the inability to gain retribution for people who have been harmed by the system. We risk perpetuating injustices to society. Based on the death penalty system’s ineffectiveness, flagrant flaws, and compromising societal values, one can concede that it is no longer a viable and practical solution for justice. The solution to achieving justice lies within our modern penitentiary system, a solution that is already sent in place, incarceration. Life in prison without chance of parole is a more practical means of punishment and justice. This gives the state the ability to reverse any mistakes it may have made in a capital offense case. If an innocent person is condemned to capital punishment, which is not uncommon, life imprisonment would allot enough time for any possible exculpatory evidence to surface. This would allow retribution for innocents to be achieved, where as if the state were to instead invoke the death penalty, retribution for could forever linger. I implore all eligible voters in California to ponder the following questions: Do we wish to achieve justice or revenge for crimes committed against society? Is punishing criminals through killing a more vengeful or just punishment than life imprisonment? While one ponders these questions, keep in mind this profound notion “a society that respects life does not deliberately kill human beings” (The Case Against the Death Penalty).

An essay I wrote aimed to inform others about the changes made by the government that compromises our freewill and guaranteed rights.I implore you to read so that you may stay informed on these relevant current events.

What ties us together will tear us apart

A foundation is a vital component for survival, stability, and success. A strong foundation is built on more than one layer. An impenetrable foundation is made up of non-erodible layers unable to weather or weaken. The United States was seemingly built on this type of foundation with the constitution acting as its bottom layer, the main area of its structural support. The constitution established rules for society, so that every individual will be granted the privileges of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Within the United States Constitution is the Bill of Rights, ten amendments which act as a guide to the enumerated rights we the people are promised. The Constitution demonstrates equality, an idea the country wishes to instill in society. No matter ones social, political or economic hierarchy, we are all connected and given the same rights. These rights act as the needle which weaves us all together creating a social fabric. Our shared rights that protect us, beliefs, common pursuit of good health, wealth and happiness are the threads that interweave all individuals of the country together. If you cut just one of the threads, you cause damage to the rest of the social fabric. Within the Bill of Rights is an amendment which grants people security. The Fourth Amendment does this by guaranteeing “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (U.S. Constitution).  Since the original creation of the constitution, the Fourth Amendment, among other things, has been modified. A modification to such a fundamental layer of stability will make way for poisonous components to seep into the foundation. Any deviations from the constitution will invariably accelerate the erosion of civil liberties, create corruption as a byproduct, and will inadvertently tear the social fabric.

            A government system, similar to a stool, cannot stand successfully if even one of its legs is broken.  The judiciary executive, legislative branches of government are the legs which support and keep the state from collapsing. In The Rights of the People, David Shipler educates his readers on the current political crises, the erosion of civil liberties. The rights of the people are being infringed, and the Bill of Rights is losing its solidity because the government continues to make changes to it, rendering our civil rights malleable. The Legislative branch has passed laws which have compromised many amendments, but among them, the Fourth seems to be in the most peril. The Fourth Amendment ensures peoples safety, by not allowing unreasonable searches, seizures without a warrant. In order to get a warrant, a judge must approve that police have probable cause for a search. In order for there to be probable cause, there must be “fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found” (Shipler Kindle Location 996).

Probable cause is the key component in the Fourth Amendment which prevents unfairness and corruption. Since 1968 under Terry v. Ohio, the requirement for “probable cause” has been replaced by a much looser requirement,” reasonable suspicion.” Reasonable suspicion requires only “some minimal level of objective justification for making a stop,” a hunch if you will. (Shipler Kindle Locations 997-998). It requires no empirical evidence. The “minimum level” of requirements for searches and seizures has become an “expanding loophole” according to Shipler (Shipler Kindle Location 999). It allows police to conduct questionable searches with pending honest and ethical reasoning. The ruling under Terry gives the executive powers the ability to dominate and control the system, without any needed oversight from the judiciary powers. The problem with giving police power to “choose or reject judicial oversight” is that they will have the ability to execute their job with unethical intentions with little chance of being caught (Kindle Location 4978). Supporting this claim lies within Giglio v. United States, which in most cases acts in favor of  police. It allows law enforcement to possibly evade punishment for corrupt behavior. “Corruption refers to any violation of rules even when there is no personal gain, as in perjury, physical abuse of prisoners, sexual misconduct, robbery, and racial profiling” (Bayley 3). Giglio v. U.S allows previous police perjuries to be illuminated in court but it is to be used only at the judge’s discretion. Only if a judge permits will polices previous dishonesties be revealed to a jury. In general, juries tend to believe the words of a policeman, rather than the defendant. The activation of Giglio is pertinent for a fair trial because it is the only way for jury bias to be expunged. It is only fair that previous transgressions and corrupt behaviors be illuminated to the court, so that the jury may obtain the most accurate demonstration of an officer’s character and credibility. Contrary to its possible use in court for achieving justice and catching corrupt cops, “the allegation that police lie in court bounces off some judges like water off stone” (Shipler Kindle Location 2050). Most police perjuries are ignored by judges, even though they are common (Shipler Kindle Location 2115). According to Shipler “Police shade the truth everywhere,” and they routinely manipulate facts (Shipler Kindle Location 2067). The laws under Terry v. Ohio and Giglio v. U.S act in favor of the police, rather than the justice system. These precedents give the executive branch too much freedom and power, and it does not allow the judicial branch to do its crucial job, which is to oversee and make sure lawful and ethical reasoning and behavior are being used by police. The main problem Shipler believes is the judicial system and its lack of oversight of the executive branch. The failure of one of the three branches of government to do its job creates an impending collapse in the entire system. In addition to the erosions of civil liberties caused by laws that modified the constitution under Terry v. Ohio and Giglio v. United States, more recent laws have been passed that would indicate farther deviations from the constitutions, and accelerated erosion in the rights of the people , the Stop and Frisk Law and the Justice Approved Strip-search use.

            How much of your own privacy are you willing to give up, for the sake of a slight decrease in crime rate? In cities like New York and Washington D.C, a Stop and Frisk law is being routinely implemented in private buildings enrolled in the Clean Halls Program in an effort to decrease crime rates. This law allows police to patrol the halls of private buildings and according to residents they are subject to stops, frisks, tickets and arrests “for trespassing in their own buildings if they fail to produce identification when they take out the garbage, check the mail, duck out to the store for a quart of milk” (“Stop and Frisk, continued” 1). Although supporters of the Stop and Frisk law would argue that crime rates have decreased since the implementation of the law, “there is no conclusive proof that widespread use of stop-and-frisk itself drove down crime” (“The Truth Behind Stop-and Frisk” 1). To add, Stop and Frisk use through the Clean the Halls Program seems to have caused more harm than good to the emotional security of citizens.

            The Stop and Frisk Law cripples the Fourth Amendment guidelines. The biggest issue with this law is the weak justifications police can impulsively make for stops and frisks. The ruling under Terry v. Ohio is at work yet again. Police just need reasonable suspicion that would allow them to act on a whim to conduct legal stop and frisks. A stop or frisk is justified under circumstances like: “Suspicion the suspect is armed and dangerous; Suspicion the suspect is about to commit a crime where a weapon is commonly used, and Behavior, emotional state, and/or look of suspects” (Rice 1). This policy hinders one’s personal security, creating paranoia and fear every time one steps a few feet from their door. The policy indefinitely paralyzes the Fourth Amendment clause “The right of the people to be secure in their persons” (US Constitution). In addition to this laws obvious constitutional violation, the policy shows residual evidence of police corruption through racial profiling since they can create reasonable suspicion out of the “look of suspects”. Police testimony supports this idea, “African-American Officer Larry Anderson, not only confirmed that police sometimes stop people more often because of skin color, but that they themselves had been victims of such stops” (Police Report 1).  According to a former policeman, “profiling is common throughout the country….I would look for Mexicans, I would look for black people. It works” (Shipler Kindle Location 1423).

            Cops feel racial profiling is necessary to create more efficiency in the job, but I believe it detracts from accuracy more than it creates efficiency. In the Article “Officer accuses NYPD of racial profiling” Sgt. McReynolds an African-American New York Policeman was a victim of racial profiling by one of its own. “According to the official police report, the officers were responding to a domestic abuse call in the same building and mistook McReynolds for the suspect, handcuffing him after he refused to identify himself” (Shinn 1).  McReynolds’ story differed from the police report. McReynolds claimed he did in fact identify himself, and said he was “on the job,” which is police jargon that indicated he was an officer. The police suspected McReynolds to be the alleged domestic abuser. Although McReynolds was exculpated, prior to his arrest there was no real evidence that would indicate reasonable suspicion, other than their skin tone similarities. The police were allowed to act on this weak justification since the building was enrolled in the “Clean Halls program, which allows officers to stop suspicious occupants of private buildings, interrogate them and place them under arrest for criminal trespass” (Shinn 1).

Police were able to act on their weak justification, and arrest a man who was just walking to his home with nothing on him but Chinese takeout for his wife.  McReynolds’ attorney plans to file a “suit against the City of New York and linking this case with another racial profiling case involving three black detectives to show a pattern of racial profiling in the city” (Shinn 2).  Statistics support this pattern of racial profiling through the implementations of the Stop and Frisk Law; “In 2011, 685,724 New Yorkers were stopped by the police.605, 328 were totally innocent (88 percent). 350,743 were black (53 percent). 223,740 were Latino (34 percent). 61,805 were white (9 percent)” (“Stop and Frisk Campaign” 1). The McReynolds showcases the problem with the Stop and frisk law through the Clean Halls Program. It allows law enforcement to act based on the weakest justifications for invading the privacy rights of the people, ensured by the Fourth Amendment. Deviations from the constitution such as these, will invariably lead to mistakes in arrests and racial profiling, which established by definition is an indication of corruption, a contributing agent in the accelerated erosion of civil liberties. A more recent adjudication that challenges the validity of the Fourth amendment clause that requires probable cause for searches is the Justice approved strip-searches use.

            The most egregious of all recent modifications of the Fourth Amendment, is the approved strip-search use. In a recent 5 to 4 vote, justices approve the use of strip-search for any arrest, however minor. The police are given the right to completely evade the Fourth Amendment guidelines and conduct strip searches for the most minor of offenses, and even if there is no suspicion the individual is concealing a weapon or contraband. Minor offenses such as driving without a license, failing to use a turn signal, riding a bike without an audible bell, failing to pay child support, and driving with a noisy muffler contain grounds for a legal strip-search (Liptak A3). This adjudication has led the state to stray even farther away from the constitution, allowing not just our rights to be compromised, but our dignity. In the case of Florence v. County of Burlington, Albert Florence was in the passenger seat of a BMW car, which his wife was driving. Police pulled them over for speeding. Even though the initial stop was directed towards Florence’s Caucasian wife, cops did not feel the need to worry about her, after seeing her African American husband in the passenger’s seat. Instead cops found reasonable suspicion that African American man Albert Florence is doing something or has done something wrong. Police found that Florence had an unpaid fine, and arrested him. Despite the false information about the fine, which had been paid upon his arrest, Florence was held in jail and strip searched. Florence described the strip-search experience as humiliating and making him feel less than a man. (Liptak A3). The Florence case exemplifies the decimation of privacy guaranteed to the people by the constitution. Strip-search tool and its use is similar to stop and frisk, is to be used at polices discretion. It allows no oversight of police when deciding if a strip search is relevant to stop criminal activity, such as the concealing of weapons or contraband. If a strip search does not require suspicion of contraband, or weapons, then what is its purpose? It is an irrelevant and over the top security measure police subject citizens to that shows no effectiveness in creating public safety. The lack of oversight in these delicate situations can and will undoubtedly cause many more unlawful arrests like the Florence case due to police and their poor judgment of what constitutes as reasonable suspicion, and their tendency to racially profile.

            The precedent above involving Strip-Search use and clean the Halls Program, shows that the erosion of the Fourth Amendment is not an isolated case.  The state has picked an incredible amount of momentum on a path that strays far from the constitution. The result from taking steps towards a police state has proved to disrupt racial harmony. Creating a flagrant difference in the treatment of people based on their skin color.  This notion creates a mixed feeling of worry and fear within me, not just because I am part of the minority that shows a greater likelihood for stops, tickets and arrests, but because I believe an injustice to one is an injustice to all. No one regardless of their race should be in fear the police will abuse their power, and conduct unlawful policies such as searches, without a legitimate reason decided upon by a higher authority.

We are all tied together by threads that create the social fabric. Breaking or harming one thread, allows the entire fabric to be harmed and loosened with the possibility of being completely unraveled.

            As we give police more absolute power, with no way to oversee their credibility for justifying searches and seizures, we give more way for corruption to enter the system. As many of us know, “power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely” (John Delgerg-Acton). If we continue to give police power to go beyond the constitution, we continue to subject citizens to unlawful and corrupt uses of power. In addition, if we allow one amendment to be dissolved, we subject the rest to the same fate. Restoring the constitution to its original form, without any modifications is the only way to prevent and reverse the erosion of civil liberties, and ensure better public safety. The constitution in its most raw and organic form is what will keep society safe.  Exceptions to these rules, which rely on the actions and rash judgments of the executive powers is what will keep society in continual peril. “It is not the lawyers or the law that protects us, then, but rather the “rule of law” (Shipler 818-819). 

Directed to @leblogdereblogs 

Advice relevant for the issue of pik-sneeze.

As we stand in a crowded room,

A cloud of smoke permeates the room,

rendering everything and everyone else hazy,

And the only thing in clear focus, is you. 

I don’t know you, but I know I could love you.

As you stand near me,

Your skin briefly but gently touches mine,

In that brief moment, time seemed to move slow,

In that sudden caress, an influx of urges came rushing,

I wanted to feel

the softness of your skin,

the outlines of your veins,

the firmness of your grasp,

your fingers intertwine with mine,

I just wanted to hold you hand,

I don’t know you, but I know I could love you.

As you speak,

The sincerity in your voice,

The effortless and unintentional humor in your speech,

And the mellifluous sound of your voice,

Paralyzes all other senses.

And I do nothing but anxiously wait to hear you speak again.

I don’t know you, but I know I could love you.

Your face,

Perfection in my eyes,

An open book

easily read if you pay attention to the most tedious features,

Revealing small but important notions,

The strength in your jaw,

The kindness in your smile,

The assurance in your brows

The vulnerability in your eyes,

I don’t know you, but I know I could love you.

You,

Your life,

Your struggle,

Your purpose,

Your heart,

Your genuineness 

Your focus,

Your chivalrousness,

Your hard work,

Your integrity,

Your sacrifices

Your selflessness

Your honor and loyality to your family,

Its beautiful.

I don’t know you, but I know I want to love you. 

Ideal Occupation #1

General Medical Practitioner 

• Residency in San Francisco
• Practice in remote provinces in underdeveloped Third World countries-Philippines, Cambodia, Africa, to impoverished children.
• Dream: To establish community hospitals in areas where poverty is rampant, and that offers free medical aide to women and children.                                                   
• First location of the community hospital: Naga City, Philippines- birthplace

This maybe a pipe dream, but dreams give life a purpose. Without them, renders your existence meaningless.