"Postconviction DNA Testing Should Not Be Encouraged"

      In the essay "Postconviction DNA Testing Should Not Be Encouraged", Peter Roff argues that "the absence of a particular individuals DNA at a crime scene is not alone proof of their innocence" (532). Although DNA evidence can help win a case it should not be the determining factor. Roff argues that all of the evidence must be considered not only DNA evidence, just because none may be present doesn't prove that the accused didn't have a motive (532). Roff also talks about how evidence can be so old that no matter how great the technology it does not justify being able to take old evidence and examining it for DNA. Once a person is sentenced that should be it. There may not be any DNA present at a crime scene but eyewitness testamounts are very important and should not be dismissed or taken lightly.
      I thought Roff made some good points in his arguments, I just don't think that it was enough to make it a strong argument. I felt like it was missing a lot and that a real example of how DNA does not convict someone of a crime could have been used. I personally disagree with him. Although you should take a motive and eyewitness testamounts into consideration, sometimes it really comes down to the evidence and DNA helps determine that the right person is charged.

"Postconviction DNA Testing Should Be Encouraged"

      In the essay "Postconviction DNA Testing Should Be Encouraged", Tim O' Brian presents the issue over using DNA evidence. In his example a defendant; Larry Youngblood was being "convicted of abducting a 10-year-old boy from a church carnival and repeatedly sodomizing him" (526). After being found guilty Youngblood still claimed that he was innocent and DNA would help him show it. O'Brian argues that DNA evidence is the only credible evidence. Unlike the rest that a lawyer can present, it is not biast. Although Youngblood fit the description and the traumatized boy pointed him out in front of the jury, the DNA showed that is was not Youngblood who committed this crime. O'Brian explains the DNA could be the determining variable for someone who is facing a death or life sentence. Mistaken identity occurs more often than people realize and DNA is the only factor that can help protect a person.
      I thought O'Brian made a really interesting argument for DNA testing. I think I agree with him. It always comes down to the evidence to show whether or not a person is guilty. However in the case of Youngblood you can argue that the boy was so traumatized he picked someone that looked similar to his abductor. Technology is something that is praised now, so I think people should start getting used to technology becoming a defining factor. You can't take everyone's word so I think that DNA testing should be encouraged.

"Illegal Immigration Does Not Threaten America"

       In this essay "Illegal Immigration Does Not Threaten America" by Richard Raynor, Raynor argues that having immigrants here is not the issue when it comes to money and maintaining the United States, but the issue that U.S citizens have is with themselves. In his essay Raynor presents two testimonys from immigrants one a latina and the other from a man from England. The two talk about what its like to be seen as the "villians" in an America where society is not to fond of immigrants. Raynor explains that unlike most arguments that say that immigrants are just taking "free money" it is actually very hard for them to do so. Most immigrants are scared of deportation and won't go near schools or federal offices to receive things such as welfare. "Right now the debate is more emotional than informed" (521) Raynor argues. The economy is looking for people that will be willing to take on low paying jobs and immigrants contribute to the country in that manner.
     I thought this was an interesting essay. I feel that Raynor could have brought up some more points for immigration to make his essay sound more convincing. I do agree with his statement that "right now the debate is more emotional than imformed" which is probably why he chose to include actual testamonts from immigrants. Maybe that is why its so hard to convince people that immigration is not so bad. I personally think that thats what makes the United States so unique is that is a well integrated/diverse country.

"America Must Take Stronger Measures to Halt Illegal Immigration"

      In the essay "American Must Take Stronger Measures to Halt Illegal Immigration" by Michael Scott he discusses how he feels that immigration should be abolished because it will only benefit our country. Scott demonstrates how the costs of illegal immigration is hurting us. He purposes that our country would have more money to fund schools and take better care of is citizens if there were no expenses spent on immigration. Scott argues that too much of the taxpayers dollars are spent to imprison illegal aliens and to support welfare for those who don't pay any taxes. He also presents examples of how the U.S. should further enforce border patrol and law enforcement should "prosecute employers who hire illegal aliens" (514). Scott also talks about the idea that "Americans won't do the work that illegals perform" (515) needs to be removed. That more uneducated U.S. citiznes will have job opportunities but the U.S. would have to raise wages "to attract those native born" (515).
       Scott's essay was interesting. I think he argues his poistion well and brought up really good examples. The example of saving money to have better schools is really persuasive because many people are persuaded by money. I thought Scott made a very good argument even though I didn't really agree on it. The issue about immigration I feel is a very tough subject because although I agree that are tax dollars will be going towards better funding then to imprison illegal aliens there is also a lot that immigrants contribute to our country.

"I'm Not Willing to Settle for Crumbs"

      In the essay "I'm Not Willing to Settle for Crumbs" by Kim Severson, Severson talks about gay marriage and her viewpoint on them. She also more importantly talks about her own personal relationship and the obstacles she encounters with her girlfriend. Severson talks about how although there are some states the accept a domestic partnership it is still really hard legally to deal with. She feels the "for gay couples like us, (her) marriage is about collecting paper" (507). By this Severson means that their commitment is measured by the size of the legal files that relationship has. She has to worry about a lot of financial issues, which people don't take into account. She argues that as much as its nice that gay marriages are a little more acknowledge there is still a lot that needs to be worked out for the legal process to go more smoothly for them.
       I thought this essay was really interesting because Severson brought up a good point that many people overlook; which is that although domestic partnerships are a little more acknowledge now, people don't see what a struggle it still is legally. I never thought of it in that way that their relationship is measured by the size of their legal files. I think it will always be hard for society to accept gay marriages and relationships because most people are taught that one man one women is the way it should be. It will be interesting to see what the view points on this subject are in the next few years, as the younger generation is a lot more liberal I think. I know I have gay friends and to me thats okay but to my grandparents for example that is unacceptable.

" We Are Training Our Kids to Kill"

      In this essay by Dave Grossman, Grossman talks about how the world today is a much more violent place. He first introduces his background a bit and how he worked for the military and studied how to enable people to kill (497). Using this knowledge he points out that children and military soldiers are now conditioned in different forms to associate violence with pleasure. Today's society of young children experiance a form of violence everyday of their lives; whether its through television and the media, or video games. Video games have now had a great influence on children. Grossman argues that it not only does it teach children who have never picked up a gun to be good shooters, but since it's a game that's how they see it in reality as well; a game. Through television children experience violence and are "unable to distinguish clearly between fantasy and reality" (500). Grossman also points that as a human race it is hard for us to kill our own kind, so when it comes to military soldiers they are either classically condtioned or through a form of operant conditioning trained to "kill or be killed". They are trained to associate killing with pleasure and trained to making shooting at something and killing it a reflexive skill. Grossman argues that the "virus of violence is occuring worldwide" (497).
      I thought this essay was really interesting and Grossman made a lot of good points when it came to the violent affect of children playing video games. Children cannot yet distinguish the difference between fantasy and reality so parents and future parents need to be careful what they expose their children to. I think its really sad about the soldiers and what they are put through so that they can fight for the country. I have friends that joined the military and to read that they are pretty much being "brainwashed" to accept murder in their lives is horrifying. Grossman wrote " we have raised a generation of barbarians who have learned to associate violence with pleasure" (502) is a line that stood out to me because it put what he is arguing into perspective. Its a very scary thought.

"How Bingeing Became The New College Sport"

     In the essay "How Bingeing Became The New College Sport" by Barrett Seaman, Seaman argues the cons about having an over twenty-one drinking age limit, and how it would benefit our society to reduce that age. He talks about how most accidents happen due to the restrain on college students and not being able to drink legally in public. If the legal drinking age were to be eighteen than many students wouldn't find the necessity to get drunk behind doors and then go out, which will result in less accidents. Since students are forcing themselves to over drink in dorm rooms because they can not drink in public more accidents and even deaths have resulted in the over consumpiton of alchol. Seaman argues that "tighter enforecement of the minnimum drinking age of 21 is not the solution. It is the problem." (491) Students are already drinking and especially in a college enviroment that instead of restricting them which only makes students want to drink more, we should allow them to drink so that they can do so responsibly.

     I really liked this essay I thought that Seaman made a good argument. I do agree with what he is talking about. Being part of the college environment I definitely see a lot of fellow friends and students "bingeing" or "pre-gaming" because they cannot legally drink. I think that it would be a good idea since young students are doing it any way. Its easy to see why it would be a good law to pass if you are in college, you are already exposed to an older crowd of people/students. At the same time you wouldn't want to bump into eighteen year olds who can act immature at a bar. Maturity has a big part in what the legal drinking age should be, because it depends on the individuals.