Death Penalty

Spencer Heflin

Critical Thinking Blog

Death Penalty

Humans are innately flawed with bias. We hold bias towards those unlike ourselves, towards those who live different lifestyles…even towards those whose skin is a different color. Society is aware of the many biases that pervade our streets, yet it continues to make unwarranted judgments. The most unwarranted and selfish judgment society makes is that of defining the value of a person’s life. The death penalty does just that—it deems one human life less valuable than others. Committing a crime does not strip someone of their humanity and certainly does not give others permission to do so either. The death penalty should be made illegal in the United States due to the fact that it violates moral, ethical, and economic standards.

The value of human life seems to be ignored when the death penalty is invoked. The death penalty denies basic human rights and seems to reject the idea that “human life has intrinsic value” (Robinson 2). There is no one person in the world where one can argue their life has absolutely no significance. The death penalty weakens this intrinsic value of human life; it is too important to be snuffed out by anyone, even the state.

There is unfairness in the death penalty because it does not take into account the mentally ill, classism, racism, and sexism. Should the mentally ill be put to death if they do not know better? I do not believe so because some do not have conscious control over their actions. The mentally ill should be tried case by case because the judicial system fails to realize that in some extreme circumstances people cannot control themselves. There was a study conducted by a Texas Civil rights group that claimed that out of 2 dozen convicted criminals on death row, “all had been so seriously abused during childhood that they probably all suffered from brain damage” (Robinson 2). This shows that the justice system does not take into account mental illnesses when not doing so is ignorant. This civil rights group also suggested that, “women convicted of murder are almost never executed” (Robinson 2). This quote proves that court systems often prejudice against men. Furthermore, according to a 1986 study in Georgia persons who killed, “whites were four times more likely to be sentenced to death than convicted killers of non-whites” (Robinson 2). This illustrates the black and white difference in the judicial system and the racist use of the death penalty. According to Stephen Bright, a defense lawyer for convicted death row inmates, “defense lawyers are often incompetent” (Bright). He commented that many of the defense lawyers had fallen asleep during their client’s trials and we not specifically trained to deal with death penalty cases. In many cases, “district attorneys are given unrestricted discretion” (Robinson 2), to the use of the death penalty. Most D.A.’s are not monitored or regulated at all and can seek the death penalty for anyone they see fit.

The chance of error is also present in every death penalty case because convicted murderers are often killed and later found innocent or pardoned. A recent study showed that, “at least 350 people between 1900 and 1985 in America might have been innocent of the crime for which they were convicted, and could have been sentenced to death” (Robinson 2). The legal system only provides guidelines; it is not always right or wrong. There is always some chance of error but, when someone’s life is at stake, cases should be inspected more carefully so numbers like 350 will not occur.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union, “capital punishment is barbarous” (Bedau 11), and the article goes on to suggest that the death penalty is cruel and unusual and inhumane. This is because in some places of the world people are still executed by hanging, firing squads, and electrocution. It is undeniable that these are inhumane ways of killing people because they do not minimize pain. When something is inhumane it lacks pity or compassion and making death a painful process does not show either.

According to an article on the politics of the death penalty, the families of the prisoners put to death usually also suffer. The article comments that, “the prisoner’s family must suffer from seeing their loved one put to death by the state, as well as going through the emotionally-draining appeals process” (Messerli 2). On one hand, the family of the victim is suffering because they have just had a loved one killed; however, killing off the criminal is only hurting his/her family as well. Not only does the death penalty hurt multiple families at once but is also useless in terms of revenge. The tolerance article also mentions that, “killing a murderer does not bring his victim back to life. It achieves nothing but the death of still another person” (Robinson 2). I believe that revenge cannot be accomplished through the death penalty as stated in the previous quote. It is like the saying “an eye for an eye would make the world blind” I believe that the death penalty accomplishes very little.

The death penalty also has negative economic connotations because it would be more cost efficient to keep someone in prison for life than to kill them. The politics article illustrated that, “most people don’t realize that carrying out one death sentence costs 2-5 times more than keeping that same criminal in prison for the rest of his life” (Messerli 1). This is because of the appeals process and additional required procedures. It is wasting the taxpayer’s money to put someone to death if it is cheaper to keep them in jail. This same article suggests that, “life in prison is a worse punishment and a more effective deterrent” (Messerli 1). With the death penalty, the prisoner’s suffering is over almost instantaneously. While it might not be compassionate, if people know they will suffer when they go to jail, it will deter them from committing crimes in the first place.

The death penalty has no benefit, whether one looks at it from a moral or material perspective. Killing a murderer does nothing more than perpetuate the cycle of violence and condone killing. In a society that promotes peace and compassion, the death penalty makes no sense. It is completely counter-productive to the overall moral goals of society, as well as places undue financial burdens on society. The economic aspect does not, however, overshadow that fact that the death penalty is morally wrong. With the death penalty, our justice system becomes the murderer.

Works Cited

Bedau, Hugo Adam. “The Case Against the Death Penalty.” American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved: May 11, 2010. http://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/case-against-death-penalty

Bright, Stephen: Gave a lecture at Elon that I attended

Messerli, Joe. “Should the Death Penalty Be Banned As a Form of Punishment?” Balanced Politics. Retrieved May 9, 2010. http://www.balancedpolitics.org/death_penalty.htm

Robinson, Bruce A. “Capital Punishment: The Death Penalty.” Religious Tolerance. Copyright” 1995 to 2007 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. Originally published: 1995-JUN-8. Last updated 2007-AUG-04. http://www.religioustolerance.org/executb.htm

Ethical Vegetarianism?

A myriad of studies on the adaptation of vegetarian lifestyles in industrialized countries (that is, in situations where dietary restriction is not a necessity, but an individual choice) have drawn the conclusion that there are two basic rationales behind the switch from an omnivorous diet to a wholly vegetarian one: perceived health benefits or ethical concerns over the treatment of animals in captivity (Fox and Ward) (Jabs, Devine and Sobal). The health benefits of a meatless diet are well documented. Vegetarians who consume a well-balanced diet are less likely to suffer from nutrient deficiencies as well as less likely to suffer from chronic diseases, such as diabetes, hypertension, and hypercholesterolemia (high blood cholesterol) (Sabaté).

Less studied, however, are the ethical implications of a diet rich in animal products. Prior to the 19^th century, the most ardent proponents of a vegetarian diet were philosophers who argued that innocent creatures should not be killed for food, or who cited religious principles that abstaining from meat would help one to transcend the physical world (Wharton). The tendency of meat to rot and foul quickly in an age before proper refrigeration only helped to promote the notion that flesh was, in some way, tainted (Wharton).

In a modern context, progressive outrage over “factory farming,” unethical livestock handling, the rise of the “pro-organic” movement, and fears of foodborne illness has led to a flurry of pro-vegetarian or –vegan sentiment. Recent publications and documentaries such as the Academy Award nominated Food, Inc., though not explicitly “pro-vegetarian”, have dramatically increased public awareness of the meat packaging and livestock industry. In response, organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), alongside conventional media outlets have made efforts to make blatantly unethical practices known to the general public.

The question, then, often posited either explicitly or implicitly alongside such news, is whether one should, given the availability and variety of meat substitutes, cease to consume animal products because of a perceived moral obligation.

Most basic ethical theories would, at least in some form, provide a resounding “yes.” Though few, if any, would go so far as to call a nonhuman “animal” sentient, many philosophers at least recognize animals as fellow beings, and thus deserving of respect. Socrates, in Plato’s Republic determines that slaughtering animals for food will potentially hinder “us in achieving happiness” (Republic 50-1). In Crito, Plato goes further to state that, “One should never do wrong in return, nor do any man harm, no matter what he may have done to you” (Five Dialogues 49c). Man and beast are not equitable, but the same theory could be applied: eating meat, without explicit need (i.e. extreme hunger, lack of other nutrition), harms the consumer morally because of its lack of necessity and hence, cruelness.

Immanuel Kant’s Ends-Means Problematic, which states essentially that each individual should be treated not as the ends to another’s happiness, but as a means, through which mutual satisfaction can be gained, does not explicitly address animals, but can be readily applied to the concept of a moral obligation to abstain from meat. Animals, Kant addresses in other texts, are not sentient, and thus, may be utilized as a means to human happiness (Egonsson 473).

However, this idea contradicts Kant’s own Categorical Imperative ([One is] never to act otherwise than so that [he] could also will that [his] maxim should become a universal law”) (Kant 27). According to some ethical scholars, it can be argued within reason that killing and consuming animals for food corrupts human sensitivity to animal, and subsequently, human cruelty, which defies Kant’s Imperative (Egonsson 480-3). According to a variety of reports, including a Senate address by Senator Robert Byrd, there is demonstrable cruelty within the livestock raising industry (Byrd). Therefore, willingly supporting an industry that derives profits from the mistreatment or abuse of animals is immoral on the grounds that one is indirectly condoning human desensitization towards violence, and is hence unethical.

Even John Stewart Mill’s (or Jeremy Bentham’s) Utilitarian principles must follow this same line of reasoning. In Utilitarianism, Mill advances the theory that happiness is the end (in keeping with Kant’s ideals): “happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable, as an end; all other things being only desirable as means to that end” (Mill 35). One would have to apply then, the same logic as is applied to Kantian theory. That is, the only way to achieve universal happiness is to advocate actions that facilitate only happiness as an end result. If animal cruelty begets insensitivity to human cruelty, and animal cruelty is present within the livestock industry, eating meat is not a means to universal happiness, and is inherently immoral.

The purpose of ethical theory is to attempt to find a universal through which the happiness and well being of the entire populace might be achieved – a utopia of sorts. Though each of the above mentioned schools of thought have been proven to be flawed in some way that keeps them from being truly universal, each has also been shown to be a viable moral code and way through which one can nearly objectively judge the morality of their actions. With that said, neither Platonic, Kantian, nor Mill’s ethical theories will, when tested to their full limitations, provide for the ethical consumption of mass-produced meat or animal products.

Works Cited

Byrd, Robert C. "On Cruelty to Animals." Address. Washington D.C. 9 July 2001.

Animal Welfare Institute. Animal Welfare Institute. Web. 27 Apr. 2010.

Dan, Egonsson. "Kant’s Vegetarianism." The Journal of Value Inquiry 31 (1997): 473-

83. Print.

Fox, Nick and Katie Ward. "Health, ethics and environment: A qualitative study of

vegetarian motivations." Appetite 2.3 (2008): 422-9.

Jabs, Jennifer, Carol M Devine and Jeffery Sobal. "Model of the Process of Adopting

Vegetarian Diets: Health Vegetarians and Ethical Vegetarians ." Journal of

Nutrition Education and Behavior 30.4 (1998): 196-202.

Kant, Immanuel. The Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals.

T.K. Abbott, trans. New York: Prometheus, 1988. Print.

Mill, John Stewart. Utilitarianism. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 2001. Print.

Plato. Five Dialogues: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Meno, Phaedo.

G. Grube, trans. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 2002. Print.

---, Thomas Taylor, and Theodore Wratislaw. The Republic of Plato. London [usw.:

Scott, 1890. Web. 26 Apr. 2010.

Sabaté, Joan. "The contribution of vegetarian diets to health and disease: a paradigm

shift?" American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 78.3 (2003): 502S-7S.

Wharton, James C. "Historical Development of Vegetarianism." The American

Journal of Clinical Nutrition 59 (1994): 1103S-9S.

Unreliability of Eye Witness Accounts

The court system of the United States is controversial in its decision making and basis for law. Rulings constantly come under scrutiny for different factors relevant to the application of law and opinions of court justices. The way these hearings decide on certain opinions and rulings comes from attorneys using evidence to portray the strength of what they are trying to prove. The most common source of evidence used in the court of law is the eye witness account.

Attorneys will do anything in their power to convince a grand jury to support their case. The portrayal of evidence is the best way to do so. It is hard not to be convinced by forensic evidence or photographic and video footage. But what seems to be most convincing is the testimonies given by real human beings who may be connected to a case. Most of these witnesses make claims about things they have heard, things they know about a particular individual, or things they may have seen. While this practice is used more than any other in the court of law, it seems to be the most unreliable.

Before witnesses take the stand to present their knowledge on a case, they swear on the bible to speak nothing but the truth. This is meant to provide the court with a truthful and accurate source of evidence, but only by assuming this person no longer possesses the willingness to lie after swearing on the bible. This is another flaw in the court system, since there are no immediate punishments for lying in court, even after swearing on the bible. What the court must consider is that the witness must support their own case as well, which will lead them to say anything which does so, even if it is a blatant fallacy.

One case pertaining to false eye witness accounts is the case of Bill Clinton, who lied under oath about his affairs with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton was thought of as a reliable eye witness but felt compelled to lie because it helped his case and saw no immediate castigation. I feel the best case to portray the lack of credibility held by eye witness accounts is the Duke Lacrosse case in 2006. In this case, an African American female college student, Crystal Mangum, who worked part time as a dancer and escort, accused members of the Duke lacrosse team of raping her at a party. To facilitate her lies, the Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong, who was to soon run for new office, pushed for the prosecution of these Duke students in order to gain the African American vote and help his chances at being elected.

Crystal Mangum was a just another witness taking advantage of the flawed court system. She wanted to support her case in her search for money and knew that lying under oath would bring no immediate reprimand. Thus she lied about the actions of the students and was supported in doing so.

Based on the lies and utterly false accounts of Mangum, a “reliable witness,” three students were temporarily suspended from Duke University, the 2006 lacrosse season was cancelled, and the team’s coach was forced to resign. Fortunately, over time, the court was able to see obvious discrepancies between certain alibis and tests, and determine the true innocence of those accused.

While eye witness accounts can provide crucial information in determining the outcome of a case, they should not be relied upon so heavily. Hard evidence that can be proven to be fact should be the ultimate factors in determining case rulings. It is an unfortunate part of the court system that when we rely on the honesty of people we often fall very short of finding the truth.

Crystal Gail Mangum: Profile of the Duke Rape Accuser. Fox News. 11 April 2007.

Beard, Aaron (2007-08-31). "Judge Finds Duke Prosecutor in Comtempt". Associated Press. Retrieved 2007-09-03.

Duke accuser lying, second stripper says. MSNBC. 13 Oct 2006.

"Prosecutor Mike Nifong Removed From Duke Case". CBS News. 2007-01-14. Retrieved 2007-11-09.

Hollywood and Self- Righteous Religion

The entertainment industry in the United States is a powerhouse not only in its field of production and its control over pop culture, but in its ability to use personal views and values to grab the attention of the masses. Actors, musicians, models, and industry leaders are at the forefront of American culture. People both idolize their lifestyles and epitomize them as “Americans;” their opinions are broadcast and widely publicized, making them grow in influential strength. American culture is defined by its food, clothing, habits, occupations, and, in many cases, the methods and faces of its entertainment industry. They set the standard for the “new” and the “popular.” According to Allen J. Scott, a scholar researching for the Center for Globalization and Policy Research at the University of California, states, “Hollywood is everywhere . . . and its presence is felt across the entire globe” (Scott 33). The entertainment prowess in the United States is evident in even surprising circumstances, such as religious practices. Religion is a controversial topic that appears frequently in popular entertainment; Hollywood movies are prime examples of improper and ill- timed representation of religious beliefs. The use of movies to promote, discredit, or satirize religious views is wrong and should cease.

Religion is a personal experience that one develops as they age and mature for reasons only they can truly express. Some people are religious from birth due to family beliefs and worship, others find spiritual guidance on their own as they learn and experience, while many never find spirituality. Whether a person does or does not have religious beliefs is their business and theirs alone. The first amendment protects religious freedom of all U.S. citizens, as well as lack thereof, but Hollywood consistently raises controversy over its representation of spirituality in its films. Some movies contradict religious principles, such as The Last Temptation of Christ and Dogma, while others attempt to promote them, such as Battlefield Earth. In certain cases controversy rises due to the appearance given to a religious group, as was the case with The Passion of the Christ. The movie industry frequently oversteps its boundaries to make a statement and this practice should not be supported.

The Last Temptation of Christ features the Biblical story of the sacrifice of Jesus with a twist: He is given the choice not to die on the cross and save humanity. Jesus chooses to live a normal life, instead. This movie greeted many protests from Christians within the U.S. and is said to be one of the most controversial religious movies. A movie that takes liberties with the event that defines the Christian faith is offensive. Christianity is the most widely practiced religion in the world, with over two billion followers. There are appropriate times to use artistic license, such as with historic events or commonly- accepted fictitious stories, but when much of the world believes that they were “saved” by a specific occurrence, altering said story for amusement purposes is knowingly going to offend the masses (Rossi and Dodd).

Dogma, the story of two fallen angels who come to Earth searching for Jesus’ last descendent who happens to be a woman working at an abortion clinic, is another example of Hollywood unnecessarily pushing the boundaries of Americans’ patience. In order to anger audiences further, additional characters include, the “13th disciple of Jesus (who claimed he was left out of the Bible because he's black) and God herself (played by Alanis Morrisette). Foul-mouthed comedian George Carlin has a cameo as a cardinal, and the f-word is used more than 100 times in the film” (Marcus). Once again, the entertainment industry took the liberty of scrapping Biblically- based beliefs for artistic purposes. The director, Kevin Smith, was faced with widespread Catholic protests and even received several death threats. When people are offended enough to threaten a man’s life it is apparent that he went too far for the sake of entertainment (Marcus).

Battlefield Earth is a movie based on a novel by L. Ron Hubbard, science fiction writer and founder of the Church of Scientology. Starring John Travolta, a follower and promoter of Scientology, this movie tells the Scientologist church’s story of human origin. The story features an alien lord, Xenu, who exiled human beings to Earth, where we have stayed ever since. Their theory of human origin on Earth is one of the most criticized scriptures of Scientology. While the first amendment protects freedom of religion, disguising religious scripture within a seemingly benign, if not poorly executed, sci- fi adventure is shady and shows Hollywood’s desperation to cause a stir. Films are supposed to entertain audiences and often they are based on a message, but the need to gain notoriety and cause memorable controversy has become the main goal of Hollywood. The people we pay to amuse us now seem to believe they have a right to force their personal beliefs upon American viewers. A certain amount of bias is likely to be present in works of “art” but faith and various other private matters are now splattered across the silver screen (Marcus).

Scientology is not the only religion that has attempted to push a spiritual agenda through Hollywood’s clever guise. The Passion of the Christ was greeted by affronted viewers; much of the Jewish community felt the movie blamed their Hebrew ancestors for the death of Jesus, as in accordance with the Gospel of St. John, and called director Mel Gibson an anti-Semitist. All the while, the movie’s production team stated that “Jesus used to be king in Hollywood, but they crucified him. We're trying to bring him back" (Dodd). The movie was a cunning ploy to regain a positive Christian outlook in Hollywood. The marketing for this movie obtained a spot in the list of highest grossing movies of all time. Although freedom of religion and expression are admired and defended in America, movies that are overtly offensive to a large section of the population are unnecessary and crude. Even if the Christian community endorsed the reestablishment of Christ in entertainment, slighting other religious groups in the process is not the “Christian way” to achieve their goal (Dodd).

The United States is responsible for over half of the world’s box office profits and grosses billions of dollars every year (Highbeam). Hollywood is the center of the film and entertainment industry within the U.S., affording it prestige and prominence in both national and global society. Due to its supremacy in the world of leisure, the big names in the industry have taken liberties where they should not have. The promotion of personal principles, as with spirituality, has been increasingly prominent. Directors, producers, and actors, who hold no authority over average Americans other than fame, have adopted the idea that they can promote, discredit and insult whatever and whomever they please. This is a practice that should not be allowed in American culture. Freedom is an important aspect of our culture and lifestyle, but overstepping the boundaries set for entertainers is an alarmingly common activity in today’s society. There is a right and wrong time and fashion in which to present an idea, belief or personal preference, and movies do not fit within those standards.

Sources:

Dodd, Patton. "The Most Controversial Religious Movies of All Time." Rev. of 

The Passion of the Christ, dir. Mel Gibson. beliefnet. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 May 2010. <http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/Movies/2008/09/The-Most-Controversial-Religious-Movies-of-All-Time.aspx?p=9>. 

Highbeam Research. "Fun and profit. (Hollywood film industry)." Highbeam 

Research. N.p., 2010. Web. 13 May 2010. .

Marcus, Lilit. "The Most Controversial Religious Movies of All Time." Rev. of 

Battlefield Earth, prod. John Travolta. beliefnet. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 May 2010. . 

Marcus, Lilit. "The Most Controversial Religious Movies of All Time." Rev. of 

Dogma, dir. Kevin Smith. beliefnet. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 May 2010. <http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/Movies/2008/09/The-Most-Controversial-Religious-Movies-of-All-Time.aspx?p=3>.

Rossi, Holly, and Patton Dodd. "The Most Controversial Religious Movies of 

All Time ." Rev. of The Last Temptation of Christ, dir. Martin Scorsese. beliefnet. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 May 2010. 

        The-Most-Controversial-Religious-Movies-of-All-Time.aspx?p=11>.

Scott, Allen J. "Hollywood and the World: the Geography of the Motion- 

Picture Distribution and Marketing." Review of International Political Economy 11.1 (2004): 33- 61. JSTOR. Web. 15 Apr. 2010. . 

Underage Drinking is all Mental

Andrew Brearton

Underage Drinking is all Mental

Ever since the introduction of a minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) in the U.S., there have been constant debates and arguments over the effects of alcohol on minors and whether or not it is suitable for people under the age of twenty-one to consume it. Every person has his or her own opinion on this topic, but usually do not have significant knowledge or facts about their stance. Typically teens want the drinking age lowered to eighteen so that they can drink legally. This is where the issue of the drinking age starts. The mindset of teens between sixteen and twenty is they want to drink to get drunk. If the behavior and mindset of these teens were not so focused on being drunk, then there would be more chance for a lowered drinking age. The problem with trying to get the drinking age lowered is the fact that there have been numerous studies to support the laws that govern drinking in the United States. Some major points in the debate for lowering the minimum legal drinking age are: the current percentage of underage drinking currently; the increase of drunk driving and crashes amongst underage people; and the physical damages to the adolescent body. Dr. Richard Spoth, Mark Greenberg, and Robert Turrisi compiled a list of negative effects of alcohol on teens and ways in which to prevent underage drinking, while at the same time supporting the current drinking age. The researchers try to point out the common problems which plague parents who are worried about their child’s behavior with alcohol. Between knowledgeable people who understand the argument about lowering the drinking age, the ultimate goal for both sides is to stop irresponsible drinking and create a safer environment for the whole community. The best method in which to achieve this goal is to lower the MLDA to nineteen.

A reason that the MLDA is so high is because of the youth risk behavior surveys handed out in schools that come back with results of high levels of drug, sex, and alcohol rates because students like to mess with the system, but if the MLDA was lowered to nineteen, the surveys would pose better and less false results. According to one of these surveys, Monitoring the Future Survey, forty-one percent of eighth graders, sixty-three percent of tenth graders, and seventy-five percent of twelfth graders have admitted to consuming alcohol at some point in their lives (Spoth, et al. 32-53). These numbers are incredibly high for such young children and teens. One argument that is used with this type of data is that if the age of being able to purchase alcohol is lowered, then the availability of alcohol is severely increased for minors. The ability to purchase alcohol earlier will only further the problem at hand with underage drinking; however, this type of data drawn from a survey of students is not reliable. From previous experience with these surveys, students tend to lie about what they do. For instance, a student will say that they drink all the time, take drugs, and have sex on the survey even if they do not, because some of them, motivated by a desire to be popular, want to appear cool and funny. Data taken from surveys given to students in schools is a highly unreliable way to obtain accurate information regarding the amount of drinking occurring in underage students.

Though students do joke about the effects involved with alcohol, they do not fully comprehend the idea that it is a proven fact that alcohol does damage to the adolescent brain and the body. Scientific research has proven this to be true, and it is part of the reason why the drinking age is currently set at twenty-one. This is the strongest reason for having the MLDA at twenty-one, because students’ academics and general wellbeing are affected. An issue with this argument is the fact that underage kids who are participating in drinking are more likely to do more damage to themselves simply because drinking is illegal. Underage drinking primarily consists of binge drinking and kids often suffer from alcohol poisoning as a result. The reason for binge drinking, for a teen, is because the association of alcohol to them is to just get drunk. The damage done by this style of drinking, compared to drinking responsibly at a younger age, is significantly greater. As a result, by having a younger drinking age, theoretically, less damage to adolescent bodies can be done when they drink. Though time and guidance will be needed to correct the current mentality of kids who participate in underage drinking, the end result will lead to a healthier style of drinking and overall less harm done to adolescents.

When teens have been binge drinking and the party then gets broken up, the teens will try to leave the party as quickly as possible, and as a result drive drunk. One of largest and most continuous issues regarding the MDLA is the problem of underage drunk driving. Studies have been conducted which claim that “traffic crashes pose the single greatest mortality risk…” when the association with underage drinking is made (Spoth, Greenberg, Turrisi 53). There are significant amounts of evidence that supports that when states lowered drinking ages back in the 1970’s that there was an increase in crashes associated with drinking. Furthermore, there is evidence that supports that underage drinking increases the chance that adolescents will drive under the influence. If the MLDA were to be lowered to nineteen and proper knowledge and usage of alcohol were to be given by parents to their children, then the amount of underage drunk driving would decrease. A lot of times kids in high school will drive drunk, in an effort to get home from a party; the reason why they drove home under the influence is because they do not want their parents to find out that they were illegally drinking. Furthermore, the kids will try to leave a party if it were to be broken up by the police which causes a substantial amount of driving under the influence. This happens more than people realize. The laws which are in place that govern drinking directly affect the choices kids make to drink and drive. Also, parents should responsibly introduce their own children to alcohol via beer and wine initially. From there that stand point the parents can then introduce hard liquor to their kids at their own rate. This will help to show teens the affects of alcohol. Most kids are introduced to drinking to get drunk by friends. This leads to the mindset of drinking for the purpose of being drunk instead of drinking to appreciate the drinks. By showing adolescents at an early age, in the home, that enjoying alcohol responsibly is good, the mentality of underage drinking would be different.

Personally, I have been raised by English parents who steadily introduced alcohol to me when I was fourteen. I was raised drinking beer and wine with meals to enjoy them, and now I have certain appreciation for alcohol which the majority of American kids do not possess. Because of the way my step-father introduced alcohol to me, before I had a license, I experienced the affects of alcohol. From this I learned how bad driving under the influence is because of how I functioned when I have consumed alcohol. Though this seems irresponsible to many American parents, all of my friends at home (with English and Scottish parents) learned about alcohol in the same way. We still party and enjoy ourselves, but we have the knowledge about being safe which we learned through drinking with our parents and not our friends. Overall, I am safer and more responsible when I drink illegally because of how I was raised. If parents in the United States adopted this mentality in teaching kids about alcohol instead of just banning and shunning it altogether, then the instances of underage drunk driving could be lowered.

Given the recent debates starting in 2000 about changing the legal drinking age, numerous studies have been conducted in an effort to support the current MLDA; however, the information from these studies neglects to explain the opposite side of the issue and what could be done to change the way that adolescents use alcohol. The United States is the only country which has a minimum drinking age of twenty-one. Also, America is considered one of the nations with the worst cases of alcohol abuse, yet people still struggle to make the connection between how people outside the United States are raised around alcohol and learn to use it more responsibly and thus abuse alcohol less. Scientists are trying to prove, through the use of invalid data, that the amount of underage drinking is a major problem and is constantly growing. To continue supporting their argument that the drinking age should be twenty-one, the researchers constantly point towards drunk driving as a major problem with underage drinking. They neglect to look into the reasons for drunk driving and miss important evidence that shows why lowering the drinking age is better. Though the damage caused by drinking still exists, teens will still drink. By lowering the drinking age, less damage can be done due to responsible drinking. With proper education by parents and the lowering of the MLDA, there will be less cases of alcohol poisoning, less drunk driving and overall, a much healthier style of drinking.

Works Cited

Spoth, Richard, Mark Greenberg, and Robert Turrisi. "Overview of Preventive Interventions

Addressing Underage Drinking." Alcohol Research & Health 32.1 (2009): 53-66. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 1 Mar. 2010.

Cucchiaro S, Ferreira Jr J, Sicherman A. The Effect of the 18-Year-Old Drinking Age on Auto

Accidents. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Operations Research Center; 1974.

How Sex on TV affects Teen Pregnancy Rates

In the past fifty years teenage pregnancies have become less a taboo and more of a mundane occurrence. As the years have progressed, television shows have become more and more lenient with what boundaries to cross, which may be a contributing factor to this phenomenon. While television shows are proven to promote some aspects of teen pregnancy, they cannot be defined as the direct cause of it, since there are many other related factors to blame such as family, friends, and education. Television shows affect the way teens look at sex and pregnancy, it is important for the people around them to make sure they have a realistic view on the consequences of sex and pregnancy, and provide information on how to prevent it.

The article “Sex on TV Increases Teen Pregnancy, Says Report” by Alice Park discusses the topic of whether or not racy content on television shows have an effect on young teenagers. It suggests that it even affects teen pregnancy rates. The article specifically argues that in America, especially, the teen pregnancy rate is double that of other industrialized nations because of the consistent exposure of sexual content in television shows. Robert Lichter, co-director of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, explains, “Before 1970, sex on TV was left to people who were in love. After 1970, recreational sex was OK, and by the 1990s it was happening twenty times as often and being presented as positive, even among teens.” Therefore, time has altered the way society views sex as seen on television. This can be considered a causal factor or teen pregnancy because the more and more it is shown as normal and regularly on television, teens will begin to think it is the norm and follow the trend of sex and pregnancy. Romance is not defined, as long term as it used to be portrayed before the 1970’s, now people view sex is the symbol of love instead of a well functioning relationship.

It seems as though, technologies of today cause families to interact less, resulting in parents and children not having close enough relationships to make it easy to talk about subjects in general, especially an intimate conversation such as sex. Due to this lack of communication the topic of sex is uncomfortable to talk about, causing the topic to be excluded all together. According to Psychologist Dave Walsh of the National Institute on Media and the Family parents are “delegating sex education to Hollywood…” (Toppo). This suggests that television is, in some cases, becoming a more prominent figure in teenager’s lives on the topic of sex than their own parents. Walsh goes on to say that it is a known fact that when teenagers are exposed to sex on television, although it does not directly tell them to have sex, watching enough of this promiscuous content will lead them to think these actions are acceptable in society. This supports the fact because it shows how great of an influence television shows have on teens to the extent that it may affect their actions. Hollywood, however gives the impression that it does not want the responsibility of educating these teens about this issue. For instance there are television shows such as “The Secret Life of The American Teenager” that airs ABC Family, which provides the audience with a disclaimer, not about the real consequences of sex and teen pregnancy, but about how important it is for parent to begin to talk to their children about this serious topic.

Due to the fact that is becoming even harder for parents to talk to their children about the topic of sex there needs to be easier ways to make the situation more comfortable. While it is proven that these television shows are related the increase in pregnancy rates, watching the television shows themselves can be a way for parents and teenagers to do something together. Therefore, making the introduction to the topic of sex much easier to bring up. According to Anita Chandra, the lead author of the sex and TV study at RAND, she states that it is definitely possible for parents to “turn these into teachable moments…and opportunities for frank discussions about sex.” (Coffey)

It is technology that not only lessens the interaction between child and parent, but also promotes the television shows that affect the children. Dr. Donald Shifrin, former chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ committee on communications notes on the idea that children are accessing television not just through the small screen TVs at home but through the computer and internet, and increasingly beginning to receive it through their cell phones as well. Shifrin states, “It’s not just ‘appointment’ television, now it’s anytime television.” (Park) With the growing accessibility to television there is almost no way to stop children from watching the racy content that comes with it. It is important to recognize that it is nearly impossible to blind teenagers from sex because it can be found anywhere, influencing them in any direction. It is starting to become more apparent that it is important for a teenagers peers, family members, and educators to notice the importance of teaching the realities of sex.

In conclusion, while it is a shown, in statistics and claims made my professional psychologists, that television shows with racy content greatly affects teenagers view on pregnancy, and increasing pregnancy rates, there are many other outside influence that become more prominent in helping to decrease the ongoing phenomenon of teenage pregnancy. Recent technology is not only seen as a device to promote the viewing of racy television shows by providing the many tools that make it possible to view the shows, but also it is seen as separation of generations between parents and teens. For example, there is not forced face-to-face communication between parent and child, due to the popular use in cell phones and Internet. Along with the decrease in communication between teens and their parents, friends have a major influence on the pressures of fitting into a certain social standard, which affect the way teens decide between what is really right for them and what seems right due to surrounding pressures. Lastly, education becomes one of the most prominent influences in a teenager’s life on the decisions they make, because these television shows are proving false portrayals of sex and pregnancy. It becomes the responsibility of educators now to teach young adults the dangers of being sexually active and how to avoid the repercussions on their decisions. It is important to portray sex and pregnancy truthfully because it has an affect on the views and lives of teenagers. As long as families are not communicating with their teenagers, as well as the pressures by peers, and the lack of education regarding sex in general that rate will only continue to increase within the next few years.

Bibliography

1. Toppo, Greg. "Study Is First To Link TV Sex To Teen Parenthood." USA Today (Nov. 2008): 4. Academic Search Premier. Web. 23 Apr. 2010

2. Park, Alice. "Sex on TV Increases Teen Pregnancy, Says Report." Time. TIME, 3 Nov. 2008. Web. 24 Apr. 2010.

3. Coffey, Laura T. "Study: Sex on TV Linked to Teen Pregnancies." TODAYshow.com. MSNBC, 3 Nov. 2008. Web. 24 Apr. 2010

4. Selman, Peter. "The Rise and Fall Of Intercountry Adoption In The 21st Century." International Social Work. Sage Journals, 2009. Web. 23 Apr. 2010