The Death penalty Debate

The magazine Upfront has many interesting articles.  One of these articles, written by Diann Rust- Tierney and Joshua Marquis, is called “Should the Death Penalty be Abolished?” In this article these two debate about the fate of an important capital punishment.

       Ms. Tierney argues that the death penalty should be abolished. She says that 142 people have been freed from death row because of human error of putting those people in jail in the first place. But several of unknown innocents may have died because of human error. Also that 2/3 of the world’s countries has also ended the death penalty. The death penalty discriminates race because death penalties seemed issued when the victim is white. It also discriminates the non wealthy who can’t afford good lawyers. I agree with her. Death penalties shouldn’t be given out. I think it’s better if a criminal was sentenced to be jailed for the rest of their lives. Though killers have done the worst imaginable, I think killing them makes us killers as well. And if they are executed, I feel that we are more below them than we were above.

     

     Mr. Marquis disagrees with Ms. Tierney. He says that a death penalty is “reserved for the worst of the worst.” That as many have been executed, the murder rate in the U.S has decreased by 24%. Also, that now a test of DNA can reveal if one is guilty or not. He justifies it with saying that taking precautions won’t hurt if the killer wont be released and kill again. I disagree with him, because killing someone anyone won’t solve anything. There has to be compromise, isn’t that what trials are for?; to come to a compromise between the public and the defendant. There has to be equality between everyone.

    This article challenges readers to see that how harsh government rule is. There is a quote that says “an eye for an eye” I think that’s not right. Killing one is not right but executing the killer isn't right either. Its always better to better than someone else, no matter what. Because that’s what really counts.

      

Persepolis by Marjane Satarpi

                   The autobiography Persepolis by Marjane Satarpi is about her childhood and later, adulthood in Iran in the 1980’s when a war was going on. This is unique book because she chose to tell it in a comic. Really, Marjane had been through a lot in her childhood, faced so many issues especially when she was a Muslim girl in a not really religious family.

                   In the book, when a war is going in Tehran, Iran, Marjane’s family is super cautious of the rules. Because Marjane’s family is not very religious its hard for her to act like a proper woman. For example, wearing a hijab to school, or not wearing skirts and other things which break dress code. Her family protests against the government, especially her mother who once was almost raped. Once her father’s car had been stopped by a policeman stopped because he smelled like he had drunk alcohol. So her father devised a plan to get rid of all the alcohol in the house. On page 109 her father says “Grandma! Marj! When we get home, get out first. I’ll try to stall him. Flush all the alcohol; down the toilet.” And they do just that. And Marjane’s father is safe from being arrested.

                   Later in the book, Marjane gets married to her boyfriend. At first their marriage is all happy, but she soon realizes she is not herself with him. They fought on every little thing. Marjane blames this on rules of Iran. Couples who were not married in Iran were not allowed to be near one another out in the streets. Marjane only knew him inside her house or his. To her, married life was very different. But her friend had divorced and she was hit on by multiple men. Marjane didn’t want that for herself but with encouragement her family convinced her to divorce him. One night the couple had a talk and she told him “when I was in love with you, you didn’t let me in. Now it’s too late Reza. I don’t love you anymore.” And so they divorced and Marjane lived happy by herself

                     Persepolis reflects how a young girl’s (Marjane’s) perception of life must have been growing up in Iran. How cruel life and government were. How people criticize what gender you were or what social class you were from. In this book most took Islam to the extreme. Islam is extreme (I’ve had experience). I can see how it unfair it seemed to Marjane, especially since her family was so modern. I’ve had boys tell me to put a hijab on my head because they didn’t want to see my hair. Or tell me what to wear because I was a girl. I am devoted feminist in Islam. I’m the one who tells boys to back off when they are being sexist.. I can tell Marjane was much like me. She came from a modern Muslim family but was surrounded by religious rules that didn’t satisfy her. And like me, she was devoted to Allah. I don’t think its fair how sexist people are, especially in Islam. Everyone is supposed to be equal, female/male, lower/middle/upper class, and white/Asian/black/Hispanic.  

Faithful Elephants

         The short story “Faithful Elephants” by Yukio Tsuchiya is a tragic story. Basically, it’s about how animals, (including three beloved elephants: John, Tonky and Wanly) were ordered to be kill in the Ueno zoo in Tokyo by the government. The situation is like this because there was a war going on in Japan at the time. One theme in this book is that war does not only affect people on the battlefield. This theme can show readers to think outside the box.

        No one really thinks about what happens to a zoo during the war. But the Ueno zoo had no choice but to kill its animals. It is said in the passage “what happened when the bombs hit the zoo? If the cages broken and dangerous animals escaped to run wild through the city, it would be terrible.” This makes sense why they had to kill the animals, but it is still how tragically war could affect the animals, poor innocent lives that had nothing to do with it. So, because of not having any other choice, they killed most of the animals. But soon it came to be John’s turn to be killed. It seemed hard, but they finally killed the pitiful elephant by poisoning his food. This also shows how dangerous a war can be to lives that are not even participating in it.

        The war did not only affect the animals in the zoo, but zookeepers in it too. It was obvious to see how much the zoo keepers were melancholy about killing Tonky and Wanly. They started to starve the last elephants but their trainer, who loved them as they were his kin, felt desperate. They were starting to get thinner and weaker, but they still did their bonsai trick for their trustworthy trainer. The trainer had cried “Oh Tonky! Oh wanly!’ he wailed ….he carried food and pails of water to them and threw it to their feet.” After this the other zookeepers had pretended not to notice, they too loved the elephants and wished to see them live. This shows how hard the death will be on the zookeepers, who were like pawns in a chess game. And when Tonky and Wanly died, saying that the zookeepers were devastated was understatement. This is how badly war affected them, a war they too weren’t a part of.

 

       The short story “Faithful Elephants” again, challenges readers to think outside a box. No one suspects how a war can affect the zoo, and in it the humans and animals alike. And the fact that this could have happened every time there has been a war recently is truly calamitous. That many animals could have been sacrificed for some stupid war. And also the fact that no one remembers them that no one probably ever cared except zoo keepers. Or maybe it is just that people are ignorant. However they are, something needs to be an explanation. There is more to war then a battlefield. War is a chess game, people getting hurt are the pawns and the ones are that are controlling them, well they’re royalty. And maybe the battlefield is a chess board, but who are the other pieces?  Here’s one answer: maybe they are the ones not remembered afterward. 

summer reading book: To Kill a Mockingbird

To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee is one of America’s greatest classic novels. In the book an Alabama woman, called Scout, recollects a childhood memory and all the events leading up to it. I think the main idea of the book is to see someone clearly and not to judge what they seem on the outside but to try to understand what they live for and hear their story. One pattern I have noticed in the book is how much Scout relies on her older brother, Jem, and how clear her affection is for him. I think it’s a big part of the book because the book has a lot to do with family.

In Scout’s eyes Jem was the smart one who gave good advice. On page 87, it says “Jem said if we waited until it snowed some more we could scrape it all up for a snowman. I stuck out my cold tongue and caught a fat flake. It burned. “Jem it’s hot! “It ain’t hot; it’s so cold it burns” Scout thinks Jem is smart to ration the snow and even if they never experienced it, she knows Jem has knowledge on it. I think Scout sees a lot of the world through Jem’s eyes. This is probably because he has given her most of her knowledge on the world.

In Scouts eyes Jem is her protector, her hero. On page 351, it says “Run scout! Run! Run!’ Jem screamed. I took one giant step and found myself reeling: my arms useless, in the dark I could not keep my balance. “Jem, Jem, help me, Jem!’… He was up like lightning and pulling me with him…” Scout knows no matter what, Jem always will put her first. It’s his job as her protector and even if he’s hurt himself, he will be her savior. I think this part in every brother- sister relationship comes with territory. For Scout, their father, Atticus, isn’t around enough so Jem becomes her second father. In that scene of the book, Atticus wasn’t around either, so Jem played the paternal role yet again.

In Scout’s eyes, Jem is the miniature version of their father and will be just like him. On page 270, it says “He’s just gone over the evidence,’ Jem whispered, “and we’re gonna win, Scout. I don’t see how we can’t. He’s made it plain and easy…’” or on page 240 “has she got good sense?’ I whispered to Jem. Jem was squinting down at the witness stand. “Cant tell yet… she’s got good enough sense to get the judge to feel sorry for her…” This happened in a court room while Atticus, who is a lawyer, was defending a black man. It is said in the book, Jem wants to be a lawyer. He understands how to question a witness and how to get words out of people, just like Atticus. I think because Jem is first born and Atticus raised them by himself, he sees himself as his father in a few years. Scout and Jem both love Atticus very much. And maybe Scout knows that she has two men to look after and that’s why she also sees Jem being Atticus in a few years.

A sibling relationship, namely brother and sister relationship, has changed over the years. When this book was written, times were different. There wasn’t Martin Luther King jr to do a civil rights act. Or there weren’t women’s rights. Scout wasn’t raised by a woman but by her father and brother, who see the world from a man’s perspective. And soon Scout was seeing Jem’s perspective. Her brother was her best friend and trustee guide through bad times and good. And this is why her affection for him is so deep. When one about thinks Jem, they think he is a bossy know- it- all. They think he takes too much responsibility, when he is too young. Like the characters in the book, they judge someone from an outside perspective. When one gets to the middle of the book, one will see, very subtlety, that Jem is trying to be like his father, solving problems and taking care of a family alone. Jem has his story, that if he were alive or it there was a second book in his perspective, one would feel lots of sympathy for him. I think Jem doesn’t know that Atticus trusts him, that Atticus also sees himself in Jem. Atticus is very quiet and probably doesn’t see that Jem is trying too hard and will keep trying unless Atticus says something. There’s a sayin, “never judge a book by its cover” it may appear in books but it works in reality too.