I looked around the web for a few hours trying to find ten pertinent, interesting questions that would not be likely to incite anyone so much as to cause an outbreak of internet rage. Maybe, I was successful. We'll have to see...
01. Do You Support or Oppose the Death Penalty?
I was on the fence about the death penalty for a very long time. It just seemed like both sides had very good points. Then, I was reading a book about Ted Bundy,. It was this book that changed my entire opinion on the subject. After Bundy had already been arrested, convicted, and jailed for kidnapping and assault (only because they didn't have enough evidence to charge him with more weighty charges); he escaped and fled from Colorado to Florida. A week after his arrival in Florida, he entered the Chi Omega Sorority House. There he brutally raped, beat, and murdered two woman. The third woman in the house, he beat enough to give her a concussion, a broken jaw, a crushed finger, and knocked her teeth out. The same night, he broke into the apartment of Cheryl Thomas, attacking her; dislocating her shoulder and fracturing her jaw and her skull in five places. The injuries to her head left her with permanent problems with her balance, ending her career in dance permanently. A little less than a month later, a twelve year old, little girl, named Kimberly Diane Leach, was sent back to her home room to get a purse she forgot her purse. No one, other than Ted Bundy, saw her again; until her partially mummified remains were found in a shed seven weeks later. Though I don't know exactly what was done to Leach, I do know that this was the second twelve year old girl he abducted. The first, Cheryl Culver, was raped and drowned in a bath tub. Her body was never recovered, but there was sufficient evidence to prove that he did commit the crime and was not just telling cruel stories for entertainment and to manipulate those around him, as he was known to do.
Once I read this, I felt that the choice was clear, and the death penalty was a very necessary thing to have. In less than a month after his escape, he brutally killed three woman (three very young women and one little girl) and devastatingly attacked two other -- permanently damaging their lives (and bodies). After this, I firmly believe that there are some people who are just too dangerous to allow to continue to stay among the living. Even if we jail them, they can escape. Even if they don't escape, they can do monstrous things to the people in the prisons with them and the people who work within it.
I am aware that the death penalty system is flawed, unfairly applied, and we are still debating the most ethical method of execution; but I don't think we need to dump the whole thing. We just need to work on fixing it, instead of throwing spears at each other, shouting "Stop state sanctioned killing!" and "Our system is fine!" Can't we just do it right?
I don't think that the death penalty should be exclusive to those who commit murder either. Sex offenders can be just as prolific, devastating, and unstoppable as any serial killer; and at this time, we have no way whatsoever to cure or even deter them from continuing to assault others within the prison and when they are released. I really wish I could find the interview where she said it, but I can't so I'll have to paraphrase... Rose McGowan (yes, the actress) was a speaker at a college on rape and the true effects, inspired by a friend's rape when they were young. She said something akin to, rape is the murder of the soul. Police want to investigate murders, because there is a body; but if rape left a body behind, there would not be enough of us left to investigate the crime.
I have recently come to the decision that I think, people who commit violence against animals should receive the same punishment they would if they had committed the crime against a human. Such as, if you beat or sexually assault (and I'm disgusted that I even have to say that) an animal, you should get the same sentence as if you had beaten or sexually assaulted a human. If you are one of these sick ...s that does something horrific to kill an animal, then, you should get the death penalty too. Sound harsh? Perhaps, but remember, cruelty against animals rarely stops with animals. It is usually a pre-cursor to attacks on humans. It is a show that they have power and control over something more vulnerable than they are. It's even one of the early warning signs of a developing serial killer.
I haven't quite worked out what I think exactly should be done with animal crime and the death penalty. I know what my visceral reaction is, but it takes more than that to judge that sort of thing. But, in answer to the question, I support the death penalty. Now, let's do one that isn't so dark and heavy next...
02. Would you Trade Your Paper Books for Digital Versions?
I could see using an digital book tool as a support to my regular reading. After all, my life puts me in the position to spend a great deal of the time at a bus stop, on a bus, or waiting for something else (like in a doctor's office). Having a small, lightweight reading device that could have more than one book in it (in case I'm finishing one and need the next) could be really cool. However, would I trade? NO. I love books. I love the way books look. I love the way they feel in my hand -- the weight, the texture, the feel of turning pages. I like the smell. Most of all, I like the way it sounds when you open a brand new book the very first time. You have to put your ear close, but it makes the slightest little creak. Oh, how I love books. I love old books best. You can see the wear from the people before you reading it, sometimes seeing dedications and notes written inside, weird little discolorations (sometimes identifiable, sometimes not), and the general cracks and creases of time. I love them. If we did away with them, what would we hand down? Where would we see our special art prints? What would we bring to have our favorite authors autograph? What would we do when the zombie apocalypse occurs, and we lose most of our electricity and technology? The idea of this question makes me want to go hug a book...
03. Should Tobacco Companies be responsible for Smokers' Health?
No, this is where personal responsibility comes in. If you know you are buying a poisonous product (and even if you are too illiterate to read the warnings on the packets, you can at least get the idea from the commercials and constant kvetching of those around you), and you smoke it anyway, and then you get a disease -- just like everyone told you you were going to get, it doesn't really seem fair to turn around and say, "Hey, you made the poison! You pay for this!" They may have made the poison and marketed it, but you are the one who decided to introduce it into your body -- regularly, and you are the one who has to own up to that.
However, if you are talking about older people who began smoking before the tobacco companies came forward with the truth about the dangers of the product, YES, I think, they should have to pay the medical costs and a wrongful death cost. Before the 80s, cigarettes were advertised everywhere from magazines to television, and the worst most people know about it was that it was a "filthy habit". In the previous decades, popular actors and actresses appeared as sponsors, telling everyone that it was elegant and glamorous to smoke. Children smoked. No one but the tobacco companies knew it was going to kill them. After so many decades of smoking, it can be almost impossible to quite smoking, because the body is so dependent on the chemicals. So, if you're eighty-five year old grandfather has cancer from smoking for over sixty years, yes, he should be paid. If you are twenty-five and have been smoking for ten years before finding out you have lung cancer, I'm sorry about your cancer, but you're the one you should be angry with.
04. What Should the Punishment Be for Acts of cyber bullying?
Well, how about we just make it the same as we would if you did the bullying offline (assuming that police actually took the issue seriously enough to enforce the laws that we already have ... sigh ...). If you harass someone, stalk someone, induce someone to commit suicide, etc.; you would go to jail. Why make it any different because you use a different tool to perform your crime. That involves teens too. Sorry parents, but it's you too. If you don't want to go to jail, don't do it.
05. Running too quickly on an icy sidewalk in front of a neighbor's house, you slip and break your leg. Would you be likely to sue the owner of the house if you were confident you could win the suit because of his negligence in shoveling the snow?
This is something that actually happened to me a winter or two ago. Every house in the neighborhood was shoveled, except for ours, because no one in the house was physically capable of shoveling (and the landlord knew this). There was a patch of ice about three feet long. So, my next door neighbor falls on the ice, claims a bunch of injuries, and tries to sue my landlord. I explain to the landlord that all of the injuries she suffered were injuries she had before she fell, and there was no real reason for her to walk on the ice anyway, since everywhere but that patch was clear. She dropped the suit and dropped the topic (other than one, what I assume was drunken, rant).
So, once again, I have to say, this is where personal responsibility comes in. If you are running down the street, knowing it is icy out, and you don't look to see if you are pitching yourself on ice, and you fall and break something; it's on you. You should just thank your neighbor for bringing you blankets, sitting with you until the ambulance gets there, and offering to call your husband. You should not threaten to sue their landlord and cuss at them.
06. Would you be willing to commit perjury for a close friend? For example, might you testify that he was driving carefully when he hit a pedestrian even though he had been joking around and not paying attention?
What is that phrase? "A friend will help you move, but a real friend will help you move a body." Well, in all honesty, my answer is, "maybe"; but it definitely would not be for that situation. If my friend was screwing around and killed someone because of it, the first thing I'll do is say, "Sorry pal, but I'm going to testify against you." If you do something that is really your fault, then you should take responsibility for it, even if it will get you in a lot of trouble -- especially if it hurt or killed someone. This includes everything from accidentally hitting someone with your car to robbing a house you thought was empty and being surprised by someone you end up shooting. You did it; own up to it.
However, there are times when I would not only lie for you, I would help you dispose of the body. For example, my friend is married to a person that is beating her, sexually assaulting her, emotionally abusing her, etc.; and every time she leaves, he hunts her down and drags her back. She can't find a way out. She finds out that she is pregnant, and he is still beating her (etc.). She knows that if it continues the baby will be killed, and she can't escape. She waits for him to go to sleep and knifes him the back 156 times (just for good measure). At this point, she realizes she has no way of getting rid of him and doesn't want her baby to be born in jail. She calls me. I would definitely come over and help her dump that load. It would be the same if my friend's child were molested, and the courts let the offender go. I'd ride shotgun for her, in a manner of speaking. Have I done this? No. Would I do this? Maybe. It all depends on the situation.
07. If you could prevent either an earthquake in Peru that would kill 40,000 people, a crash at your local airport that would kill 200 people, or an automobile accident that would kill an acquaintance of yours, which would you choose?
Sorry, but proximity doesn't have much of an impact on me. It might be different if it said my child would be killed in the accident, but luckily I evade that choice. I would definitely go with the 40,000 people in Peru. Just because I have never met them doesn't mean their lives are of any less value.
08. Imagine you are placed in a room with Adolf Hitler, when he is only 3 years old. You have a gun, know exactly what he does during World War II, and you will not be charged in any way if you choose to kill him. Would you kill him?
Oh, gee, let me think. Of course, I would. Wait... that seems like a stupid answer. How about, no. If I am in some magical room that allows me to be with an infant Adolf Hitler and a gun and no culpability; I would have to go with hidden answer number three. I would take the three year old home with me, do my best to raise him to be a sweet, compassionate, loving man; and I would watch for any signs that he would grow to be the person we know from history. If I saw any signs, I would take him to a doctor and/ or therapist to try to help him through it.
Really? Who says, "Yes! Shoot the toddler!"
09. Is Attention Deficit Disorder over diagnosed?
Yes, it definitely is. Mental illness in general is over diagnosed. We are becoming a nation that looks for something medically responsible for anything we perceive to be negative.
Little Johnny comes home from school so excited that he talks excitedly, doesn't want to do his homework, and runs around the house playing. I think, he has ADD! Geez, maybe the kid is .. just a kid. Come on! They even found in one study that many children are not getting a proper bedtime and are so exhausted in school the next day that they are fidgety and doing things to keep themselves awake. Then the teacher complains and says that they need to be on medication. Why can't children just be children? Let them play for a while after school -- really play, not play video games, before they do their homework. Let them have a snack. Let them excitedly tell you about their day. Make sure they have a bed time, without letting them sit up, watching TV all night. You might be surprised how many of the kids are cured of their Attention Deficit Disorder.
Even worse, this is not just a problem with children. If you are a teen and have a pimple, you are being told "any breakout is a medical condition!" Take a pill! My eyelashes aren't thick enough -- get a medication for it! My butt looks funny in these pants -- get some drugs!
Then there is the issue of mental illness. People are overstressed and are told more and more (especially in the working force) not to express their emotions. This seems to have resulted in a surge of people thinking that they have a mental illness, and doctors are agreeing with them. Perhaps it is because I struggle so hard with having Bipolar Disorder; but I am greatly saddened by the huge number of people who tell me (or forums) that they have been diagnosed with BPD because of what seems to be just having normal emotions. "Sometimes I'm happy, and then later, I'm sad." Really? Really?! You have emotions and that makes you mentally ill and in need of medication?? Do you really want to commit to taking a brain chemistry altering drug that will put you at risk of liver or kidney damage? Lithium has to be constantly monitored, because if you get too much, it can poison your system. Do you really want that on your record, so anyone that wants to use it against you can? (e.g. My wife can't have custody of the kids. She's bipolar!)
The whole issue of over diagnosis is incredibly dangerous to those who are putting themselves into boxes made from their false diagnosis, as well as the drugs they are unnecessarily taking. I wonder what the effects will be on all of these children who are taking these drugs as they grow up and their brains are forming. The other problem is that the flood of misdiagnosed and over diagnosed people takes away credibility of those who are suffering from the condition. I'm sure every parent who has a child with ADHD has had someone roll their eyes when they hear about it. "Of course, Johnny has ADHD. Half the kids at my son's school have ADHD." It causes further misunderstanding of the condition and lack of respect to the people struggling with a real medical condition.
People need to be more realistic, realize that not every little problem in your life is a medical condition, don't let doctors force you into a diagnosis without knowing what they are talking about, don't let schools tell you what medicine your child should be on, and let your kids and everyone else just be normal! If you are having a problem, take it seriously, do some research, talk to your doctor, and if he gives you a diagnosis, ask him why. You shouldn't put more effort into buying a car than you do in proper handling of your health and the health of their children.
10. Do you think people who are NOT organ donors should be excluded from receiving an organ should they need it?
No, that seems like an inappropriate and odd blanket policy. I am not an organ donor, but that is because I have a lot of medical issues that could be dangerous for organ recipients. I am not even sure if I will be able to be able to donate my body to science, as I was hoping; because if I have a problem with my liver that causes jaundice, it won't be accepted. I am still considering opting for donation anyway, in case there is something that can be used -- even skin.
I am sure that there are a lot of people who opt out for the same or similar reasons. I don't think people should be required to tell why they don't want to be organ donors either. There are many people who feel very private about their health issues, and they don't want everyone to know about it. For example, someone with AIDS might not want to go to the DMV and say, "I opt out of organ donation, because I have AIDS."
While I would promote to anyone the importance of selflessly giving their organs, I think, it is up to each person to make that choice for themselves. I don't think they should be deprived any more than I think people who don't pay taxes should be denied state funded medical care.
Just in case you are on the fence on the issue, here is a nice place to start assuaging your anxieties about the process. Nothing graphic, just some ideas.
No comments:
Post a Comment