The first use of Pentobarbital on a Texas inmate

In the commentary on the article entitled, "The first use of Pentobarbital on a Texas inmate," the author states how this drug was just recently used on an inmate named Cary Kerr who raped and killed a woman in Fort Worth, Texas. He was denied both and appeal and clemency and was sentenced to die on May 2, 2011. Kerr objected to being the so-called "guinea pig" and claims that it is unfair to be volunteered for such an experiment. The reason that the switch was made from one drug to the other was because of the lack of enough sodium lithiopental, the previous drug that had been used for executions.

I completely agree with Anabel when she says that Kerr sounds completely ridiculous when he is pleading his case saying that it isn't fair to be treated with this new drug. Well obviously, life isn't fair especially for the lady he had previously raped and killed. In my opinion, we do inmates on death row a favor by giving them lethal injection. If I were in charge, I would make it so that they would have to suffer through their execution just like their victims had to. Many of the people on death row are lucky to live as long as they do when they commit such disgusting crimes. Thank god they don't have a choice in any of this.

Texas Psychologist Punished in Death Penalty Cases

In the article, Texas Psychologist Punished in Death Penalty Case, psychologist George Denkowski is being accused of diagnosing fourteen inmates to be mentally competent enough to face the death penalty, when it is questionable whether they actually were or not. Other psychologists believed that his practice was not legitimite and also critisized it to be unscientific. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that it was unconstitutional to execute mentally impaired inmates, but they left it up to the states to define what exactly it meant. Texas created a three-part criteria in order to determine an inmates mental competence. Having the ability to intelligently function below average, lacking behavior skills, and having these problems from a young age are what determines if a convict is mentally capable to deal with the death sentence in an effective manner. Two years ago, other psychologists and defense attorneys observed and reported that Denkowski would purposely make an inmate's intelligence level seem to be higher so they would be eligible to face the dealth penalty.

In the end, Denkowski was only given a $5,000 fine and agreed to not conduct any disability evaluations in the future. Other than that, all the charges were dropped. This angers me. This man is playing with people's lives like it's not a big deal. Two of the inmates that he evaluated were given the death penalty and it will never be known if they were fully able to understand what their punishment was all about. For all we know, one of those men could have been innocent and he was scared into thinking he did something wrong, due to his incompetence. Clearly Denkowski was not in his profession for the right reasons. It said that he isn't allowed conduct these types of evaluations, but I can't help but wonder what other sorts of shady things he pulls with other non-criminalized clients.

Standardized Testing in Texas

In Ms. Quinones commentary on the article, "Standardized Testing in Texas Increases Ten Fold From 2009-2010,"she tells how much more money taxpayers will end up paying for standarded testing in Texas. Obviously, the higher the student population, the higher the education costs rise to meet the demand. This seems logical, but Ms. Quinones has to wonder whether the testing is used for the student's academic level or simply the school's level of teaching. There is an abundance of money spent on hiring more teachers to teach the material.Tutors, study guides, and other helpful testing materials are also necessary in preparing students to do well on the tests. It was calculated how much money will be spent on these tests in the Perry/Bush era and it came out to be about 93 million dollars.

I have to agree with Ms. Quinones when she questions whether or not these standardizing are at all helpful to students. Not only is this costing the state an arm and a leg, but it is, and has been for a long time, hurting the Texas k12 education and the student’s ability to pass. It seems like it is more a more expensive and less effective way to educate the students of Texas. Considering the fact that Texas is ranked in the bottom ten for k12 education I think it is time that we try something different that might also involve saving millions of dollars. We could possibly stop focusing on tests that analyze crammed test material and teach what is actually going to be needed in the higher education world. It’s a win-win situation.  

Texas spends millions on college for prison inmates

In an article entitled, "Texas spends millions on college for prison inmates," Mike Ward states how Texas is giving inmates the opportunity for higher education while in prison. The tuition does not need to be payed back until after they are out of prison and over a period of time. Before recieving higher education classes, they are required to agree to pay back the full amount when they are released or paroled. Out of the 22,000 ex prisoners who had recieved aid for this program, only 6,630 have reimbursed all of the money loaned to them by the state, which adds up to about $4.5 million. There is an estimated $9.5 million that is owed to the state from the remaining 16,088 ex cons that haven't paid it back.

Although there are statistics that show that inmates who were educated have a higher recidivism rate, the $9.5 million that is not yet paid back to the state stands out a little more to me. I think it is unfair and unnecessary to be providing higher ed to felons instead of trying to reach out to the people who haven't gone to prison. I think we can take the total of $15 million and use it toward people who can't afford college instead of cutting the amount of financial aid that is given to law abiding citizens. I personally think that spending could easily be cut if we didn't spend so much money on programs like this that we don't even need!

Eliminate school police for budget savings

In the article, "Eliminate school police for budget savings," Scott Henson talks about the cutting of school police to help cut back on spending for public schools. He claims that it wasn't till recently that we decided to have police on school campuses and that we have been fine without them in the past. He also says that the ratio of teachers and non teachers in school systems are equal. Attorney Don Dickinson stated that back when he was in junior high, they had on campus dieticians, but no on campus cops. Today, we have on campus cops, but no nutritionists. Senator John Whitmire had commented on the fact that campus police aren't given full authority to write any sort of tickets so why are they necessary?

In my opinion, I think this whole article is backwards. I believe that in this day it is appropriate to have police on campus during school hours. Yeah, they might not have been needed "back in the day," but a lot of things have changed since 30 years ago. Considering the fact that we are looking to pass a law to allow college students carry guns on campus, I think it's safe to say that having campus police is necessary no matter if it's k-12 or higher ed. There are also plenty of other resources for students go turn to when it comes to dieting. What is more important? The safety of students while going to school, or the obese rate. Even if we did have on campus nutririonists I don't believe it would decrease America's child obesity rate. School is a place where students of all ages should always feel safe. In this day in age, who knows what will happen if campus police are cut. Yes, something needs to be done, but there has to be another way than jeopardizing the safety of kids at school.

Tripp: In the face of danger, Texans must have the option to protect themselves

In Anita Tripp's editorial, "In the face of danger, Texans must have the option to protect themselves," Tripp makes the argument that it is essential that the people of Texas have the right to carry a gun for safety purposes. She works in the capitol and feels a lot more secure because she can carry a gun too and from the parking garage when going to work. It also gives her a sense of security when traveling to and from the rural area of Bastrop everyday. Tripp's son was shot in an armed robbery in North Austin and luckily he wasn't killed. This is a situation where she thought it would have been a good idea to have a concealed weapon. Basically, Tripp feels that if you are properly trained in using the weapon, can pass a background check, and have taken a written couse, that it should not be an issue to carry a concealed weapon.

I strongly agree with this argument. I believe that if a person goes through the proper steps and has had a background check that there shouldn't be an issue with carrying a concealed weapon. Of course, if a weapon falls into the wrong hands it could be bad, but we would really need to crack down on making sure if someone carries a gun in public places that they have a permit for it. 

Physicians oppose pre-abortion sonogram bill in Texas Senate hearing

During the first pre-abortion sonogram legislation that took place on February 9, 2011, there were several reasons why physicians were in opposition to the issue. In the article Physicians oppose pre-abortion sonogram bill in Texas Senate hearing, Michele Gilbert, a gynecologist, argues that there is no reliable evidence that supports the rate of abortion changing if sonograms are viewed. Other than the fact that they don't have any impact, they also intrude on "doctor-patient relationships" and the bill itself is very vague. Issues with extreme circumstances such as rape, incest, or fetal anomalies are not stated in the bill.

Critics of the bill say that this law is just a guilt trip to try and convince women out of getting abortions. Others say that it's merely a safety precaution and if a woman chooses not to hear the heart beat or view the sonogram, they don't have to. According to a study at two different abortion clinics in Canada, 73 percent of women wanted to see the sonogram if given the chance, 84 percent said that seeing the sonogram didn't make it any harder, and none of the women decided to change their mind about their decision.

I think this article is worth reading because there is a lot of talk about the issue, but statistics say that it would basically be a pointless and a waste of money. If professionals in that field say mandatory sonograms have little to no impact at all, why question it? Why waste the time and money on something that isn't going to make a difference?