The End of The World

Last night I received an email-http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/science/29collider.html
- about a situation that could cause our world terrible turmoil. The article is about , “Two men pursuing a lawsuit in federal court in Hawaii,” who “think a giant particle accelerator that will begin smashing protons together outside Geneva this summer might produce a black hole or something else that will spell the end of the Earth — and maybe the universe.” Basically, these scientist from Switzerland have this huge device, in which they believe it can recreate what happened right before the big bang theory. However, have any of you reading this ever heard about this case, and do these physicist have the right to proceed with their plans?

Many people are so busy reading and writing articles about global warming, the war in Iraq, and impoverished countries that they have neglected a possibly very dangerous situation. These physicists have spent 14 years and $8 billion building the Large Hadron Collider, in which it will recreate the, “Energies and conditions last seen a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang.” However, the only thing that is standing in their way is the Judge in the Federal court of Hawaii who is not allowing this scientist to turn on this machine.

Do these physicists have their legal rights to turn on this device, not knowing the damages it could cause on our world and the people as well? These scientists’ rights to their freedom comes into question when what they are doing can set a precedent for a harmful future for this world, even if they are only exploring in experimental science. Walter L. Wagner and Luis Sancho challenged that the scientists at the European Center for Nuclear Research, or CERN, have considered that, “The collider could produce, among other horrors, a tiny black hole, which, they say, could eat the Earth. Or it could spit out something called a “strangelet” that would convert our planet to a shrunken dense dead lump of something called ‘“strange matter.”’ Therefore, if the Judge allows these scientist to turn on their machine, he is taking the chance of destroying the entire world. In any case, with the chance of our world being abolished, there is no room to question these physicists civil rights. No one should have the freedom to create and initiate something that could has questionable and possible life threatening consequences.
Hopefully, the lawsuit filed on March 21 in Federal District Court, in Honolulu, will, “seek a temporary restraining order prohibiting CERN from proceeding with the accelerator until it has produced a safety report and an environmental assessment.”

Hopefully, the Justice Department, which is holding the next scheduled meeting on June 16, will prevent this machine from being turned on and recognize that it is their duty to safeguard the entire world.

When Good Parents Go Bad...

The media today is constantly bashing Britney Spear’s troubled life. The media focuses on her inability to maintain certain decorum and her custody battle to keep her children. Recently, Britney’s younger sister was exploited throughout the magazines revealing that she is pregnant and due this summer. Some blame these siblings for all their mishaps and forget who the real people responsible for their outcomes are: their parents. Parents have the responsibility to raise their children in a manner that provides not only essential needs like clothing, food, medical care, etc, as well as life lessons and rules in order to help guide their child on the right path for their future. However, the Spears parents failed this guidance terribly, and because of this lack of discipline, their children’s lives are falling apart.

In the last year alone, Britney had gone through a traumatic experience with the custody over her children. But her trouble did not start with her kids. A few years ago, Britney eloped in Vegas, and then broke it off after 48 hours. Of course, she stated that she was too drunk to have actually remembered or agreed to the eloping. At that point, Britney’s parents should have been there to stop her wild partying and bring some guidance and advice to change her life for the better. But her parents never helped her change. Now, Britney is undergoing custody issues with her ex-husband, having medical examinations telling her that she is bipolar, and the media is only making it worse. If Britney’s parents want to save their daughter, they need to act quickly and show her the support and guidance that was always missing.

Because Britney had such a terrible upbringing, her sister, Jamie, who had no role model to look up to decided to live with her 19 year-old boy friend. Of course, within months, Jamie was pregnant. At first I was shocked. I thought of Jamie is a sweet innocent “Zoey 101” teenage girl who had all the right values in life. Soon I realized that she never had any guidance from her parent or sister. Because of this neglection, Jamie had no idea of the serious risks she has just placed before her. At first, Jamie exclaimed that she was going to get married this summer to the boyfriend that got her pregnant. Less than a month after that statement, Jamie withdrew her statement and said that the marriage was off. Again, we see that there are no parents helping Jamie with her life. She has no one to show her what is right or wrong.

At some level, I do not blame Jamie or Britney for the terrible situations they have put themselves into. Still, these sisters should know better than to shave their head for attention or get pregnant at 16. Most of this is common knowledge. However, with the lack of parenting in the world today, many teens have no role models to look to for guidance and when they are placed in a serious situation they do not always know the right thing to do.

The Pressure of Being a Juror

In the movie, "12 Angry Men," there was constant pressure to follow the crowd. Although some men were able to decide for themselves if the man was guilty, others were pressured into deciding based on the other intimidating jurors in the room. I think that when in a jury room all, the jurors should be made to say why they think the defendant is guilty or not, and not withhold anything that could be of use to deciding the verdict. Nevertheless, the jurors shout not have the right to say whatever they want, which may be hurtful to other jurors.
Many of the jurors in the movie seemed to be unsure of whether they really thought the defendant was guilty or not. However, once the jurors began explaining the evidence, it helped clarify what really might have happened. If the jurors had not talked out each incident and evidence involved in the murder case, the defendant would have been found guilty. Juror three, the angry one, not only had some unknown anger towards this defendant, but he manipulated others to change their vote based on his decision. Juror three should have withheld his temper, and calmly explained his reasoning’s behind his decision. However, he not only inflicted embarrassment onto many of the jurors, but some of the jurors felt insecure and weak to his authority, which is no higher than any of the other jurors.
The older juror no longer felt scared or compelled from juror 3, or any of the other jurors, and he brought up some thoughts he had about the eye witness who claimed she had seen the defendant murder his father. Since the old man had enough courage to stand up against all the other intimidating jurors, his thoughts about the evidence lead the rest of the jurors to change their votes. If jurors always withheld their thoughts and doubts about their case, many innocent people may receive a wrongful punishment.
Maybe there could be some type of establishment before the jury comes to session, and someone could not only explain the rules of being on jury, but tell them that there needs to be some type of order and manner in which the jury session is held. In addition, the jurors should know that they are not allowed to become enraged in any way that might harm a juror and compel him/her to change their vote. Furthermore, each jury must give a reasonable explanation for their decision.
Being on jury duty is never an easy task. All of the cases held within a jury are life-changing circumstances for the defendant. One of the jurors changed his vote primarily because others were, and he just wanted to leave to go to his baseball game. Jurors should not only make their decision based on what they truly believe is the truth, but the jurors should feel open to discussion about the case, and not afraid what other jurors will respond to his/her ideas, since their verdict is going to greatly effect the life of the defendant on trial.

The Sad Truth about Misdiagnosis’s in the Judicial System

Last week in class, we heard on the radio a story that took place in 1994 about a woman who was misdiagnosed HIV positive. She lived her life for 9 years thinking that she had HIV, when in fact, she was perfectly healthy. Because of this misdiagnosis, the woman had her daughter taken from her because she was not able to take care of her child and herself. In addition to finding out she had HIV, she had episodes of over drinking and ending up in prison for DUI’s. Furthermore, this woman’s family abandoned her, because they believed her HIV was contagious like any common cold. After retaking a HIV test nine years later, the woman discovered that she had never had HIV. After four years of pursuing justice from this misdiagnosis, the woman was only able to receive 2.5 million dollars. As much as this is a large amount of money, imagine what it is like to lose your family, friends, and your own child because of a misdiagnosis and the only compensation is 2.5 million dollars. There needs to be more justice.
I think that when people are misdiagnosed, they have the right to sue doctors, or whoever was responsible for the misdiagnosis, for a significant amount of money to the damages caused to the victim. I am not saying that someone who was misdiagnosed with the flu, when he/she actually had an ear infection, should be allowed to sue for millions of dollars. However, there are millions of misdiagnosed cases per year that can and have had fatal results. Many of these cases end without any imbursement.
A friend of mine was misdiagnosed with crone’s disease, and he was being treated with medication that should not have been mixed with the actual disease that the doctors missed and had found 10 years later. However, since the doctors claim that it was not their fault for the misdiagnosis, my friend's lawyer had nothing to sue against, and, therefore, he is still paying for his old medication and operations, while he is now paying for his new medication. There should be some help with all the expensive payments he has been enduring, however, his insurance, lawyers, or doctors cannot help him.
This case of the woman being misdiagnosed HIV positive is just one of the many medical misdiagnosis cases that have happened throughout the years. Two and half million dollars may cover a lot of the medical payments, however, does it seem fair that for the 9 years of misdiagnosis (losing her daughter, and affiliation with her family) and the four years in court, that two million dollars is a rational payment? The amount of money the woman deserves should be over 4 million dollars, however, even that much money could never suffice the amount of pain and suffering the woman endured.
Court systems and doctors need to come up with a way to help prevent so many misdiagnoses from occurring each year, and establishing a just payment for the mental and physical suffering people undergo every day because of a misdiagnosis.

How Should a Rapist be Convicted?

Rape is one of the most unlawful crimes in U.S. The punishment for rape depends on where it took place (which state), the age, and whether or not it was statutory. What I believe is unfair, is that many people who are convicted as rapist end up serving a few years, or a year at the least, to a crime that will haunt the victim attacked for the rest of their life. When these convicts are let free, many continue raping others, because they have not learned anything from their short stay in jail.

In California, the age of rape for, “Any person 21 years of age or older who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is under 16 years of age is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony.” And the punishment for this terrible crime is only, “Up to one year in a county jail or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.” I think that the punishment is completely unjust. If someone commits an act of rape, no matter how old either person is, the time in jail for the rapist should be at least 20 years or more. If the rapist was to be let free after even ten years, I would not be surprised if the rapist committed another offense, because he would have clearly not learned anything from his short stay in jail. And secondly, many victims of rape are and will always be in a state of trauma and fear from their attacker. If the victim knows that her rapist is loose in the streets, it will only cause more stress and panic to the victim who fears that on any given day her attacker could once again harm her. If the rapist is released after one year in jail, I am certain he has not learned his lesson, and will commit another crime.

In Michigan, the crime for, “First-degree criminal sexual conduct is sexual penetration with someone under age 13,” is the penalty of life in prison. For this, I certainly do agree with the law. However, in Minnesota, this same crime has the sentence of only 30 years in prison. It seems entirely unlawful that you can be in one state and be raped in the first degree, and have your rapist be imprisoned for 30 years, while if you were in a state similar to Michigan‘s laws, your rapists would be in prison for their entire life.

I believe that each state should be ruled by a punishment that fits the crime, and not one that varies in each state. The crime of rape is one of the most serious crimes, and it should not be viewed as a minor penalty.

Buying Your Way Into College; Ethical vs. Legal

In American society anyone, with a sufficient amount of money, is able to literally buy their way into college. However, since there is nothing significantly illegal about this, people are being accepted into colleges not based on their academic grades, ACT or SAT score, rather than , by what the student can offer to the college. They do this by mainly focusing on how much money it will cost to cover all the fees. In addition, of the 150 top colleges, 3 percent of those students come from a low-income family. So, there are very poor students at America’s top colleges, and a large and growing number of rich students. Even more so, there are a sufficient number of high school students who strive at academic excellence, including honor roll students, who will not be accepted in the college of their choice. This is of course not because of their grades, but because a student who has more money will be able to pay much earlier than others. Even if the honor roll student has applied early, the student paying the college for vast amount of money, like a donation, will be accepted, and that acceptance may have been the last, meaning the honor roll student will not be accepted because he did what was morally and academically correct.
Many Ivy League colleges begin at around $45,000. I would not be surprised if many students did not apply to these school primarily because they know they will never be able to pay for the tuition, or for the matter that they know there are others who have a higher chance at being accepted because they have much more money. At Harvard, it’s not too shocking to learn that 90% of the students come from families earning more than the median national income of $55,000. These students have families who earn between $110,000 and $200,000. These wealthier students will never have a problem flying home, or even taking breaks to Hawaii. While, the average student works most of their early life barely making enough money to cover insurances and student loans.
The issue of whether paying your way into college is ethical or not, should not be viewed as whether it is legal, rather, it should be clear as to how immoral this has become. These students who have their wealthy parents pay for college, are constantly making it a struggle for those lower-class students who have been preparing for college their whole life. There is not too much that can be done to stop this corruption in society. One can only hope that he/she has applied early enough to the colleges of their choice, in hope that they will not be rejected primarily because someone wealthier and possibly not as academically knowledgeable has taken their spot in the acceptance line up.