Response to "!Effects and Affects of the American Government!: Body Cameras"

This is my response to a fellow student's article which overviewed the pros and cons of police body cameras. You can find the original post written by Ashley Arnerich here:
!Effects and Affects of the American Government!: Body Cameras


My Response: While I think that Ashley makes some great points about the pros and cons of police officers being required to wear body cameras, I truly think they'll do more good than harm. One concern that was mentioned in this post was the concern about public privacy being seen all over the internet. I truly don't think the footage would be used for anything other than review by the police department and other officials. Whatever is recorded would only be used as evidence in a case that has been disputed. In this scenario, any and all recorded video would be beneficial to the officer and citizen alike.

I also understand the privacy concern for the police officers, but I think it'd be safe to assume that any time the officer is "off the clock" (at lunch, using the bathroom, etc) they would not be required to leave their cameras on. Obviously, there could be issues where the officer forgets to turn their camera back on or they don't do so on purpose- it's not a perfect system, but it's a hell of a lot better than letting police murder unarmed citizens and then lie about it to their superiors and the general public. 

I also don't see this as invading the officer's privacy. Dash cams already exist and this would only be an added measure to make them more credible. You have to realize that in the U.S. there is a huge level of distrust between the police and the public. The string of recent shootings involving officers and unarmed citizens is escalating at a horrifying rate. Police officers become cops to uphold the law, and any decent cop would understand the necessity for body cameras. Officers who are opposed seem like they have something to hide. In order for trust to be rebuilt there must be transparency. I'll take the 59% drop in police use of force in exchange for an officer's possible loss of "privacy."

Why Are We Treating Immigrants Like Criminals?

In the past few weeks a lot of attention has been drawn to the issue of immigrant detention camps. Despite what you may or may not know about detention camps, we can all agree that it's an inhumane measure. The biggest offense is that most of the people they're detaining are women and children. The purpose of these camps are basically to ensure that suspected illegal immigrants show up to their court hearings that would ultimately decide whether they are allowed to stay or require deportation. You might think -so these people are being held be the government for an indiscernible amount of time? That's horrible! It gets worse.

These "camps" are very shabbily set up and immigrants are treated like prisoners. They're held in cells and these conditions are cruel at best. These people have done nothing wrong. Their only offense is that they came to this country in search for something- usually to improve their lives and their children's lives. The issue isn't "should we take a better look at immigration detention ceneters?" The issue is "Why are we treating innocent people like criminals?" Some articles I've read on the subject have talked about how Immigration officials are suggesting working on improving the condition of these detention facilities and making sure that every case is reviewed in at least 90 days. Truly, how is this going to make anything better? Throwing families into cells and putting children through the trauma that these detention facilities will inevitably cause is inexcusable. Yes, there are Americans (mostly middle and upper class white people) who are concerned by the growing number of immigrants in the U.S., and while I understand that our government has to respond to these criticisms, we have no right to treat fellow, innocent human beings like common criminals. The thing that bothers me the most is that we all know who's being held in these centers- it's not the millionaire illegal British family, it's the hard working family from Mexico who came here in search of a better life. If we continue with this system, we won't have to worry about anyone ever wanting to move here. Problem solved, right?

Response to "Wars and Drugs Don't Mix"

This is my response to a fellow classmate's post about the war on drugs.

You can read the original post by Michael Martinez here: Wars and Drugs Don't Mix

My response: "While I feel like Michael makes some valid points, after reading this post I feel like I'm left with more questions than answers. Mostly, I needed more specifics on the drugs that we're talking about here. If we're speaking only about a soft drugs like marijuana then I absolutely agree in legalization efforts for this drug. Personally, I don't understand why it was ever made illegal. I tend to think it was all to do with early pharmaceuticals and trying to find a way to dominate an industry. That's not the point I'm trying to make, however. While marijuana is a mostly harmless drug that has many beneficial health benefits, I don't believe in legalizing harder things like cocaine, heroin, DMT (or other hallucinogens), etc etc. These drugs are illegal for good reason- they're incredibly harmful! Legalizing these drugs will NOT make our crime rates go down or whatever. It would give people easier access to awful drugs that result in horrible behavior and severe deterioration of health. There's no way to argue for the safe or beneficial use of these drugs. They aren't something that should ever be used recreationally no matter how well-educated you are about them, there is no safe way to take them. Things like cocaine and heroin are extremely addictive- and heroin in particular is incredibly lethal. The thing about these drugs is that it's not the purity that drives further addiction, it's the drug itself. An addicted user will always want more and more. Say that we live in a parallel universe where the highly addictive and harmful drugs are legal. One day a user goes to their 100% legal distributor and the distributor says "No, I'm sorry but you've reached your legal amount for the month. I can't give you anymore." Where is this highly addicted person going to turn? Right back to the streets. When it comes to highly addictive drugs, there will always be people who want more and more. There is no legal precedence for considering this in a real life situation. The fact of the matter is that, with few exceptions, there's a good reason that most illegal drugs are illegal. Like I said, the only illegal drug that should be legalized is marijuana. Recent research has definitely shown some awesome benefits, so how could you not support medicinal marijuana?"

Cheers To You, Indiana, For Setting Our Political System Back A Hundred Years!

If you assumed that my title to this post was dripping with sarcasm, you would be 100% correct. The second thing you might be thinking is, "Okay, Lisa, but did it really set us back a hundred years?" Yes, but actually it set us back even further. Would you like to know why? It's a little thing in the Establishment Clause of our Constitution which basically outlines the Separation of Church and State. Interesting. It's like our founding fathers knew it would be a horrible idea to let religion dictate matters of the State. Indiana was like, "Oh that silly thing in our constitution? It's outdated. Our bigoted views on homosexuality though is so this century." If you're clueless as to what I'm talking about I'll give you a short overview. Recently, Indiana passed SA101- otherwise known as the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The funny thing is that we already have a Free Exercise Clause in our constitution that protects religious freedom. So what's the point of SA101?

Basically, Indiana wanted to find that law that would make homophobia and discrimination legal on the basis that such things infringe upon the individual's religious beliefs. At this point you have to be thinking, "Alright Lisa, stop pulling my leg. This is awful and it can't be true." Sadly, it is true. We officially live in a country where someone can openly discriminate against other people based upon their beliefs and can't be touched in court because of this law. I want to see this as a positive thing that can further protect the rights of the individual, but all I can focus on is how this law will be used to harm. The first case that this law was implemented on ruled that it was legal for a pizza parlor to refuse to cater a gay wedding because it went against their religious beliefs. Where does it end? Since we have to recognize the person's religion what happens when religion becomes an excuse for assault or murder? Where's the line? You can't say "It's okay to discriminate openly, but assault is too far." What if the defendant uses religious freedom as their excuse? Laws like these are harming our already shaky political system. If we continue to allow harmful laws like these to be implemented, we'll in turn harm more citizens. When does this ridiculousness end? We should be a nation of tolerance and not use our beliefs as a weapon against people we might not agree with. 

Policing The Police

This past weekend national news exploded with a not-so-unfamiliar story involving a white police officer shooting an unarmed black man. During a routine traffic stop in North Charleston, N.C. Walter L. Scott attempted to run away from officer Michael Slager, but after failing to tase Scott the officer pulled out his gun and shot at the fleeing man eight times. Slager ended up shooting Scott five times. Is this the story that officer Slager told his police department? No. He claimed that Scott struggled with him to take his taser and so he had to use deadly force. You might be wondering how I'm so certain that my facts are correct- well several days ago a bystander came forward with a video recording that he had taken of the incident. It clearly shows Scott running away from Slager and instead of giving chase, he pulls out his taser and then his gun.

This week I came across an awesome Washington Post editorial titled, "What if every police encounter were recorded?" by the Editorial Board. This editorial uses the Walter Scott murder as an example of why we need body cameras on all police officers. All too often police brutality is going unchecked and we're leaving the job up to bystanders to provide evidence in critical cases. The Editorial Board goes on to comment on how body cams would keep police in check and hold them to a better standard. Another example that I can recall happened a few months ago in Austin when two officers had forgotten they had left their dash cam on and they were making rape jokes about a woman walking in front of them. I was horrified. Luckily, they were dumb enough to leave their camera on and were promptly suspended. My point is- these are the people who are supposed to be protecting us and they're honestly becoming more terrifying than actual criminals because they're more likely to get away with it. I agreed with so many of the things that were pointed out in this editorial and I absolutely agree that we need to keep our police in check. The abuse and mistreatment of minorities by the police is disgraceful and we cannot allow for innocent people to be murdered by the police who have sworn to protect us. The good news for Walter L. Scott's family is that thanks to the video turned in by a bystander, Michael Slager was fired from his police department and sentenced to 30 years in prison for murder. Sometimes justice comes through, but we can't leave it up to chance or luck. Let's make body cameras for police a new policy.

America and The War Against Women's Rights

I recently came across an editorial on the CNN Opinions blog that absolutely sent fire through my veins. The article, "How states are playing politics with women's bodies" by Julie Burkhart, talks about how politicians in certain (mostly Southern) states are pushing for even more outrageous and ideologically/religiously-driven abortion regulations. As mentioned in my "About Me", as a woman living in Texas I live with the constant dread that abortion laws will continue to be unjust and horribly biased.

Burkhart is an abortion provider from Kansas who opens her article with a not-so-uncommon story of a woman traveling across several states to find a place where she was allowed to have an abortion without delays and unrealistic restrictions. Even in Kansas, however, Burkhart mentions that arbortion regulations are still very strict. Women are required to read pamphlets that basically persuade them against having an abortion, and then they're forced to wait 24 hours after that before they are allowed to have the abortion. Burkhart also goes into detail about how in 2014 Mississippi, Missouri, Alabama, and Texas all sought to make abortion regulations more audacious- specifically, a lawmaker from Missouri proposed that the woman has to have written consent from the man before she's allowed to have an abortion. I'm sorry, do we live in the 1940's? Is the man going to carry this growing thing in his body for 9 months? Is his health going to be effected by this pregnancy? No. So stay the hell away from women's reproductive rights.

Even through all of this upsetting and harrowing news, there is a silver lining to all of these horrible regulations. Burkhart points out that since people have come together to stand up for their rights, lawmakers have been forced to rollback certain laws, and have to face that women should have more rights than a fetus. People are tired of all the backwards laws that apply solely to women's bodies.

I completely agree with Julie Burkhart's article. Politicians are playing havoc on basic human rights and the only way they're getting away with it is due largely in part to religious-based laws. What happened to separation of church and state? Will these pro-lifers personally support the children that they're demanding be born? Shall these unwilling mothers expect checks in the mail from pro-lifers? Another infuriating factor in all of this is that most of these stricter proposals are coming from male lawmakers. I'm sorry, in what way is a man the expert on a women's body and her reproductive rights? As I said before, lawmakers need to keep their biased and ideologically-driven laws away from women's bodies and their rights. This is an issue of basic human rights and should be treated that way. If someone doesn't believe in having abortions that's totally fine, but they don't have the right to impose that belief on an unwilling fellow human being. Women deserve equality.

Obama's Response to the Chapel Hill Murders

Some very devastating news came about this week when three Muslim students were murdered in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. While the local government is being cautious to call these murders a hate crime, President Obama made a statement this week that basically said no American can be targeted for any reason. This lends to the idea that Obama does in fact believe these murders were a hate-crime. His exact quote can be found in this article. It can be inferred that racial tensions over the past few months and Obama's attention have led the FBI to officially become involved with this case.

Pressure to further investigate has not only come from fellow Americans (of which there has been a great outpouring) but also from the international community. Countries such as Jordan and Turkey will be keeping a very close eye on the outcome of this case. It is an unfortunate, but very realistic reminder that we, as Americans, are part of a much larger international community and the actions and laws we choose to uphold have a great effect not only here, but around the world. We cannot allow American citizens to kill one another simply because someone else is different and believes something that we don't. This is not only an issue of race, but one greatly focused on religious intolerance. It's 2015 and it's shameful that hate crimes are being committed and excused as something as silly as a "parking dispute".