Stoicism in the Texas Judiciary

Recently, former Texas inmates have filed lawsuits because DNA testing has exonerated their criminal charges. These men were wrongfully accused of their said crimes and should be rightfully compensated for their many years in prison. One inmate in particular was supposed to receive 80,000 dollars a year for every year he spent in the state penitentiary. The Texas judiciary would only grant him 20,000 dollars a year for his 14 year sentence due to the loopholes in the judicial system. Also, he would only get 3 months worth of the total sum due to him.

How can they get away with making a faulty conviction and not pay the consequences? Since he was on parole prior to the criminal conviction, Texas law prevents him from benefiting because of his concurrent sentence. The state attorney’s office states that, “parole is a continuation of a criminal sentence served outside of prison” (Austin American Statesman). It has always been my impression that parole was a separate institution away from prison, not an extension of it. I don’t think that is ethically right of them to marginalize the impact they have had on the inmate’s lives. If this is how they treat citizens that have had their lives taken from them, I don’t want to live in Texas anymore. I think the Texas Judiciary needs to take into consideration the level of the crimes that were committed prior to sentencing before making the decision to cut compensation. By gauging past crimes, it will help differentiate the people that committed small crimes from the people that have committed large or the same crime.

Discipline or lack thereof?

Fundamentally, education is the most important aspect of social and economic progression in our modern world. It helps create better lives financially, and more informed citizens to tackle impeding problems. Once the “key” to this world is handed over to our generation, we will need to be more educated and conversant than the last generation. Personally, I don’t think my generation is ready to grasp reality and the leadership needed to sustain a better world. My bleak proposition is based on today’s educational system and how students seem to have a more inverted approach to learning.

Dan, the writer of "Education.....The Governor's responsibility?" in his blog Texas my Texas, makes some good points about the attitude that Texas government has towards education and the condition in which teachers are merely babysitters more than educators. He focuses on the statistics in the first half of this commentary, which shows that 40 percent of the Texas budget is spent on education. This information should be absolutely appalling to the readers that have recently gone through the secondary educational system and have learned nothing significant their 15 or so years consumed by “learning.” It makes me wonder if the education budget is efficiency used and propagated. The budget versus the learning output of students is not the only problem prevalent in educational system; the government can’t always throw money at problems and always expect a positive outcome in the end. Also, Dan makes a good point on how the indifferent attitudes of parents’ towards education often affect the well being of their children. More likely than not, it is the parent’s fault if their children act up in school because they have learned discipline, or the lack of from them. It is utterly irresponsible for parents not teach their child have to behave or act, especially at an institution that is helping them gain a better future.

Prop 1

As eligible voters make it to the polls this week for early voting or this coming week on November 2^nd, I urge all fellow Austinites to vote for Prop 1. Proposition 1 will provide renovation to many transportation faults in infrastructure around the city. It will mainly focus on repairing roads, providing wider sidewalks, and making more bicycle routes without having to raise taxes. If passed, the government will issue 90 million dollars in bonds in order to relieve some congestion and inaccessibility that is prevalent in the city. More specifically, the money will go towards building sidewalks, crosswalks, and planting trees on the east side of Riverside drive. They plan on taking advantage of the low construction costs because of the recessional prices are around 30 percent lower. Also, they plan on extending the hike and bike trail on Lady Bird Lake 1.1 miles to the east.

Critics argue that the creators should have separated this bill into two sections because it is combining a traffic issue with a parks and recreation issue. Also, they disputed that they should be voted on separately. I think the creators were full aware of doing this because they sought after the people that want to relieve the traffic related matters first and foremost. It is like when Congress adds earmarks to certain bills that pass through the House of Representatives and the Senate. I do agree with that opposing opinion, but this proposition is better than not receiving financial backing for the infrastructure repairs. Even though there are additional valid arguments, I still don’t see anything negative as a result of this proposition. In the short term it will create more construction jobs for the unemployed and in the long term it will help alleviate the emissions that plague the environment.

Change in DWI laws

Should law enforcement focus on reckless driving or the alcohol content of the driver? Grits for Breakfast comments on the recent DWI laws and whether or not they should changed based on statistical analysis. This blog entry cites another article, in which Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo presents substantial information on the fallacies of the current systematic procedures for evaluating drunk drivers. He testifies that drivers with a lower BAC were more likely to cause more fatal accidents than those with a BAC .08 to .10. Also, he states that people that use cell phones when they drive have the same impairment as people with the BAC of .08. He correlates between the increase of traffic related fatalities and the .08 alcohol law in 2000, and states how roadblocks are a waste of time trying to catch the destructive drunk drivers. This blog entry targets the people that have been affected by DWI laws and people who want to promote a more efficient way of determining the DWI laws.

In my opinion, I don’t think people should be automatically punished for driving over the BAC unless they are driving erratically and destructive. The Police department should implement a more lenient evaluation of the BAC itself, and focus more on the capabilities of the driver and their way of maintaining normal driver behavior. I think the current system is a trap for young adults that are drawn into the alcohol culture because the police know that more times than not that young adults aren’t going to drink just one drink at a bar or drinking establishment. I don’t agree with excessive drinking and driving, but I do think that DWI’s have hindered many young and old people’s lives.

A Loss in the Texas Educational System

Does the Texas Board of Education have the moral right to rewrite and change significant subjects in textbooks? An anonymous writer comments on the current affirmation of the Texas Board of Education’s limit on information about Islam in textbooks. The commentary tackles the narrow-mindedness of the school board and how they are limiting the students from learning an essential religion that is the second largest in the world. Also, it addresses the power and influence the school board has over the publication of textbooks, and rather or not they want to include, for example, Jefferson’s proposition on the separation of church and state. This commentary doesn’t have strong evidence supporting it’s claims, but it implies the clash of cultural and religious integrity of the devote Christians. It presents a more objective view of education as a whole, and how a dominating religious bias shouldn’t tamper with it. This article is targeted towards liberal-minded people, whom don’t want to skew the future generations knowledge of the world, and attacks the incompetence of the conservative, and their choice to edit knowledge.

I agree, and think that changing important aspects of education would hinder the future generations perception of history, culture, and religion. I don’t think overly religious and biased people should be able to take out historical figures or limit the information on other religious entities. If these changes are made, it will perpetually diminish the perception of the Islamic community. We will culturally and ethically move farther and farther away from these people instead of trying to understand them and their religious choices.

Immigration

Can two different political and social ideologies ever come to a pragmatic solution to the current illegal immigration debate? In my opinion, I don’t think there will be an evident change in policy for a long time because of how complex the issue is due to the many underlining angles of the situation. For example, the struggle for State versus Federal authority, societal influences, in which people either see immigrants as being productive or problematic to American society, and the legality of the issue. That being said, we need to provide a systematic compromise that is underlined by a federal law, which would give leniency to the States to provide the aspects of legalization.

The editorial I choose tackles this issue on immigration in a biased, but objective way. It addresses whether or not states should have the right to have legal authority to enforce a law that’s enacted by the states. If it did come to fruition, the editorial states that profiling could be problematic and faulty in trying to evaluate the legal citizens from the illegal immigrants. Moreover, it affirms that the federal system on immigration is essentially “kaput” and the federal government should handle it. Also, it establishes the ideal of a fair compromise between both polarized positions, in which deportation and amnesty are not tangible fixes. This editorial is worth reading because of its short, informative message, which gives incite to a defining point in political and social history. Even though Texas has decided to side with Arizona on their stance on the issue, I think Texas will be likely to change their minds because the majority of the citizens are in fact of Hispanic decent. All in all, we all are the decedents of immigrants, and should be vigilant to domestic affairs that could potentially be detrimental to the ideology of the United States and Texas.

Link