Should more dramatic steps be taken to stop drunk driving?

Should more dramatic steps be taken to stop drunk driving? In my opinion, we should do everything in our power to prevent drunk driving. Those who drive under the influence not only put their own lives at risk, but if they have passengers in their vehicles, those people are at risk too, not to mention everyone else on the road. Drunk driving causes approximately one-third of all traffic fatalities in the United States. In 2010, 10,228 people were killed and approximately 350,000 were injured. Each crash, each death, each injury impacts not only the person in the crash, but family, friends, classmates, coworkers and more. We can reduce the lives lost and tears shed over this issue if we take more dramatic steps to stop drunk driving.

About one-third of the drunk driving problem – arrests, crashes, deaths, and injuries – comes from repeat offenders. A greater support in law enforcement can help deter drunk drivers through proven solutions such as sobriety checkpoints. A greater emphasis on educating youth on this matter could also have an impact on drunk driving. Every 52 minutes on average, someone is killed in a drunk driving crash.  Every 90 seconds, someone is injured because of this entirely preventable crime. 

First Amendment Guarantees and Limitations

One of the most delicate areas of constitutional interpretation has been the interpretation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment's protection of speech and expression is central to the concept of American political system. It guarantees that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.” Freedom of speech is the liberty to speak openly without fear of government restraint. It is closely linked to freedom of the press because this freedom includes both the right to speak and the right to be heard. The U.S Supreme Court has established constitutional protection to several aspects of speech and the press. Although the Supreme Court has allowed for few governmental bans on most types of speech, guarantees protected by the First Amendment have been subject to scrutiny by the Supreme Court to fit the needs of the citizens.

A democracy depends on the free exchange of ideas, and the First Amendment shows that the Framers were well aware of this fact. The Supreme Court protects Various aspects of speech and press with respect to prior restraint, symbolic speech, and hate speech. Prior restraint is the constitutional doctrine that prevents the government from prohibiting speech or publication before the fact. As seen in the Alien and Sedition Acts, Congress had attempted to limit speech before the fact as early as 1798, but the U.S. Supreme Court did not take a firm position on this issue until the 1970’s. Likewise, in the Pentagon Papers case, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S government could not block the publication of secret Department of Defense documents illegally furnished to the Times by anti-war activists. In addition to limiting prior restraint, the Supreme Court has extended what the First Amendment has defined as pure speech to symbolic speech. Symbolic speech is symbols, signs, and other methods of expression. In Stromberg v. California, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a communist youth group director under a state statute that prohibited the display of a red flag, a symbol of opposition to the U.S government. Similarly, the right of student to wear black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War was protected in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. Hate speech is also protected under the First Amendment’s “free speech” guarantee. Hate speech is, outside the law, communication that vilifies a person or a group on the basis of color, disability, ethnicity, gender, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation, or other characteristic. In R.A.V v. City of St. Paul, the Court ruled that a white teenager who burned a cross on a black family’s front lawn, could not be charged under the law because the First Amendment prevents governments from “silencing speech on the basis of its content.”The Court narrowed this definition in 2003, ruling that state governments could constitutionally restrict cross burning when it occurred with the intent of racial intimidation.

Although there are few bans on most types of speech, some forms of expression are not protected by the government. Libel, fighting words, obscenity, and lewdness are not protected by the First Amendment because “such expressions are no essential part of any exposition of ideals, and are of such slight social value as a step  to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.” Libel is a written statement that defames a person’s character. Slander is untrue spoken statements that defame the character of a person. In the court case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, An Alabama state court found the Times guilty of libel for printing a full-page advertisement accusing Alabama officials of physically abusing African Americans during various civil rights protests. However, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction and established that a finding of libel against a public official could stand only if there was a showing of “actual malice,” or a knowing disregard for the truth. In the case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Court stated that fighting words, or words that “by their very utterance inflict injury or tend or incite an immediate breach of peace,” are not subject to the restrictions of the First Amendment. Likewise, obscenity-another form of speech-is not protected under the first amendment. In Roth v. U.S. the Court held that, to be considered obscene, the material in question had to be “utterly without redeeming social importance,” and articulated a new test for obscenity: “whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interests.” Over time, different situations have altered the Court’s and America’s perception of what works are obscene. Different interpretations of the First Amendment will lead to different conclusions.

Are the Beauty Standards Set for Today’s Women Healthy?

Many of the typical beauty standards set for today’s women are not healthy. Countless women have taken extreme measures to make themselves fit into what society has branded beautiful. The beauty standards set by society today have caused eating disorders, pushed girls to have cosmetic surgery,  and may have caused insecurities or depression for those who feel as though they do not fit in.

The emphasis on hairless bodies, thin figures, and blemish-free faces have become somewhat of a hazard to both women and the environment. Plastic surgery has increased over recent years because too many women are beginning to think they are too fat, or have an odd-looking nose, or that they are just getting old. Some are seeking plastic surgery before their bodies have even had a chance to reach full maturity. My Health News Daily states that the number of Americans undergoing plastic surgery on their chin rose dramatically last year, according to a new report from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. In 2011, more than 20,600 people received "chin augmentation," a plastic surgery procedure that reshapes the chin with implants or by moving bones. That's up from about 12,000 chin augmentation procedures in 2010, the report says. Ninety-one percent of all plastic surgery procedures were performed in women. Those who do not take the plastic surgery route may starve themselves to try to be thin. Today even elementary school aged children are obsessed with their weight. According to Rader Programs, one-half of 4th grade girls are on a diet. The media has played a large part in influencing the proliferation of eating disorders such as anorexia or bulimia nervosa. Diet and diet related products are a 33 billion dollar a year industry. Frequent dieting is highly correlated with depression. Insecurities and depression can develop with the beauty standards set by today’s society. Women who had been models in the 60s and 70s can now be considered plus sized models. The belief that one’s outer appearance is of primary importance can leave women feeling worthless and dedicating their time, energy and financial resources to a hopeless campaign against time, rather than to issues that might improve the quality of their lives.

Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished?

The Eighth Amendment is the part of the Bill of Rights that states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Capital punishment or the death penalty is a legal process whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime. Prohibiting cruel and unusual punishments is a concept rooted in the English common-law tradition. Today, the United States is the only western nation to put people to death for committing crimes. The debate over the death penalty raises issues raises issues about the fundamental fairness of the U.S system of justice. Some people may worry that innocent people might be put to death, despite all the procedural safeguards in the court system to prevent mistakes. People who support the death penalty believe the consequence for taking someone else’s life should be the loss of the criminal’s life, and that doing so will deter other people from committing murder.

                Many believe the capital punishment is cruel and unusual because it is what remained of an old society where slavery and corporal punishment were commonplace. Executions may be considered barbaric and should have no place in a civilized society. Arguing against capital punishment, Amnesty International believes that "The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state in the name of justice. Capital punishment also denies due process of law. The imposition of the death penalty is irreversible, forever depriving the accused of the opportunity to benefit from the discovery of new evidence or new laws that could reverse a conviction, or the change in their sentence. The death penalty violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. The question of how much more likely minorities are sentenced to death as opposed to whites for committing the same crimes arises. Does uneven application of the death penalty constitute a violation of the equal protection clause? Gender and racial disparities in executions may suggest the death penalty is unfair. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, “the death penalty system in the US is applied in an unfair and unjust manner against people, largely dependent on how much money they have, the skill of their attorneys, race of the victim and where the crime took place. People of color are far more likely to be executed than white people, especially if the victim is white.” Our system is undoubtedly imperfect, so how can an imperfect system ensure that only guilty people are executed? The answer is they can’t. The question now arises of what the consequences should be for executing an innocent person.  The American Civil Liberties Union has concluded innocent people are too often sentenced to death. Since 1973, over 138 people have been released from death rows in 26 states because of innocence. Nationally, at least one person is exonerated for every 10 that are executed. We as a society should move away from Hammurabi’s “eye for an eye” belief. There are also those who believe the death penalty is essential. Some argue that the death penalty may give peace of mind can be brought to those families devastated by these criminals, with the safety of knowing that these people have no possibility of hurting again.. I believe a life sentence could still give those families their peace of mind. Others believe the enforcement of the death penalty can prevent future crimes because it may instill fear in criminals. In my opinion, it can send the wrong message: why kill people to show killing is wrong.

Is Outsourcing Harming the American Economy?

Outsourcing is the transfer of control of a process or product to a supplier. Companies may outsource for the financial gains they receive. Outsourcing may help companies avoid of burdensome regulations, high taxes, high energy costs, and unreasonable costs that may be associated with defined benefits in labor union contracts and taxes for government mandated benefits.

                Some may argue that outsourcing is harming the American economy because it reduces the employment opportunity. People who lose their jobs due to outsourcing must find new jobs. People who are laid off may find new jobs that they may not be as qualified for as their old jobs. The loss of worker income negatively impacts the economy, since these unemployed workers cannot buy goods and services .Businesses outsourcing jobs do not need to maintain facilities in the United States so they are not taxed. The government is unable to profit off the services it supplies. Because large companies are able to outsource, they can reduce the prices of their products, which harms the small companies who cannot outsource. However, the insourced jobs make up for some of the outsourced jobs. Companies such as Toyota, Fiat, Hyundai, Nintendo, Sony, and other overseas companies add jobs. Many insourced jobs are often higher paying than those outsourced.