Columnists Ahoy!!

I chose to highlight James Surowiecki, a columnist for the New Yorker who posts his columns every few days reagrds "business, the markets, and the economy." I think I chose this column over others because I am increasingly clueless about all things economic!! Surowiecki looked credible and presented a chance for me to undertand the mechanics of our economics a little bit better.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/jamessurowiecki/2009/10/notes-on-this-weeks-column-big-banks.html

In this column entitiled "The Big Banks Get Bigger," Surowiecki is questioning the status of big banks and how they seem to maintain their excessive amount of power in the economic world by increasing every year. He first starts by offering a view that the government bailing out big banks and the consistent mergers of large companies only make the situation worse by creating larger banks with even more power than before controlling the economy. He then goes into 2 reasons how banks maintain their power. One of which is how expensive the "switching costs" are for people who wish to choose a different bank, so therefore only a small percentage of people actually do change their bank in the first place. The other case Surowiecki makes is that larger banks tend to have a more prestigious reputation, and therfore draw more customers and deals easier than smaller companies.

Now it's time for MY view!!

From this series on the death penalty, I have learned a lot from a variety of cases either supporting or opposing capital punishment. I think after looking at a few different angles of the debate I can safely say I agree with the death penalty for some social concerns, but ultimately disapprove of it due to moral implications. Pataki makes a convincing case in citing various studies where it was concluded that the death penalty lowered crime rates due to a feeling of fear enstilled in potential criminals. I do believe that to some extent the death penalty creates fear in society and has a positive effect on regulating crime rates. However, ultimately I don't think this makes up for the moral tradeoff required to use this form of enforcing justice. I think that the death penalty creates serious moral concerns. 'An eye for an eye' philosophy is an immoral way to enforce justice as it only leads to more murder. Also, according to Maers it ultimately becomes a "life without parole" as many criminals spend 20+ years waiting on death row for their uncertain futures. I think this is just one of the ways that the death penalty would be considered cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Constitution. The photo demonstrates other ways this would be cruel as it is very restricting and the victim looks like he has no closure and peace as he faces death. Also, Maers brings to light how impractical capital punishment is in an economic viewpoint, and I don't think these numbers can lie. Overall, as I grow as an informed citizen I think the death penalty is impractical and morally wrong and should therefore not be allowed in the United States.

Demonizing the Death Penalty

Visual Argument!

This photo is a clear representation of the anti-death penalty argument by an unknown photographer. The picture is taken by an observer of the scene, almost removing them from the situation, as if they are offended by it. The black and white use of colors makes the scene seem very dark, implying that the practices surrounding the death penalty are bleak and immoral. Also the subject of the photo adds something to the photographer's commentary. The fact that the 'criminal' is African American is perhaps an attempt by the artist to show discrimination and the unfair quality of capital punishment. The contrast of his simplistic appearance with the fancier men preparing him perhaps shows how it is only a scheduled practice for the other men, again alluding to the unfair nature of the practice.  The subject's removed facial expression also shows the cruelity of the death penalty. The striking black straps against the white garment confine the man, as if he is cruelly treated as a prisoner and has lost hope of redemption. Overall, the photographer of this piece creates a negative standpoint of the death penalty as an immoral act and a cruel practice.

To murder victims' families, executing killers is justice

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bal-md.kane05feb05,0,6557087.column

In this article, Gregory Kane, a columnist for the Baltimore Sun newspaper, resents his view that the death penalty provides true justice for the family for the murder victims. His central focus for his claim revolves around the case of the murder of Dawn Garvin, and the needed justice for her killer Steven Howard Oken. By profiling the family of Garvin, Kane makes the point that the death penalty does not provide closure or satisfy revenge for the families of the victims, but is rather a real form of social justice. Vicki Romano, a relative to Dawn stated that "revenge would be going out and killing one of [the murderer's] family members. The death penalty isn't revenge. It's the law." He also points put the flaws in his opponents’ case saying that the victims’ families “footing the bill” for the housing and jail time of Oken is also very unjust. Ultimately, Kane makes the claim that the death penalty is merely a form of true justice for society and the families of victims, and therefore is good in an environment.

Capital punishment gives killers good cause to fear arrest and conviction

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Articles/Pataki.htm

This is an article demonstrating the view of George E. Pataki, the Governor of New York State, that the death penalty was necessary in New York to create a sense of fear and responsibility to criminals in the society. He was the governor at the time that New York became a state where the death penalty was allowed, and his place of political power shows a view from the actual people that legislate this policy. He said that the Death Penalty provides the innocent community with peace, and by legislating it “New Yorkers now live in safer communities because we finally have begun to create a climate that protects and empowers our citizens, while giving criminals good cause to fear arrest and conviction.” In other words, Pataki is making the claim that capital punishment creates a sense of fear in criminals, ultimately stopping them from committing such heinous crimes. Pataki also makes claims that the death penalty has grounds to “provide a true measure of justice to murder victims and their loved ones” with various examples such as the case of the murder of Adrien Hunter. Ultimately, Pataki makes an argument that capital punishment is a just practice and is necessary to bring political and social justice in a society.