Reply to:"Against the Death Penalty ?"

The execution of innocent people it is not a thought or believes that people have, it is a real fact that can be verified! Out of the 850 criminals that were sentence to death, 101 were proved innocent and taken out of the death row in time. That gives a 12% chance that at least one out of the 371 inmates in the Texas death roll is innocent.

Death penalty also doesn't help lower crime rates. Studies have shown that the average murder rate is lower in the states that do not have the death penalty than the ones that do. Here are some of the National Murder Rate for comparison:

The alternative punishment for the death penalty is life without parole. That is no such thing as getting out for “good behavior” when sentence to life without parole. Ones convicted, the criminal must serve the full life (40 years in Texas) sentence before been eligible for parole. After the full life sentence is served in incarceration, the parole board will have hearings to decide if the inmate should be released. Parole is not automatic even after the 40 years.
All the information I’ve provided in this post is reliable and trustworthy. Everything can be supported through some research.

Much has happened in Texas after Judge Sharon Keller violated the Court polices of how to handle death penalties cases. Keller thought she was putting an end to convicted murder Michael Richard when she closed the court's doors to his attorneys on their last chance to file an appeal before his execution, but his execution served as an eye opener to the Texas court system and its death penalty.

The Texas' highest criminal court response to Keller’s polices’ violation came on November 6th when written policies allowing lawyers to use e-mails to file emergency motions related to “death penalty cases and other extraordinary matters” were finally adopted by the court. On a letter Keller wrote to the Houston Chronicle responding to request, she said that the court didn’t have any written procedure on the day of Richard’s last appeal attempt, September 25, but she when on saying that this new written policies are a reflection of the “court's unwritten policies” that already existed that day. The new written polices has that on the day of an execution, the judge handling the case needs to stay on duty until after the execution, and that anything that needs to be communicated about the schedule execution needs to be addressed first to the judge assigned to handle the case (on September 25, the judge assigned to Richards’ case was not Keller, but she closed the door to his lawyers anyways).

That same day, Richard’s widow filed a lawsuit in Houston against Judge Keller for not accepting Richard’s appeal after 5pm on September 25th. Keller has filed a motion to dismiss Marsha Richard’s lawsuit where she directs the issue to Texas Government Code §658.005(a) that shows the hours of operation of state agencies as 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. She argues that she could’ve ordered the court to stay open only if “considered it necessary or advisable," and there was no need for the criminal appeals clerk's office to stay open because Richard’s attorneys could’ve filed the appeal to any of the court’s judges. The lawsuit was withdrew on November 11th and filed in Austin at the U.S. District Court for the Western District.

Protestants are trying hard to get Judge Keller to either resign or be removed from office since her police violation. On October 30th, a protest was set out in front of the Judge’s house and on November 16th, opponents of death penalty set out in a protest and delivered letters calling for Keller removal.

The written polices are definitely necessary, the lawsuit is not unfair and should not be dismissed, and I agree with the civil rights activists that Judge Keller can not remain in office. It is sad that it took an unfair execution to happen for Texas for Texas death penalty to become an important matter in the state. Adjustments have been made, but there are a lot of things that still need to change. Texas still long ways away from letting it go its fame of been the killer state.

The commentary “Is constitutionally required college credit necessary,” argues against the higher education core curriculum required by the Texas constitution, its down side is that not only fails to give strong, convincing, and supporting evidence, it also contradicts its on statement. If “[i]t is understandable that the state wants to see its residents participating in state and national government sophisticatedly and intelligently,” how can “these constitutionally required courses [be] a waste of time and tuition to the student[?]”

When I had to register for my first government and history class I also thought it thought of them as superfluous, but by the end of the semester my opinion had changed.

Every one should agree that the future of our government is in the hands of the voters. Its simple; votes get to chose who is going to have control over us, so they have to know about local and national government to be able to make the right chooses; therefore, they have to know how local and national government works.

Texas has one of the lowest percentages of eligible votes that are registered to vote in the country and the percentage of eligible voters in Texas that actually vote is lower than the percentage of 43 other states. The core classes are definitely a positive effort to change Texas ranking. When people learn about their government, they see how important it is to care about for it; consequently they become more interested, more involved, and more motivated to vote, act, and participate.

What other better way to teach people about government than through required classes? We can’t leave it up to the media to do it because they only show what people want to see and the little they show about politics is not always trustable and reliable, and if this classes are out of the curriculum no one would want to take them.

History and government classes taught in middle and high school are very important, but students are there because they have to, most of them will forget what they’ve learned, others won’t even care about learning it. The law doesn’t obligate students to go to college like it dos K-12. College students are older, more mature, they are there are there because they want to. You can’t compare how “effective” such classes are in the life of kids and teens with how effective they are in the life of an adult college student.

The government does not required “that in order to vote, at least the twelve discussed hours of credit be obtained” not because it is unfair, take a look again at how terrible Texas ranks nationwide in percentage of votes. That would only make it worse! We want more votes and for people to get more involved; so why not make people that chose to go to college to invest a little money and a little time on things that really matter?

I know that such courses are completely unrelated and useless to many majors, but students have to look at the big picture and realize that such classes are fare from been a waist of money or time; they are an investment for the future.

After I learned that I’ve been living in the state the holds the highest number of executions in the country; I began to take the slogan “Don’t Mess with Texas” more seriously. Sense the Supreme Court brought back the death penalty in 1976, Texas has executed over 400 offenders, this is more than the total executions made by the next three states add up together.

On September 25, Presiding Judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Sharon Keller added one more execution to the list and drew the nation’s attention to Texas toughness on crime. Keller shocked the nation when she closed the court’s door denying the appeal request of convicted murder Michael Richard, when his attorneys showed up 20 minutes after closing time. Richard was executed that night; this has been the only execution to take place since The Supreme Court’s decision to review the constitutionality of lethal injection.

To avoid future problems, over 300 lawyers signed a petition asking the court to allow appeals via email. This is extremely necessary, but I doubt it will make significant changes in the Texas death penalty system; there are many other factors that contribute to large amount of executions in Texas.

Of course everybody wants to live in a save place and to feel secure, and since Texas judges are elected, they must be tough on criminals to win reelection. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals regularly denies appeal requests from prisoners in the death row. Such procedure happens so often that Texas Appeal court seams to be only a step towards execution instead of an official juridical assembly.

In a capital case, if the defendant gets life sentence, he must serve a minimum of 40 years in prison before being able to get out on parole. It is three times cheaper to keep a prisoner in the maximum security for 40 years than to pursue a death penalty case. The problem is that, in such cases, according with The Texas Constitution, the defensive attorney is not allowed to give such information to the jury. Consequently, the juries most likely chooses to give the death penalty over the life sentence fearing that the defendant can get out early and maybe a danger to the society.

Even the ones in favor of death penalty should disagree with Texas rules for representation. While the federal court requires at least one lawyer to have experience with felony cases, Texas allows any member of the Texas Bar to represent someone in the death row even if they don’t have any experience. Everybody should have proper representation when their life is in trial.

Juvenile cases, execution of mental retarded convicts, and death row racial statitistics are also questionable in Texas. Out of the 9 juvenile executions made in the USA since 1990 6 where in Texas, 69.3% of offenders on death row are of races other than white, and 6 mental retarded offenders where executed in Texas since 1982.

I don’t think that is acceptable for a state with only 7.6% of the nation’s population to account 36.5% of executions nationwide. It is obvious that the death penalty in Texas is not handled correctly. Execution is not the only form of justice.

Texas representative Valinda Bolton, elected in 2006 to represent district 47 located southwest Travis County, shared her opinion in a argument that appeared in the Austin American-statesman last Wednesday. In "Texas counties should control their own destinies," Bolton argues on the limited power Texas legislature yields to districts. She aims to inform and persuade Texas residents to accept, understand, or contribute to a change. Strong reasoning and support is needed; she must lay out a clear analyze of the causes and effects of the problem and use relevant and current evidence to support her claim.

Bolton argues that Texas districts, specially the larger ones, need more local authority. She states that commissioners are not able to solve some of the problems faced by residents because the power granted to counties’ government is not enough to deal with local growth and development. She criticizes Texas legislature position in the issue declaring that bills regarding this matter have always failed in pass sessions; including a bill, proposed by her, that would give counties with more than 500,000 people the necessary “tools to manage land and water use.” According to Bolton, Texas ought to pass a legislation granting counties more local authority and control; this is the only effective way to solve such problems.

Bolton supports her argument with a recent vital event; she mentions the Hamilton Pool water contamination as an example of the kind of problem residents have to face due to counties’ lack of local control over development and she adds that “much will need to be done to reclaim” the pool. She also refers to a recent Austin America-statesman as a alternative source where readers can find more information to support her claims.

I consider this argument some how successful; I believe that if the author had engaged the opposition and presented good counterarguments the claim would be stronger and seem more credible. Bolton convinced me that county government is not always capable of dealing with local issues, but I’m not yet convinced that passing such legislation is the only way to deal with local growth and development issues.

If such legislation is passed, counties will be able to solve more problems and to make more decisions, residents will have lower taxes and more property rights, and Texas representatives will have more power and control.

The article Tax break on tickets? No, thanks posted in the Austin American-statesman on October 1, 2007 by the editorial board highlights an argument directed to Austin citizens that focus is to explain and defend a vigorously debated claim regarding a local controversial issue related to UT’s athletic department budget and tax breaks. To catch readers’ attention to this issue it is important to use appeals that match Austin citizens’ needs and values and also focus on motivating, and not on manipulating the readers. If the argument is not base only on opinions and presents solid evidence to support each point in the claim readers may accept or even adopt the board’s view on the issue.

The article argues about the tax break given through donations made to the UT’s athletic department. It points out that every year over $100 million of UT’s money goes to the the athletic department spending and that the millions earned from season passes sales also gives aways millions in tax break. The board outlines that instead of using the money to improve education, UT directs all the $15 million earned from ticket sales right back to the athletic department and states their position on the issue by defending deduction of taxes to donations that are somehow directed to education and opposing tax break to a donation that is beneficial only to the school’s sport department.

To support their claim the board mentions the amendment written by Austin Rep. Jake Pickle in the 1980s that permitted tax deduction through purchase of UT tickets and helped raise even more the athletic budget and states that after two years congress adopted his idea and gave the tax break but with a 20% lower deduction rate, and also comments on the work of writer Eric Dexheimer as an alternative source of support. For less, the article affirms that none of the Texas representatives questioned on the issue have not comment or taken a position on the issue.

This is definitely a successful argument, the claims are supported with accurate, relevant and appealing evidence and I am convinced that congress needs to review to issue and take measures to fix it. I have always believed that sports comes first at UT, having the best team seams to be more important than emphasizing on education, I know UT is a great school but that does not justify investing more in sports than in education.

Coaches are getting richer, athletes gets upgraded facilities and full scholarship and I’m sure UT fans are not complain about either sense they are saving tax money and investing on their team. What about the rest of Austin population? The ones who don’t spend money on tickets and have to pay full taxes and the students that do care about getting a real education have been taken for granted. Austin Representatives hold the power to make a change in congress, as long Congress ignores the issue UT will continue to spend millions on sports and giving away unfair tax brakes

American-statesman's article “UT president calls for shifting money to attract talent” by Ralph K.M. Haurwitz published on Thursday, September 20, 2007 summarizes the speech given by UT’s President William Powers Jr. at this Wednesday state-of-the-university address.
In his article Haurwitz explains Powers new proposal to redirect part of the university’s budget towards “faculty salaries and graduate student stipends” to better compete for talents with schools such as University of Michigan, the University of California.

Powers already have a group of students and staff members working on the idea. He states in his speech that his proposal is necessary to attract talents and that the budget cut will not hurt the school.

The article also states Powers words on UT’s high racial and ethnic diversity and how UT is now the “third nationally in federal funding for universities without medical schools.”