Wrongly Accused

     The thought of being falsely accused probably makes everyone  as uncomfortable as It does myself. Our legal apparatus, for all of its success and efficiency still fails on occasion, but for such an esteemed device the consequences of failure are utterly tragic. Your good name that has taken your lifetime to acquire dissipating in all the time it takes for a charge to be summoned to court. Crippling legal fees are more of a moot point amongst years in prison apart from your life and loved ones, or in some very rare circumstances being put to death even. This is hard to swallow for those that are actually guilty of the crime they were accused, so how about those accused wrongly under false accusations.
     The wrinkles in our system are always trying to be ironed out, and as more efficient sciences replace shaky witness accounts, or at the very least confirm them, the numbers of such things are reducing every year. I am afraid to admit that there will always be such issues. For example, any tool used in the legal process must meet a minimum accuracy of 95 % to be mandated and fully weighed in a trial. Consider that if any said tool is 95% correct, and is used in 100 trials, it will be wrong 5 times, which can lead to 5 innocent people being punished. That being said, scientifically backed DNA sampling and other related methods are at success rates of over 99%, and improving rapidly. Our system is definitely far from perfect, but progress is being made, and hopefully a day will come soon where no innocent people are punished for the crimes of others.

Death to the Death Penalty?

          The code of Hammurabi states that we are too, "Let The Punishment Fit The Crime." Though I firmly believe that the great thinkers who criticized this ancient set of laws were right in that, "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind", I do believe that the code was on to something. Take the death penalty for instance, the conclusion by a judge and jury that the person they found guilty has committed acts so heinous that their life should be terminated. I have no quarrel with this initially, but do find issues with the whole process in countries such as the United States. I believe that first, the death penalty should only be offered in cases of insurmountable and undeniable evidence in horrific crimes, such as the cases of serial killers, rapists, or very notable figures such Saddam Hussein. This is rather a moot point as I believe for the vast majority of all cases this is followed to the letter. A more pressing issue is that if we are going to use it, then lets do just that. It never ceases to fail whenever I change the channel to a Lockup:RAW marathon which is a television series on prisons and the life the prisoners lead In the correctional system, I do not have to wait long before each prison shows one of their more prominent criminals. It is here that the prisoner goes on to talk about his life, his bone chilling crime, and in many cases mentions that he has been on death row for almost as long as I have been alive. What are we waiting for? I understand there needs to be time for retrials and such but in sure cases what are we trying to accomplish? Lets get serious about capital punishment, or lets say Death to the Death penalty, but this in between stage we are in is just not doing it.

Kicking the Golden Goose

             In the class discussions we see both the hints, preferences, and in some cases prejudices in the assigned readings as well as well as in ourselves as the discussion took form. This was especially the case in the article pertaining to upward income redistribution, and though Baker's thought had some logical elements its abrasive nature rubbed many the wrong way on all sides of the political spectrum. Bakers argument of how," the conservatives paint the progressives as wanting to tax the winners in society in order to reward the losers" as well as," the right being portrayed as the champions of hard work and innovation while progressives are the champions of the slothful and incompetent" is clever  and well written, but fails to completely address the issue. Coming from a state only as poor as it is proud, I can understand the frustration of people struggling financially and even can see why in desperation people can justify the increased taxation of the rich. This looks probable and beneficial on paper, but in my simple rural understanding of the world, I believe that if you kick the golden goose enough, he will go lay eggs elsewhere. Lets look at the French for example, who since the implementation of their "millionaire" tax in which after one makes 1 million euros  ($1.4 million U.S.) a 75 % levy on all profits exceeding this point is placed. These people are, regardless of how we personally regard them, the financial leaders, innovators, investors, and potential bosses, and the most able to leave a place to seek citizenship elsewhere if they feel their best interests are not being made. Because of this tax an estimated 300,000 French are leaving the country before it is all said and done, and with them some the country's best hope for financial success. In a time of financial drought a farmer must refrain from kicking  his best tools out of frustration because when the time of plentiful harvest comes they might be broken. Or in concluding layman's terms, Please do not kick the golden goose, it is just not worth it.