before you go nrt or i shit my pants, wall of text, etc remember the content toilets i pooped
Quote (essay1)
Torture: necessity or wrong?
It’s 10 a.m. on a Friday morning, and you, a police officer, have just arrested someone who is suspected of planting a bomb somewhere in Washington DC. All of the interrogation techniques you have studied and used have not worked, and the defendant is demanding to see a lawyer. You know that you need to get information about the bomb out of the suspect; otherwise millions of people could die. You would have to live with knowing that you could have obtained the information if you had been allowed to use “harsh” techniques such as torture. What do you think is the right choice to make? Should torture be allowed in certain instances? Is the information you would get even reliable due to the conditions under which you obtained it?
In the article “Torture and the Fifth Amendment” published in 2008 by the Criminal Justice Review, Geoffrey R. Skoll attempts to explain the history of the Fifth Amendment and torture’s uses throughout history. Skoll (2008) begins by explaining the common law background of our history, and how our legal system incorporated the Fifth Amendment to exclude torture indirectly. Then he states how it is largely overlooked and not used or interpreted the way the founding fathers intended. Skoll is very thorough in explanations on the history of this issue. It has some problems with when torture is used, how it is used and the loopholes associated with the Fifth Amendment and definitions of torture.
Torture has been a part of human culture and life for as long as there is written history. Our current stance on torture is based on many cultures that came before us, such as the English, Romans, and Greeks, and had the definition improved upon in most aspects until now. Currently our legal system was born on English “common law” principles, with the main difference being that we have a written Constitution that was used to found our country. Within the Constitution all citizens and people within the United States are guaranteed certain rights, including the protection from torture by the state (government). Focusing upon the Fifth Amendment which was added to protect from forced self-incrimination and torture. Greeks and Romans used torture, and Roman law included the use of torture as part of their “law of proof.” Philosophers, such as Aristotle, said that “Examination by torture is one form of evidence; to which great weight is often attached…evidence under torture is untrustworthy…so that no trust can be placed in evidence under torture.” Many people, including myself, believe this to be true; no information gained through use of torture should be valued greatly on its own. Some of the greatest minds the world have seen realized this thousands of years ago, and yet torture is still being used to this day, often with great weight attached to the testimony gained from it.
The article begins with the background of our current form of government and laws. Our American Constitution has roots in the English common law, with the main difference being the written constitution. The first ten Amendments of the Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights which according to Skoll (2008) “is rightly associated with individual liberty and has attained world renown for its enunciation of that ideal. Among its protections are safeguards against torture by the state” (p. 30). An issue with this, if anything, is that while the Fifth Amendment is supposed to safeguard from torture, it is not implemented in most scenarios dealing with torture. When push comes to shove, it is much simpler to prove that someone was deprived of due process, which is defined as “the administration of justice according to the established rules and principles.” So while the Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights protects against torture by the state and self-incrimination, it is much more difficult to prove than deprivation of liberty. Personally, the judicial system should use the Fifth Amendment as it was intented by the founding fathers, and not have loopholes carved through it by our own government.
The American legal system was written to include safeguards against torture in the Fifth Amendment has been ignored by many within our government. When the validity of information or testimony has been questioned, the Fifth is ignored in favor of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment, added later on, is responsible for due process which is responsible for forbidding “compulsion to testify by fear of hurt, torture or exhaustion.” Recently the use of torture has gained worldwide attention with the global “War on Terror” and its application to guidelines and laws set forth by the Bill of Rights and Geneva Conventions. The US Attorney General’s office found loopholes that argued the use of torture was not forbidden in this global climate and proceeded to largely ignore the Geneva Conventions and moral thought. I feel that our government should not be deciding which laws it decides to ignore and which to follow; like its citizens, it should have to obey all of them, without the ability to be selective. Current international law states that “Torture is state based terrorism,” and torture by a private citizen would fall under aggravated assault. Given the three different types of torture, they are all in most instances meant to dehumanize or gain information from a suspect.
“The Fifth Amendment protects only the innocent” (Skoll, 2008, p. 36). This view, held among many members of the Supreme Court, is one that seems to be in direct violation of the Fifth Amendment. According to Skoll (2008), “the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment does not stop police from abusive questioning so long as no criminal litigation of the witness ensues” seems to contradict itself (p. 36). By stating that police can use abusive techniques to gain testimony from a witness, so long as they do not criminally charge them makes no sense. In some respects, that seems to be giving the go-ahead to torture witnesses for information that you won’t be prosecuting. When put with “the Fifth Amendment only protects the innocent” it sounds as if police could legally torture innocent people for no reason other than for information.
The use of torture has remained relatively unchanged since its inception, which is not fully known; but since torture is a behavior only of humans, it is logical to believe that it began with the dawn of man. Currently there are three types of torture, although all fall into the category of “state terrorism” (Skoll, 2008, p. 42). Most often used would be “Interrogational torture…used to extract information” which, while claimed to be effective, shows no proof for how it is (Skoll, 2008, p. 42). The author fails to address what, if anything, is gained by using this type of torture; all that is said by Skoll (2008) is “All official torture is always and also dehumanizing torture” (p. 43). When used by the state torture is meant to break a person’s will to resist an action; force them to incriminate themselves, or provide information unwillingly. He notes how torture is used to extract information, and why people choose to torture but never notes how torture has helped if at all. This could be due to most of the information gained being classified, but it returns to what Aristotle said over 2,000 years ago about information gained being unreliable.
Perhaps one of the most interesting and disturbing parts of the article is how the Fifth Amendment and Geneva Conventions are discarded without a second thought. Skoll (2008) relates the current Executive branch of the government to the old royal powers, being able to cast aside rights if it so desires. “Lawyers for the White House have made the contest plain, as they have argued for executive privilege under the War Powers Act of 1973” which limits what the government can do to possible prisoners of war (p. 37). One of the problems that the article seems to contradict itself with is that Skoll (2008) argues “This makes clear that use source of the authority for the application of the customary laws of war to the armed forces arises directly from the Presidents Commander-in-Chief power” (p. 38). It then continues to say later “Article II, Section 9, that Congress, not the president, could suspend habeas corpus in times of rebellion or invasion” (Skoll, 2008, p. 39). It states that the president has power in the time of war to ignore the Bill of Rights and Geneva Conventions as they do not apply to the War on Terror. However, later on it states that the power to suspend habeas corpus lies with Congress and not the Executive branch.
While most issues in the article are thoroughly explained, the article’s few issues were relatively minor. Tying in the roots of our current legal system from the English common law, how our current branches of government relate to our old counterparts and the interpretation of the Bill of Rights were almost all well done. Many issues were with wording and some contradictions that seem to hinge upon jargon and interpretation. The ability to switch powers from the Legislative Branch (Congress) to Executive Branch, and the ability to ignore the principles that our country was founded on, while maintaining the “legality” of them is questionable. The basis of torture was to gather information or make people obey without question. Skoll (2008) said “the principle against self-incrimination is rooted in torture to discover crimes of conscience and state—heresy and treason...The crown and church applied torture to their own interests against the common law of England” (p. 41). Although this is in reference to England’s common law system, from which we are founded, it shows how similar we still are. America may have a written Constitution, but when the government has the ability to deprive us of those rights it is impossible to say we are any better than the old English common law, or even the Romans who had codified torture’s use. In two thousand years while talk of rights has increased, as a nation based on liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we still have far to go.
Quote (essay2)
Terrorism: What is it?
The federal government captures prisoners of war and tortures them for information. An Islamic militant builds, and then detonates, a bomb strapped to himself. A man plans and violently rapes a woman. Which, if any, would you consider to be a terroristic act? Undoubtedly you, as many, would consider only the Islamic suicide bomber a terrorist. Why is this the case, and how can you better understand what constitutes terrorism? Words have varying meanings amongst cross-sections of the population, each subtly different than the other, but in essence the same. It is this essence that the true definition of a word needs to capture, and what many scholars have struggled toward and researched for years.
In the article “Terrorism, The problem of Definition Revisited,” published in 2001 in American Behavioral Scientist, H.H.A. Cooper attempts to define the actual word terrorism. While in “The Challenges of Conceptualizing Terrorism” by Weinberg, Pedahzur, and Hirsch-Hoefler and “Frameworks for conceptualizing terrorism” by Schmid, both published in a 2004 edition of Terrorism and Political Violence, offer a broader view regarding terrorism and its uses, definitions, and views. Each of the articles attempts to put its own spin on the definition, but when dissected they are similar. Although these authors agree in part with each other in regards to a definition, this does not eliminate any controversy over the term because all could possibly be wrong.
Perhaps by defining the word that many Americans use, or hear almost daily without considering what the word truly means, is the place to begin. If asked, or shown pictures, a majority of people in America would point to someone from Middle Eastern descent to be labeled as a terrorist or guilty of terrorism. This is due in part to how the media portrays certain actions and glosses over others. No matter how the word terrorism is defined, one person or nation’s terrorist will always be another’s freedom fighter. “The central problem in the process [of definition] is that no two human beings ever see the same thing, however simple, in exactly the same light or from the same standpoint” which is precisely the problem with trying to define a word that has no concrete, generally agreed-upon meaning (Cooper, 2001, p. 882). Given a word that has the ability to have multiple meanings to every human being makes the task of definition nearly impossible. Consensus amongst peers is the closest you can come to a concrete definition of the word, and according to Cooper (2001) “definitions at least provide starting points for debate” which would only further the definition (p. 882-883).
As defined by Cooper (2001), “Terrorism is the intentional generation of massive fear by human beings for the purpose of securing or maintaining control over other human beings” (p. 883). What this means is that any crime that instills fear into a person can be considered terrorism, due to the ambiguity of the word massive. Included within this definition would be rape, gang violence, the death penalty, and torture, in addition to others. While many will not agree that rape or torture are not forms of terrorism, under Cooper’s definition, they would be considered acts of terrorism. This more than anything else helps prove the case for needing a new universal definition of the term. Most would agree that torture is considered state-based terrorism, due to it being used to obtain information or break someone’s will to resist. By this very definition that Cooper provides us, the United States government could be said to be a terrorist organization for creating massive fear amongst the Middle East countries in our “War on Terror.” This definition seems to remain rather ambiguous, in an effort to make criticism of it more difficult. While seemingly well thought out and agreed upon among some scholars, some items are missing from the definition.
Before examining another definition of terrorism, a phrase needs to be explained. “Mala per se” is a term that comes from Roman legal tradition that means “acts that are wrong or evil in themselves,” also known as “grave offenses, which are bad by their very nature, independent of the political system they are within…morally wrong within all civilized societies” (Schmid, 2004, p. 198). Schmid (2004) argues that “when it comes to terrorist crimes, a narrow definition of terrorism would focus on mala per se crimes appears desirable” (p. 198). This means that every act of terrorism is wrong, no matter if it is a “freedom fighter,” government, or single person. Not noted in Cooper’s definition, Schmid seems to be taking the guesswork of whether an act is terroristic in nature or not due to mala per se. Seeing as how all civilized societies view terroristic actions as wrong does not allow for the “freedom fighter” argument. Schmid (2004) even distinguishes between warfare and terrorism, noting that there is a difference between the two. “Acts of terrorism are not confined to peace times…terrorist acts have been perpetrated before, during, and after wars” which furthers the definition of terrorism that is being worked towards (Schmid, 2004, p. 202). Whether a war is legal or illegal, morally wrong or right, a time of war is not and cannot be a justification for an act of terrorism. An example of a terrorist act during wartime would be the Holocaust during WWII, which even during warfare was a state-based form of terror meant to dehumanize and eliminate a sect of people.
Weinberg, Pedahzur, & Hirsch-Hoefler (2004) believe that one of the reasons terrorism has taken so long to define, and that no concrete definition exists is due to the fact that “terrorism has been widely used for purposes of political effect” (p. 778). This seems to be the third tier of what could make a solid definition. Terrorist groups began to use the term “freedom fighter” in an effort to gain public opinion, and make their claims see legitimate. “Terrorism is a politically motivated tactic involving the threat or use of force or violence in which the pursuit of publicity plays a significant role” is the final definition that was agreed upon (Weinberg, et al., 2004, p. 786). They arrived at this definition after going through studies done over the past 30 years, which took into account everything from level of education, location, religion, and many more variables. An issue with the definition by Weinberg and others is that for their definition the motivation can only be political.
When divided into their base components, these three definitions are all similar. Each takes a part of what would be the base or guideline of a definition that could finally be agreed upon by a majority. That being said, each is lacking parts of the definition that need to be added in order to accurately define the word terrorism. The definition of terrorism that I came up with, after reviewing these articles, and believe to be the best available is “Terrorism is the use of harmful force or threat of harmful force to instill fear into and further one’s own agenda against a rival, without care of the consequences or damage done.” This definition of terrorism seems that it would fit into the guidelines of all the previous definitions by the experts, while picking up the items that were lacking in each. Freedom fighters, torture, the death penalty, and rape would all be covered under this definition; this is precisely what many are looking for. Being able to cover all groups and actions is not an easy task. Increasingly, terrorism has become “I don’t commit terrorism, you do” which is just finger pointing and a way to yell at another nation (Cooper, 2001, p. 884).
Each person who has heard the word terrorism has come to their own conclusion and definition of the word. For most people, the phrase “Well, I would know it if I saw it” comes to mind when defining a word that is not easy to articulate. It is for this very reason that only benefits can result from discussing what a word means, can mean, or does mean. Only with proper debate where ideas are exchanged can we learn how others think, since no two of us are alike to come to a consensus upon whether the definitions we have devised are accurate or completely wrong and need to be rewritten. In the words of Ludwig Wittgenstein “There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make themselves manifest. They are what is mystical” to which Cooper adds “Terrorism is one of those things” (Cooper, 2001, p. 892).
Quote (essay3)
Does DARE have a positive effect on students?
Think back to the 5th or 6th grade--the age, innocence, and naivety. Drugs and alcohol were likely nowhere near the front of your mind, and all you characterized them as evil and simply something to aoivd. Now if you were “lucky” enough to have attended a DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) course discussing the drugs you were to avoid, hopefully that would be a satisfying learning experience. Did the DARE course help you manage peer pressure and how to avoid the drugs, or like some, did it make you interested to find out how these “drugs” worked for yourselves? In such a brutal fashion, the DARE program may actually replace what innocence children have and replaces it with curiosity and wonder. At such a young age, children are very impressionable and open to suggestion, which is not the same as peer pressure. By educating children about drugs with the DARE program and others like it, we may be in effect helping children to experiment with drugs and alcohol, and therefore responsible for the result.
The effects of the DARE program have been under scrutiny for many years, by a multitude of researchers looking for proof of the program’s costs. There have been multiple long-term studies. One of the first was 10 years after the original DARE curriculum was introduced, the “Project DARE: No Effects at 10-Year Follow-Up” article in the Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology conducted by Lynam, Milich, Zimmerman, Novak, Logan, Martin, Leukefeld, and Clayton (1999). In another related study, “The Effectiveness of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (Project DARE): 5-Year Follow-Up Results” published in Preventive Medicine by Clayton, Cattarello, and Johnstone (1996), while shorter than the previous study, it is based on a newer DARE curriculum than the original. And a third about the DARE program is “A Retrospective Study of DARE: Substantive Effects not Detected in Undergraduates” by Thombs (2000) published in the Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education. All three of these articles are about the long-term effects of the DARE program, and to ascertain whether their goals were met.
The original DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program was targeted to a certain group of children. Specifically according to Thombs (2000) “Originally, the program was delivery to fifth and sixth graders…modified delivery approaches that target students at all grade levels and may include community events” (p. 27). Now while the ages to which children are exposed to DARE are meant to introduce them to the topic of drugs prior to experimentation, it is possible that this does little to reduce or even maintain the current levels of drug use. Founders of DARE had several goals of the program, including but not limited to: reduce illegal drug use, alcohol use, tobacco use, and learn to resist peer pressure. These goals seemed like something quite manageable given the program was to be taught by uniformed police officers who had to take 80 hours in courses to be able to instruct (Clayton et al., 1996). Currently, the DARE program is the most taught drug “prevention program” in the country, in up to 50% of schools nationwide (Clayton, et al., 1996). The immensity of the current program makes the work easier for conducting long-term studies, which makes the results of them have greater validity than a single study would.
Having addressed the goals, the founders of DARE believed the curriculum they designed would have a great and lasting effect upon students taking part in the program. When the first study emerged, it seemed that the program was a success. “The findings suggested that DARE students accepted significantly fewer offers to use drugs and reported significantly lower levels of substance use than control group students” (Clayton et al., 1996, p. 308). Being that this was the first study of the DARE program, it seemed that they had struck gold with the program. The program was not another waste of effort, and funds. However, what researchers failed to mention, was how those results made it seem that DARE was working, were poorly planned and executed. “This study employed an after-only design and students were not randomly assigned to treatment and control conditions” (Clayton et al., 1996, p. 308). What this means is that while the study shows DARE has reductions in desired areas, the results are short-lived and most are not as positive as once hoped.
A program such as DARE is meant to increase children’s self-esteem and ability to resist peer pressure, thus allowing them to resist temptation to use drugs. In the short term, this might be the case, but as reported by Lynam and colleagues (1999) “individuals who were exposed to DARE in the sixth grade had lower levels of self-esteem 10 years later” (p. 392). This supports the validity of the findings of Clayton and colleagues (1996) “Comparing those who received DARE in the 7th grade with those who did not, participation in the DARE program produced no consistent and significant long-term effects on self-esteem” (p. 308). Not only did DARE fail to meet its goal of children gaining self-esteem, DARE had no real measurable effect on a child’s peer resistance skills (Clayton et al., 1996). While this seems like the program completely failed to meet this goal, in the short term immediately following the conclusion of taking DARE, students showed marked improvement in the same categories that fail long term. This leads to the question of whether DARE is doing its job by helping children make it through middle school and part of high school without being influenced by drugs. Or, does DARE leave children vulnerable to greater problems by not adequately teaching them enough to sustain the long-term goals?
If the main goals of a program were to reduce substance abuse, alcohol use, tobacco, and peer resistance, when numerous studies show it to be ineffective, why is it not discontinued? “Overall, measurable effects of the intervention on students’ average growth curves for drug use and other outcomes were modest and not sustained…no statistical significant impacts of the intervention were observed with respect to the cigarette, alcohol or marijuana use” (Clayton et al., 1996, p. 317). Statistical analysis proves the validity of multiple studies demonstrate the DARE program is no more effective than receiving no drug education at all. Before passing complete judgment on the effects of DARE, the placebo effect needs to be examined. “A second possible explanation for the popularity of programs such as DARE is that they appear to work” (Lynam et al., 1999, p. 593). What that means is that when people see the words Drug Abuse Resistance Education, they truly believe this program will teach children about drugs. Just by seeing the word DARE on a bumper sticker, license plate, police car, or a banner in a classroom people feel better that they support something to help the children learn to not take drugs. However, in reality they are unconsciously supporting the lie that both endangers and harms the youth of today.
Instead of DARE being an abstinence only program, the answer is in giving children exactly what adults do not want them to have: knowledge. “Harm minimization (also called harm reduction) is education about drugs rather than against drugs. The goal is to provide accurate and credible information that will promote responsible behavior” (Poulin et al., 2005, p. 404). By arming children with the knowledge about the very drugs society wants them to avoid, this might be the best possible way to achieve their goals. Curiosity is a trait within every human being, and when DARE unwittingly offers a teaser version of drugs, this instills children with interest about all kinds of drugs. In the harm reduction model given to students, the whole picture that accompanies a drug, effects, costs, health concerns, and ramifications if caught. This will satisfy the curiosity process that is started with DARE but not stopped until some type of substance abuse is attempted. However the model of harm reduction or minimization should not be used until high school, where the issues are actually an issue not a pre-emptive approach like DARE. Real world knowledge is only one of the values that should be taught, such as giving your car keys to a friend if you are going to be drinking. “This demonstration [of harm reduction] intervention provided evidence of a decrease in the prevalence of specific risks and negative consequences of alcohol and cannabis use, and qualitative evidence that harm minimization was acceptable for high school students” (Poulin et al., 2005, p. 411).
The positive effects of DARE have been touted by many, using the short-term data to show the program’s success. In reality the effects of DARE may be more detrimental than helpful, and their place in classrooms needs to be reevaluated. If people truly care, and want to help, steps to educate young adults must be taken even if not popular in the present. By mixing the DARE program with a harm reduction model, the effect it could produce might be astounding. Teaching children about drugs with DARE in middle school (junior high), and then following it up with a harm reduction program could extend the short-term success of DARE into young adulthood. The current system of abstinence without information has been shown to have short lived prosperity, with long-term problems that leaves children worse than having not taken DARE at all. Solving this problem to effect long-term gains, while maintaining the short-term, is a key to help the youth of our country prosper.
