-THW support nationalism
The President said many African
Support Nationalism, Pan-Africanism
to prosper - Museveni tells newly
commissioned cadet officers Saturday
4th October 2014
President Museveni has said for any
country to prosper economically, the
people must be nationalist, support
Pan- Africanism and internationalism
in order to create a bigger market to
sale their products.
He noted that there is need for African
States to unite and create a bigger
market for its countries to sale their
products and to negotiate with other
business players like China and
Europe among others to earn them
higher returns.
The President said Uganda's products
require national, regional and
international markets in order to get
higher returns, adding that the internal
market is too small.
The President was yesterday speaking
to the recently commissioned 202
cadet Officers at State House Entebbe.
The Cadet Officers at the rank of
Lieutenants under took a one year
Military training at Kabamba Military
Academy.
The President focused his lecture on
`Uganda; and what is the value of
Uganda under an ideology and
Patriotism'.
The President said a person who does
not understand why he needs Uganda
is an enemy to himself or herself
because Uganda is for the prosperity
of the people of Uganda. "Uganda
first and foremost is for our prosperity
but if you want to live in the ancient
way, you do not need Uganda. But
now for somebody not to understand
why you need Uganda is to be an
enemy to themselves because you do
not know your interest," he said.
countries have not experienced
economic development and growth
because of small internal markets
adding that some of the African
countries are still in conflicts because
they have failed to address the problem
of lack of patriotism.
He cited how Germany which was once
divided into 39 Kingdoms became
economically strong, modernized and
capitalized based on profit after it
fought war with France to become
united, because of the demand for
economics.
The President noted that Nationalism
and Pan- Africanism will bring
prosperity to Uganda among other
stimuli like Infrastructure including
electricity, roads and railway. He said
that production cost should be lowered
through infrastructure in order to attract
investments.
He urged the Cadet Officers to stand on
a strong foundation that will show them
the clear way as they continue to serve
Uganda. He called on them to love their
country and stand against sectarianism
based on tribal and religious
tendencies.
nationalism
naSH()nlizm/
noun
patriotic feeling, principles, or efforts
Nationalism is a complex, multidimensional
concept involving a shared communal
identification with one's nation. It is a political
ideology oriented towards gaining and
maintaining self-governance, or full
sovereignty, over a territory of historical
significance to the group (such as its
homeland). Nationalism therefore holds that a
nation should govern itself, free from
unwanted outside interference, and is linked to
the concept of self-determination. Nationalism
is further oriented towards developing and
maintaining a national identity based on shared
characteristics such as culture, language, race,
religion, political goals or a belief in a
common ancestry.[1][2] Nationalism therefore
seeks to preserve the nation's culture. It often
also involves a sense of pride in the nation's
achievements, and is closely linked to the
concept of patriotism. In these terms,
nationalism can be positive or negative.[3]
Understanding Nationalism
Examples of nationalism include:
Any situation in which a nation comes
together for a specific cause or in reaction
to a significant event
The Battle of New Orleans in which
Americans united at the conclusion of the
American Revolution
The waving of flags and passionate
anthem singing
The great outpouring of support by
citizens of a nation for their athletes in the
Olympics
The unity of Americans and outpouring
of patriotic actions after the events of
September 11
Hitler's unity of the Germans through
various techniques in order to achieve his
agenda
Nationalism is evident in European
countries' colonial expansion
The unity of the Soviets when bringing
their country to collapse after the Cold War
The unity of the Serbian minorities in
Croatia and Bosnia
The election of a nationalist party in
2007 in Scotland
Wales' successful election of a new
party in 2007
The French Revolution
The Made In the USA campaign
Symbols such as the Union Jack and
songs such as Rule, Brittania! are examples
of the manifestation of nationalism in
England in the 1700's
The Greek War of Independence was
begun by Greek nationalists as a show of
united rebellion
Pan-Turkism, an ideology of Turkish
nationalists
Pahlavi was able to increase nationalist
ideology in Iran during his rule by boosting
patriotism
Aryanism, an ideology which states that
Aryans are the master race, has been
considered a form of, or component of,
nationalism
The Japanese, during WWII, displayed
nationalism
Benito Mussolini is an example of a
nationalistic leader
As these examples show, nationalism can be
used for good purposes or for bad purposes
depending upon what the nation comes together
in order to accomplish.
Perspectives of Nationalism
There are two perspectives about nationalism's
genesis, primordialist and modernist:
Primordialist - Suggests that nationalism
is the result of humans' evolutionary
tendency to gather and unite in groups.
Pierre van den Berghe is a primary
proponent of the primordialist perspective.
Modernist - Suggests that nationalism is
very new and its existence requires
contemporary societal and cultural
constructs. Henry Maine, Max Weber, and
Ferdinand Tonnies are some of the
prominent modernist theorists. The first
usage of the word "nationalism" is attributed
to Johann Gottfried Herder in the late
1700's.
Nationalism can be a powerful means of
achieving goals as a country. Nationalism can
also be a tool of manipulation by the
leadership of a group or nation and can lead to
grave violence.
THB that China is a better ally than the US
Is China really a better ally than America?
WHAT MATTERS MOST By Atty Josephus
Jimenez (The Freeman) | Updated October 16,
2016 - 12:00am
1 286 googleplus0 0
The problem with our geographical and
political realities is that while our country is in
the edge of Asia, and thus nearer to China, the
indubitable truth is that we have always been
historically closer to the United States of
America. For more than a century and a
decade, the Philippines and the US stood
together against many enemies and against
many natural and man-made disasters and
calamities. China had always been too near
and yet too far, too unreachable. Today, our
chief executive is leading the whole
Philippines to an entirely different path. He is,
in fact, about to visit the People's Republic of
China, while continuing to attack the
Americans with harsh words.
Is this the direction that the whole nation
wants? If we have to befriend a superpower
that continues to bully us in the West
Philippine Sea, do we have to antagonize and
abandon our long-standing friendship with the
US? With all its imperfections, its excesses
and its inadequacies, America is, to my mind,
still the better friend. There are millions of our
compatriots who are now in the US, either as
permanent residents, proud of their green
cards, or US citizens who have pledged
allegiance to America. On the other hand, the
Filipinos who are in China constitutes a
negligible number, many of whom are drug
convicts. There are more US investments in
our country. The Chinese do not invest much
except to inundate our markets with cheap and
unsafe goods.
Of course, the USA is not a perfect friend, but
come on guys, which country can claim
perfection? At least, for more than a century
and 16 years now, we have had a strong alliance
with the Americans. We fought under the same
flag against the Japanese. We fought under the
same flag against North Korea when we sent our
PEFTOK (Philippine Expeditionary Forces to
Korea) under the Colonel Nicanor T. Jimenez.
We fought under the same flag against then
North Vietnam, when we sent the PHILCAG
(Philippine Civic Action Group) to fight and
defend South Vietnam. Our soldiers and theirs
shared all the pains and difficulties in all sorts of
battle terrains. We can look back to a long
history of cooperation and alliance. Why waste
all those?
What has China done to our country and to our
people? Whenever we are faced with natural
disasters and man-made disasters, it is always
the US and the Western allies that come to our
succor and assistance. Earthquakes, floods,
super typhoons, or pestilences and plagues, it is
always America that stood by us. China would
send some token once in a while but they are not
really there to make us feel cared for and
assisted to the hilt. The US had given the
Philippines many and varying assistances and
aids. When China started to bully us in the West
Philippine Sea, it is the US which stood up and
sent Beijing a clear message that the USA will
not stand idly, folding its hands, if and when
China violates our territorial domains.
We have millions of Filipinos now in the US,
while we have a few hundreds being jailed in
China for drug-related crimes and some are
even due for execution. The US, with all its
imperfections, has proven to be a better ally
than anyone else, better than Japan, better than
Australia, better than Canada (which dumped its
thousands of tons of garbage into our country).
The US, of course, has also benefited from the
US-Phl relations. But that is the nature of
foreign bilaterial relations -- with reciprocity
and mutuality. There had been some excesses
and aberrations committed by US servicemen,
abuses if you will. But in totality, I strongly
submit that China can never be better than the
US as an ally. What matters most is that the
Philippines and America do share a lot of
values, principles and aspirations, a lot of ties.
We don't have any of that with China.
THW support Federalism
Concepts of Federalism
Federalism is a type of government in
which the power is divided between the
national government and other
governmental units. It contrasts with a
unitary government, in which a central
authority holds the power, and a
confederation, in which states, for
example, are clearly dominant.
While the Constitution addressed only the
relationship between the federal
government and the states, the American
people are under multiple jurisdictions. A
person not only pays his or her federal
income tax but also may pay state and city
income taxes as well. Property taxes are
collected by counties and are used to
provide law enforcement, build new
schools, and maintain local roads.
Throughout the 20th century, the power of
the federal government expanded
considerably through legislation and court
decisions. While much recent political
debate has centered on returning power to
the states, the relationship between the
federal government and the states has
been argued over for most of the history
of the United States.
The constitutional framework
Although the Constitution sets up a
federal system, nowhere does it define
what federalism is. However, the framers
of the Constitution were determined to
create a strong national government and
address the shortcomings of the Articles of
Confederation, which allowed the states
too much power. In terms of the balance
of power between the federal government
and the states, the Constitution clearly
favors the federal government.
The powers specifically given to the
federal government are not as relevant to
the expansion of its authority as the
Constitution's more general provisions;
that is, Congress is to provide for the
general welfare (preamble) and ". . . make
all laws which shall be necessary and
proper . . ." (Article I, Section 8). In the
Constitution as ratified, there is no similar
broad grant of powers to the states. It
emphasized what states cannot do (Article
I, Section 10) and gave them authority in
just a few areas namely, establishing
voter qualifications and setting up the
mechanics of congressional elections. This
reduction in power was corrected through
the Tenth Amendment, which reserved to
the states or the people all powers either
not specifically delegated to the national
government or specifically denied to the
states. The language in the general welfare
and elastic clauses and the Tenth
Amendment is vague enough to allow
widely different interpretations. Because
both federal and state governments can
turn to the Constitution for support, it is
not surprising that different concepts of
federalism have emerged.
Dual federalism
Dual federalism looks at the federal
system as a sort of "layer cake," with each
layer of government performing the tasks
that make the most sense for that level.
The initial framing and ratification of the
Constitution reflected this theory. Even
those people supporting a stronger
national government proposed that powers
in the federal government be distinct and
limited, with certain tasks enumerated for
the national government in the
Constitution and the remaining tasks left
to the state governments. Because this
theory leaves each government supreme
within its own sphere of operations, it is
also sometimes called dual sovereignty.
One more-extreme outgrowth of this
theory is the idea of states' rights, which
holds that, because the national
government is not allowed to infringe on
spheres left to state government, doing so
violates the states' constitutional rights
(especially the Tenth Amendment, which
specifically reserves undelegated powers
for the states). Federal government action
in those spheres represents an unlawful
seizure of power by one level of
government at the expense of another.
This view has historically been popular in
the South, where it was viewed as
preventing national government
interference in the region's race relations,
but it has been invoked elsewhere as well.
The problem with taking dual federalism
this far is figuring out who defines where
one layer ends and the next layer starts.
Before the Civil War, some voices said
that, to protect their rights, states could
secede from the Union or declare national
laws that affect them null and void but
those arguments are no longer taken
seriously. Instead, the U.S. Supreme Court
resolves disputes within the federal
structure, and because the Court is a
national institution, it rarely favors the
states.
Cooperative federalism
The theory of cooperative federalism
emerged during the New Deal, when the
power of the federal government grew in
response to the Great Depression. It does
not recognize a clear distinction between
the functions of the states and
Washington, and it emphasizes that there
are many areas in which their
responsibilities overlap. For example,
drug enforcement involves federal agents,
state troopers, and local police. The
federal government supplies funds for
education, but the state and local school
boards choose curriculum and set
qualifications for teachers. (Interestingly,
attempts to set national standards for
students in certain subjects have raised
concerns of federal intrusion.) The notion
of overlapping jurisdictions is expressed
by the term marble-cake federalism.
Cooperative federalism takes a very loose
view of the elastic clause that allows
power to flow through federal
government. It is a more accurate model
of how the federal system has worked
over much of U.S. history.
Why federalism will be good for the
Philippines
WHAT MATTERS MOST By Atty.
Josephus B. Jimenez (The Freeman) |
Updated April 25, 2016 - 12:00am
23 594 googleplus8 1
One of the strongest reasons why Mayor
Digong Duterte's political campaign for
the presidency is making waves is, aside
from his strong advocacy against crimes
and drugs, of course, his strategic and
trailblazing platform proposing a federal
form of government for the Philippines. In
fact, the survey says that most of Mayor
Duterte's supporters are not fixated on his
personality or idiosyncrasies but on the
need to introduce a draconian change in
governance via federalism. The other
presidential candidates are promising
ambitious results by merely seeking to
continue the same way of leading and
managing the nation.
Federalism is doing well not only in the
United States but also in our close
neighbor in southeastern Asia, Malaysia
whose people can be comparable to the
Filipinos in culture, outlook and ways of
looking at government. Federalism can
assure for us an authentic and really
working local autonomy, not the same old
pretension of devolution today, where
major and even tactical decisions are all
done in the imperialistic Metro Manila.
The southern regions today are still
marginalized considering that most of the
powerful officials are from Luzon.
Today, the president, the vice president,
the speaker of the House, the chief justice
and most of the fifteen Supreme Court
justices are from Luzon. Most of the
cabinet members are from Luzon. Military
officials, bureau directors are almost all
from Luzon. The Visayas and Mindanao
citizens are only relied upon as taxpayers,
and as sources of food supplies, mining
products, and suppliers of cheap labor
both in the domestic and global labor
markets. Even the commanding generals
of the army, the navy, and the air force are
all from the north.
Once we are under a federal system, all
component states collect their own taxes
and contribute only a small fraction of
their revenues to the federal or central
government for only three centralized
functions, namely: National Defense,
including the National Police, Justice and
Foreign Affairs. All the rest shall be left to
each state, including health, education,
labor and employment, trade,
transportation, communication,
agriculture, agrarian reform, justice
environment, natural resources. The states
will manage mining and forest matters and
shall control all natural resources. Each
state will have its own unicameral
congress and a separate court of appeals.
ASEAN Countries should have a uniform
monetary unit
There will be only one centralized
Supreme Court and one federal senate
with three senators from each state.
Close Ad X
We propose the following states:
1. Northern Luzon state composed of
Ilocos, Cagayan Valley and Cordillera
(voting population: 5,807,889);
Freeman ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1,
sectionmatch:
2. Central Luzon (6,055,889);
3. NCR (6,253,249);
4. Calabarzon (7,619,278);
5. Bicol (3,121,661);
6. Mimaropa (1,589,326);
7. Western Visayas (4,242,153);
8. Central Visayas (4,375,756);
9. Eastern Visayas ( 3,121,661 );
10. Northern Mindanao and Caraga
(4,088, 4240);
11. Socsargen and Southern Mindanao
(4,745,818); and
12. ARMM or Bangsa Moro (1,863,230).
Federalism will result to friendly
"coopetition" or "cooperative
competition," as well as synergy and
mutual reinforcement. Mayor Duterte is
making waves because of the vast
potentials of federalism, his top advocacy.
The Asian Monetary Unit (AMU) is a
basket of currencies proposed by the
Japanese government's Research Institute
of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
It is similar to the European Currency Unit
(ECU), predecessor to the euro.
The Asian Monetary Unit, which has been
created as the joint project of 21st century
COE project of Hitotsubashi University
and RIETI, is a common currency basket
composed of 13 East Asian currencies,
such as ASEAN 10 plus Japan, China and
South Korea. These data have been
published on the website of RIETI since
September 2005. After 4 years passed, a
common currency basket composed of 13
AMU currencies plus three other
countries, Australia, New Zealand and
India, which are strongly connected with
Asian countries, is newly created as
"AMU-wide". The AMU-wide, which is a
common currency basket composed of
wider range of currencies, will be
expected to utilise as a surveillance
indicator corresponding to the extensive
regional economies.
THIS HOUSE SUPPORTS THE DEATH
PENALTY
Capital punishment is the sentence of
death, or practice of execution, handed
down as punishment for a criminal
offence. It can only be used by a state,
after a proper legal trial. The United
Nations in 2008 adopted a resolution
(62/149) calling for a moratorium on the
use of the death penalty, however fifty-
eight countries, including the United
States and China, still exercise the death
penalty. As such, the topic remains highly
controversial. Abolitionist groups and
international organizations argue that it is
cruel and inhumane, while proponents
claim that it is an effective and necessary
deterrent for the most heinous of crimes.
Points for
It helps the victims' families achieve
closure.
POINT
The death penalty can also help
provide closure for the victim's family
and friends, who will no longer have
to fear the return of this criminal into
society. They will not have to worry
about parole or the chance of escape,
and will thus be able to achieve a
greater degree of closure.
Mary Heidcamp, a Chicago woman
whose mother's killer faced the death
penalty before the State Governor
commuted the sentences to life in
prison, stated 'we were looking
forward to the death penalty. I'm just
so disappointed in the system'1. Other
victims' families deemed the decision
a 'mockery', that 'justice is not done'1.
1 Goldbery, Michelle. "The Closure
Myth". Salon. January 21,
2003.Accessed June 30,2011
improve this
COUNTERPOINT
Many victims' families oppose the death
penalty1. While some might take
comfort in knowing the guilty party has
been executed, others might prefer to
know that the person is suffering in jail,
or might not feel comfortable knowing
that the state killed another human being
on behalf of the victim.
Furthermore, Stanford University
psychiatrist David Spiegel believes
'witnessing executions not only fails to
provide closure but often causes
symptoms of acute stress. Witness
trauma is not far removed from
experience it'2.
Even if it was the case that capital
punishment helped the victims' families,
sentencing is simply not about what the
victims' families want. Punishment
should be proportionate to the crime
committed, and not the alleged
preferences of victims' families.
1 Murder Victims' Families for
Reconciliation. Accessed June 9, 2011.
2 Rahka, Naseem. "Capital Punishment:
Muhammad and the 'Closure' Myth."
November 1, 2009. Accessed June 29,
2011.
IMPROVE THIS
The death penalty deters crime.
POINT
The state has a responsibility to
protect the lives of innocent citizens,
and enacting the death penalty may
save lives by reducing the rate of
violent crime.
The reasoning here is simple- fear of
execution can play a powerful
motivating role in convincing potential
murderers not to carry out their acts.
While the prospect of life in prison
may be frightening, surely death is a
more daunting prospect. Thus, the risk
of execution can change the cost-
benefit calculus in the mind of
murderers-to be so that the act is no
longer worthwhile for them1.
Numerous studies support the
deterrent effect of the death penalty. A
1985 study by Stephen K. Layson at
the University of North Carolina
showed that a single execution deters
18 murders. Another influential study,
which looked at over 3,054 counties
over two decades, further found
support for the claim that murder rates
tend to fall as executions rise2.
On top of this, there are ways to make
the death penalty an even more
effective deterrent than it is today. For
instance, reducing the wait time on
death row prior to execution can
dramatically increase its deterrent
effect in the United States1.
In short, the death penalty can- and
does- save the lives of innocent
people.
1 Muhlhausen, David. "The Death
Penalty Deters Crime and Saves
Lives," August 28,2007. Accessed
June 5, 2011.
2 Liptak, Adam. "Does Death Penalty
Save Lives? A New Debate." The New
York Times. November 18, 2007.
Accessed June 9, 2011
improve this
COUNTERPOINT
There are many reasons to doubt the
deterrent effect of the death penalty. For
one thing, many criminals may actually
find the prospect of the death penalty
less daunting (and thus, less effective as
a deterrent) than spending the rest of
their lives suffering in jail. Death by
execution is generally fairly quick, while
a lifetime in prison can be seen as a
much more intensive punishment.
Moreover, even if criminals preferred
life in prison to the death penalty, it's not
clear that a harsher punishment would
effectively deter murders. Heinous
crimes often occur in the heat of the
moment, with little consideration for
their legal repercussions1.
Further, for a deterrent to be effective, it
would have to be immediate and certain.
This is not the case with the death
penalty cases, which often involve
prolonged appeals and sometimes end in
acquittals2.
Finally, the empirical evidence regarding
the deterrence effect of the death penalty
is at best mixed. Many of the studies that
purport to show the deterrence effect are
flawed, because the impact of capital
punishment cannot be disentangled from
other factors such as broader social
trends, economic factors and
demographic changes in a region2.
Other studies have even suggested a
correlation between the death penalty
and higher crime rates. States such as
Texas and Oklahoma, which have very
high execution rates, also have higher
crime rates than most states that do not
have the death penalty2.
1 Amnesty International. "Abolish the
Death Penalty." Accessed June 5, 2011.
2 "Saving Lives and Money." The
Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed
June 5, 2011.
IMPROVE THIS
Execution prevents the accused from
committing further crimes.
POINT
The death penalty is the only way to
ensure that criminals do not escape
back into society or commit further
crimes while in prison.
While in prison, it is not uncommon
for those receiving life in jail
sentences to commit homicide,
suicide, or other crimes while in jail,
since there is no worse punishment
they can receive1. Putting dangerous
murderers in prison endangers other
prisoners and the guards who must
watch them.
The other advantage of execution is
that it prevents the possibly of an
escape from prison. Even the highest
security detention facilities can have
escapees2. Thus, the only way to be
absolutely certain that a convicted
murder can no longer hurt others is to
execute them.
1 Murdock, Deroy. "A Sure Way to
Prevent Prison Escapes." March 30,
2001. Accessed June 9, 2011
2 Davis, Laura. "Crime and
Punishment: the view from a
convicted criminal." The Independent.
May 19, 2011. Accessed June 9, 2001.
improve this
COUNTERPOINT
Escapes from prison, though
sensationalized by the media, are
relatively rare occurrences1. In 1998,
according to the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, 6,530 people escaped or were
AWOL from state prisons. Given a total
prison population of 1,100,224 state
prisoners, that figure represents just over
half a percent of the total prison
population.
On top of this, it is not impossible for
people to commit further crimes while
on death row. Those sentenced to death
may be even more eager to escape prior
to their execution than those awaiting
life in prison, so it is not true that
execution necessarily prevents further
crimes.
1 Suellentrop, Chris. "How Often Do
Prisoners Escape?" Slate. February 1,
2001.
IMPROVE THIS
The death penalty should apply as
punishment for first-degree murder; an
eye for an eye.
POINT
The worst crimes deserve the most
severe sanctions; first-degree murder
involves the intentional slaughter of
another human being. There are crimes
that are more visceral, but there are
none that are more deadly. Such a
heinous crime can only be punished, in
a just and fair manner, with the death
penalty.
As Time put it, 'there is a zero-sum
symmetry to capital punishment that is
simple and satisfying enough to feel
like human instinct: the worst possible
crime deserves no less than the worst
possible
punishment'1.Human life is sacred;
there must be a deterrent mechanism
in place that ensures that those
violating that fundamental precept are
punished. Capital punishment
symbolizes the value and importance
placed upon the maintenance of the
sanctity of human life. Any lesser
sentence would fail in this duty.
1 Time Magazine. "The Death
Penalty: An Eye for an Eye". Time.
January 24, 1983. Accessed June 30,
2011.
improve this
COUNTERPOINT
There is no fairness or consistency in an
eye-for-an-eye attitude towards justice.
Justice should remain above the petty
retributive justice that marks street or
community warfare, whereby the murder
of one family member justifies a revenge
attack against the murderers' family.
Furthermore, it is inconsistent with other
areas of the law. As New York
University Law Professor Anthony
Amsterdam notes, 'we don't burn
arsonists' houses'1. Capital punishment
'attempts to vindicate one murder by
committing a second murder. And the
second murder is more reprehensible
because it is officially sanctioned and
done with great ceremony in the name of
us all'1.
The Christian logic of an eye for an eye
is undermined not merely by the Pope
himself, who advocated 'clemency, or
pardon, for those condemned to death',
but scripture itself, which preaches
mercy just as vigorously as it does
retribution1.
1 Time Magazine. "The Death Penalty:
An Eye for an Eye". Time. January 24,
1983. Accessed June 30, 2011.
IMPROVE THIS
Execution helps alleviate the
overcrowding of prisons.
POINT
The death penalty can help ease the
problem of overcrowded prisons in
many countries, where keeping people
for life in prison contributes to
expensive and at times
unconstitutional overcrowding1.
In 2011, California prison
overcrowding was so problematic that
a district court panel ordered
authorities to release or transfer more
than 33,000 inmates. This decision
was held up by the U.S. Supreme
Court, which argued that the
conditions in the overcrowded prisons
are so overwhelming that they
constitute cruel and unusual
punishment2. Similarly, in the United
Kingdom two thirds of prisons in
England and Wales have been deemed
overcrowded3.
As such, the death penalty may be
preferable to life in prison since it
helps alleviate a pressing problem in
the criminal justice system. It is better
to execute those who deserve it than to
be forced to release dangerous
offenders into society because prisons
are overcrowded by people serving life
sentences.
1Sanchez, Mary. "California prisons:
Cruel and unusual." The Miami
Herald. May 30, 2011. Accessed June
9, 2011.
2 Martinez, Michael. "California
officials: We'll fix prison crowding,
won't free 33,000." CNN. May
24,2011. Accessed June 9, 2011.
3"Two-thirds of prisons overcrowded."
The Guardian. August 25, 2009.
Accessed June 8, 2011
improve this
COUNTERPOINT
Executions are rare enough that they do
not have a significant impact on prison
populations, which are largely composed
of people who would not be eligible for
the death penalty. Even if large numbers
of people could be executed instead of
serving prisons, resources would not be
saved due to the expenses associated
with death penalty cases1.
Instead of execution, there are better,
more humane solutions for alleviating
overcrowded prisons. One could
increase community service
requirements, build more prisons, or
target broader crime reduction
programs2.
Principally, whether or not a convict
deserves to live or die should not be
contingent on factors as arbitrary as the
availability of prison spots in a given
region. Justice is about the
proportionality of punishment to crime,
not of prisoners to prisons, so it is not
fair to use crowded prisons as a
justification for the death penalty.
1 "Saving Lives and Money." The
Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed
June 5, 2011.2 Death Penalty
Information Center. Accessed June 8,
2011.
IMPROVE THIS
State-sanctioned killing is wrong.
POINT
The state has no right to take away the
life of its citizens. By executing
convicts, the government is effectively
condoning murder, and devaluing
human life in the process. Such acts
violate the right to life as declared in
the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights1 and the right not to be
subjected to cruel, inhuman, or
degrading punishment2.
On top of this, the state forces
executioners to actively participate in
the taking of a life, which can be
unduly traumatizing and leave
permanent psychological scars. Thus,
a humane state cannot be one that
exercises the death penalty.
1 Amnesty International. "Abolish the
Death Penalty." Accessed June 5,
2011.
2 European Union Delegation to the
USA. "EU Policy Against the Death
penalty." October 10, 2010. Accessed
June 5, 2011.
improve this
COUNTERPOINT
A just state regularly abrogates people's
rights when they intrude upon the rights
of others. By sentencing people to
prison, for instance, the state takes away
rights to movement, association, and
property rights from convicted criminals.
The right to life should be no different.
When you commit certain heinous
crimes, you forgo your right to life. This
does not devalue life, but rather affirms
the value of the innocent life taken by
the criminal. Certain crimes are so
heinous that the only proportionate
sentence is execution.
As for the executioners themselves, there
are methods of execution that involve
multiple executioners which might
reduce the associated psychological
burdens. At any rate, no one is forced to
become an executioner, and people who
choose to take on that role do so with
full awareness of the risks involved.
IMPROVE THIS
The death penalty is a financial burden
on the state.
POINT
Capital punishment imposes a very
high cost on taxpayers, which far
outweighs the costs of alternative
punishments such as life in prison1.
A single capital litigation can cost over
$1 million as a result of the intensive
jury selection, trials, and long appeals
process that are required by capital
cases2. The cost of death row presents
an additional financial burden
associated with the death penalty.
Savings from abolishing the death
penalty in Kansas, for example, are
estimated at $500,000 for every case
in which the death penalty is not
sought1.
In California, death row costs
taxpayers $114 million a year beyond
the cost of imprisoning convicts for
life2.
This money could instead be better
spent on measures that are of much
greater benefit to the criminal justice
system- greater policing, education,
and other crime-preventing measures
that are far more cost-effective.
1Liptak, Adam. "Does Death Penalty
Save Lives? A New Debate." The New
York Times. November 18, 2007.
Accessed June 9, 2011
2"High Cost of Death Row." The New
York Times. September 27, 2009.
improve this
COUNTERPOINT
Justice is priceless. Even if the death
penalty is more expensive than other
punishments, that is not sufficient reason
to ban it. Fair and proportionate
punishments should be independent of
financial considerations.
Further, there are ways to make the death
penalty less expensive than it is today.
Shortening the appeals process or
changing the method of execution could
reduce its costs1.
1 "Saving Lives and Money." The
Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed
June 5, 2011.
IMPROVE THIS
Wrongful convictions are irreversible.
POINT
There are an alarming number of
wrongful convictions associated with
the death penalty1. So far, more than
130 people who had been sentenced to
death have been exonerated2. In many
cases, unlike those who have been
sentenced to life in prison, it is
impossible to compensate executed
prisoners should they later be proven
innocent.
The state should not gamble with
people's lives. The chance of wrongful
execution alone should be enough to
prove the death penalty is not
justifiable.
1 European Union Delegation to the
USA. "EU Policy Against the Death
penalty." October 10, 2010. Accessed
June 5, 2011.
2 "Saving Lives and Money." The
Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed
June 5, 2011.
improve this
COUNTERPOINT
Wrongful convictions are particularly
rare in cases where the death penalty is
sentenced. The lengthy and thorough
procedures associated with death penalty
cases offer sufficient protection against
wrongful convictions. If there is any
reasonable doubt that a person is guilty,
they will not receive the sentence.
Finally, even in cases where there is a
wrongful conviction, there is generally a
lengthy appeals process for them to
make their case. For example, in 1993,
Alex Hernandez was sentenced to death
for the kidnapping, rape and murder of a
10-year old girl in Chicago; he was
released a number of years later due to
his lawyers proving both a paucity of
evidence and the confession of her actual
killer1. As a result, very few innocent
people receive the death penalty, and the
legality of capital punishment does not
increase wrongful or prejudicial
convictions2.
1 Turow, Scot. "To kill or not to kill,"
The New Yorker, January 6, 2003.
Accessed June 3, 2011,
2 Murdock, Deroy. "A Sure Way to
Prevent Prison Escapes." March 30,
2001. Accessed June 9, 2011
IMPROVE THIS
The death penalty can produce
irreversible miscarriages of justice.
POINT
Juries are imperfect1, and increasing
the stakes of the verdict can pervert
justice in a couple of ways.
First, implementation of the death
penalty is often impacted by jury
members' social, gender-based or
racial biases2, disproportionately
impacting certain victimized groups in
society and adding a certain
arbitrariness to the justice system. A
2005 study found that the death
penalty was three to four times more
common amongst those who killed
whites than those who killed African
Americans or Latinos, while those
who kill women are three and a half
times more likely to be executed than
those who kill men2.
Regional differences in attitudes
towards the death penalty can also
introduce elements of randomness into
sentencing. For instance, in Illinois, a
person is five times more likely to get
a death sentence for first-degree
murder in a rural area than in Cook
County2.
Finally, the fear of wrongful execution
can also pervert justice by biasing
juries towards returning an innocent
verdict when they would otherwise be
deemed guilty3. When they are told
that the consequence of a guilty
verdict is death, they are likely to find
some kind of reasonable doubt to
avoid being responsible for the death
of that criminal. This means that more
criminals who would've otherwise
been convicted do not get charged. In
this sense the death penalty can
pervert the goals of justice and
prolong the difficult process for
victims' families.
1 "Saving Lives and Money." The
Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed
June 5, 2011.
2Turow , Scot. "To kill or not to kill,"
The New Yorker, January 6, 2003.
Accessed June 3, 2011,
3 Death Penalty Information Center.
Accessed June 8, 2011.
improve this
COUNTERPOINT
The fact that juries are prone to several
biases is not a flaw inherent or unique to
capital punishment.
If there are racial or prejudicial issues in
sentencing, these are likely to present
themselves just as often in cases where
the punishment is life in prison. It is
equally problematic for people to die or
spend decades in jails for crimes they
did not commit. These errors suggest
that the judicial process may need some
reform, not that the death penalty should
be abolished. Implementation errors that
result in discrimination can and should
be corrected.
Moreover, there is little evidence that
these biases are even present in most
death penalty cases1. A study funded by
the National Institute of Justice in the
US found that differences in sentencing
for white and non-white victims
disappeared when the heinousness of the
crimes were factored into the study1.
Thus, factors relating to the crime, not
the race, of the accused accounted for
some of the purported racial disparities
that were found.
Finally, jurors must be "death- qualified"
in such cases, meaning that they are
comfortable sentencing someone to
death should the fact indicate their
guilt2. Thus, it is unlikely that many
jurors will abstain from a guilty verdict
because they are uncomfortable with the
death penalty.
1 Muhlhausen, David. "The Death
Penalty Deters Crime and Saves Lives,"
August 28,2007. Accessed June 5, 2011.
 2 Haney, Craig. "Juries and the Death
Penalty." Crime and Delinquency. Vol 26
no 4. October 1980.
IMPROVE THIS
including Nebraska) still have the death
penalty on the books, as does the federal
government. Here are five facts about the
issue:

1Support has fallen dramatically in the

past two decades, but more Americans
5 facts about the death penalty still favor the death penalty than oppose it.
BY DAVID MASCI 32 COMMENTS A Pew Research Center poll in August and
September found that 49% favor the death
Even though nationwide support for the
penalty for people convicted of murder,
death penalty has fallen sharply in recent
while 42% oppose it. But support is at its
years, voters in three states voted in
lowest level in more than 40 years .
support of capital punishment in 2016. In
Much of the decline in support over the
Nebraska , a referendum to reverse an
past two decades has come from
earlier state legislative ban on the death
Democrats. Currently, just 34% of
penalty won approval handily. In
Democrats favor the death penalty,
Oklahoma , where the death penalty was
compared with 72% of Republicans.
already legal, voters approved a state
constitutional amendment guaranteeing
the availability of capital punishment
unless prohibited by the United States
Constitution. And in California , which
has more inmates on death row than any
other state, voters rejected an initiative
that would have abolished the death
penalty and appear to have approved
another that will limit the appeals process
for inmates sentenced to death.

Approval of these measures comes as the

U.S. is on track to record its fewest
executions in a quarter century. At the
same time, 31 states (once again
 inmates
are

scheduled to be put to death this year,

the final tally of executions is expected to
2Death row executions peaked in 1999
be the lowest since 1991 , when 14
and have fallen sharply in the years since.
people were executed. This year, just five
So far in 2016, 17 inmates have been
states Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
executed, according to the Death Penalty
Missouri and Texas accounted for all
Information Center. Since only three other
executions, compared with 20 states in
1999.

3While
the
number
of
executions has dropped in the U.S., use of combined. Indeed, the Cornell University
capital punishment internationally Law School estimates that the Chinese
increased by 54% in 2015, according to executed 2,400 people in 2015.
Amnesty International , a human rights
4Americans harbor doubts about how the
organization that opposes the practice. The
death penalty is applied and whether it
organization says that in 2015, at least
deters serious crime. In a Pew Research
1,634 inmates were put to death in 25
Center survey from 2015, about six-in-
nations, with just three countries Iran,
ten adults said the death penalty does not
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia accounting
deter people from committing serious
for 89% of all recorded executions. Iran
crimes. About half also said that
executed the most people (at least 977),
minorities are more likely than whites to
largely for drug-related offenses. Second
be sentenced to death for similar crimes,
and third on the list were Pakistan and
compared with 41% who said a death
Saudi Arabia, which conducted 326 and
sentence is equally likely for whites and
158 executions, respectively. The
minorities. About seven-in-ten adults
international total does not include figures
(71%) said there is a risk that an innocent
from China, which does not publish
person will be put to death, including 84%
information about its use of capital
of those who oppose the death penalty.
punishment but may well carry out more
Even a majority of death penalty
executions than all other countries
supporters (63%) said theres a risk
of taking an innocent life.
 5There are racial and gender divides in
opinions on the death penalty in the U.S.
A majority of whites (57%) favor the
death penalty, compared with 29% of
blacks and 36% of Hispanics, according to
Pew Research Center survey data from
2016. Also, men are more likely to favor
capital punishment (55%) than women
(43%).

Note: This is an update to a post published

May 28, 2015, written by Sara Kehaulani
Goo, then a senior digital editor at Pew
Research Center.

Private boarding houses should be

registered under MSU Housing
Management

THB that transgenders should have their
own utilities/offices
Pro/Cons about transgender bathroom By
Colby Maske
posted Jun 2, 2016, 6:25 AM by Matt Collier Con - Additional restrooms construction
I am not going to judge you for what you wantshould
who you are genetically/mentally. It's your choice
and its how you feel comfortable with that situation.
There has been much controversy
concerning the verdict on transgender
bathrooms. Ever since the issue has come
into light people have shown their
frustration, which is understandable
because people have different opinions--
its what make us unique. Below are some
of the Pro and Con viewpoints on this
paramount issue.
Pro - Equality for all. We need to move
forward and stop putting people into little
boxes. We should embrace diversity of
every individual, those who don't fit into
either the socially created. Everyone is
different and yet we are all the same, so
think its time to make things easier for all
those that don't fit into any boxes and
more forward into acceptance.
Con - I feel that we should create
transgender bathroom because of peoples
reactions of a transgender going into a
women's bathroom with some ones little
daughter, said an anonymous FH
student.
Pro - Gender segregation is wrong. Multi-
stall gender neutral washrooms are the
way to go because gender segregation is
wrong. Gender segregation is based on the
idea that men and women are the only
choices to pigeonhole people into. We all
knew that gender is a spectrum and not a
binary. Segregation is also wrong because
is crates a mentality betweens the sexes
and harms gender equality. When we unite
all person and do away with gender
segregation then we all build a better
society.
to be or
be equality for all without violating
the right of genders exposure of opposite
sex. It is inappropriate, unsafe, and
limitless security of restroom etiquette and
manners. If transgender children,
teenagers, or college students want their
own restrooms, they should have a
separate third public restroom to
accommodate them, just as in the case of
handicap children. A room for girls. A
room for boys. And a third room for
transgender, is they so choose to use them.
Just add another room to the construction
in all facilities throughout the U.S.A. That
way we do not violate the rights of young
girls and boys right to proper social
restroom behaviors.
Con - It is my firm opinion that women
should use the restroom with all women.
Men should use a restroom with men. We
teach our children at an early age how to
use the potty, and in public which potty
they are supposed to use. If we are
teaching them at home and in school that
girls go to the girls room and boys go to
the boys room. Why would we teach them
that boys can now come to the girls
restroom and vice versa and its ok? I
believe that its just common sense, said
an anonymous FH student.
Con - Why would you want to make a
transgender bathroom? Whatever genitalia
you have thats the restroom you should
go in. This transgender bathroom thing is
ridiculous and poor. This is the reason
kids are turning into the way they are
because they see other people doing it
they think its fine and they want to do it.
Kids brains aren't fully developed to
understand whats going on in society,
said an anonymous FH student.
Con - Its not right to allow people of
opposite gender into their bathroom of
choice according to how they feel they are
versus what they really are. If they allow
that, then anyone and everyone including
child molesters and rapists, pedophiles
period will be able to go any restroom
they choose, and make a statement I am
gay or I relate to the opposite gender
and get away with it!! The government is
losing their common sense on the issue.
Not only is it morally wrong, but its
spiritually wrong, too, said an
anonymous FH student.
Everything You Need to Know About the
Debate Over Transgender People and
Bathrooms
Katy Steinmetz
Jul 28, 2015
This week a judge in Virginia district
court will consider a question coming
before lawmakers and school principals
across the country: should transgender
Americans always be allowed to use the
restrooms where they feel the most
comfortable? And is it discrimination
when theyre forced to do otherwise? Here
is a primer on why the bathroom question
is such a hot-button issue and why its
likely to show up in our newsfeeds in
coming months.
Bathrooms and fights for civil rights go
hand-in-hand. In the Jim Crow era,
bathroomsalong with water fountains
and lunch counterswere places that
might be marked with white only signs.
The bathroom has also been a
battleground for women and handicapped
workers fighting for equal treatment in the
workplace. Because of the nature of things
people do in the bathroom, it can be a
space where they feel exposed or
vulnerable and therefore resist change. It
is also, as transgender icon Janet Mock
says, the great equalizer for all of us.
Transgender people have to fight for
authenticity as well as equality. The
average person might have their age
questioned when buying liquor or their ID
checked at the airport, but people doubt
transgender people's true identity on a
much more regular and deeper level. For
transgender kids, that might take the form
of parents insisting that theyre going
through a phase or putting them in
conversion therapy. For adults, that might
be people questioning whether Caitlyn
Jenner is really just doing it all for the
publicity. There is still this reluctance to
accept trans people for who they are,
Mock says.
To opponents, bathroom bills suggest
that what transgender people feel isnt
valid. So-called bathroom bills
introduced by social conservatives in
states such as Arizona, Maryland,
Kentucky and Florida typically mandate
that people use the bathroom that matches
the sex on their birth certificate. Thats a
marker that is difficult for most
transgender people to change, as well as
one that, for them, is a bureaucratic
indicator decided by someone else that
should not be weighed against their innate
sense of self. Just a handful of states have
"modernization" processes that make it
easier for transgender people to change
their birth certificates. Some in the
community have protested by taking
selfies in the bathrooms that they would
have to use under such laws, highlighting
how those spaces dont jibe with their
appearance or their feelings.
Conservatives argue that such bills are
necessary to protect peoples privacy and
public safety. Some social conservatives
will say that they think transgender people
are deluded. I dont want men who think
they are women in my bathrooms,
testified a Maryland woman in a 2014
hearing on an LGBT non-discrimination
bill. But a more common argument is that
allowing transgender women to use the
womens room would open the doors up
for sexual predators or peeping teenage
boys to use those protections as a
dangerous ruse to get into female spaces.
GOP politician Mike Huckabee made this
point in a much-talked-about joke that
made the rounds earlier this summer.
No evidence has been uncovered showing
that such fears are warranted. Several
states, school districts and corporations
have adopted their own policies affirming
transgender peoples right to use the
bathroom that aligns with their gender
identity and have not reported problems,
opponents of bathroom bills say.
Progressive media watchdog Media
Matters called up the 17 largest school
districts governed by such policies and
asked them if they had experienced any
incidents of harassment or inappropriate
behavior; they reported none had. Liberal
lawmakers and activists say such rhetoric
is just fear-mongering cloaking LGBT
phobias.
Bathroom policies affect transgender
people in serious ways. Transgender
students have reported being told that they
needed to use a unisex nurses office or
staff restroommissing out on class time,
being teased and feeling quarantined.
More than a quarter of transgender adults
say theyve been denied access to
gender-appropriate facilities. In a study
from UCLAs Williams Institute, nearly
70% of transgender people said they had
experienced verbal harassment in a
situation involving gender-segregated
bathrooms, while nearly 10% reported
physical assault. Transgender people will
often seek out unisex bathrooms to avoid
conflict that makes them feel like they
dont belong in one space or the other.
More political fights about this issue are
coming. Members of Congress recently
introduced the Equality Act, a non-
discrimination bill that would help protect
LGBT Americans in spheres from the
workplace to the jury box to the bathroom.
Currently, there is no federal law that
explicitly prohibits discrimination based
on sexual orientation or gender identity.
Most states also lack such statutes. Social
conservatives in California, meanwhile,
have vowed to get a Privacy For All
initiative on the ballot that would require
people to use school and government
facilities that correspond with the marker
on their birth certificate.In the meantime,
courts will continue to help decide the
issue. The Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission and the
Department of Justice have found that
discrimination against transgender people
including denying them bathroom
accessis a form of sex discrimination
covered under the Civil Rights Act. While
some have said this proves that additional
protections are not necessary, advocates
for explicit non-discrimination laws say
that theyre important for enforcement,
educating the public and making sure a
person doesnt have to go to court to make
their case. The decision from Virginias
district court will add to the precedents,
spurring on the debate as LGBT activists
choose their next battles after marriage
equality.

In families with same-sex parents, the kids
are all right
Research shows no evidence that children
raised by a single parent or same-sex
couples were less competent or well-
rounded than other children
By Jennifer Power
Published Mon, Feb 22, 2016 9:58 AM
Subscribe to Rappler to receive the latest news straight to your inbox
Sign-up!
A central argument made against same-sex
marriage is that children born into these
marriages will be disadvantaged: they will
grow up with inappropriate gender role
modeling, be bullied at school and suffer
poorer emotional well-being than their
peers.
Same-sex attracted people may come to
parenthood in many ways though
former heterosexual relationships, as a
foster parent or a step parent. Increasingly,
lesbian couples and single women are
forming families using known sperm
donors (a friend of the couple) or a clinic-
sourced anonymous donor. Male couples
are also increasingly turning to egg
donation and surrogacy services to
become parents.
ADVERTISEMENT
In the United States , of the 594,000
same-sex couple households in 2011,
115,000 reported having children.
People may not agree with gay marriage
on moral or religious grounds. But the
argument that it harms children does not
stack up against current evidence.
In 2010, American researchers published
results from a meta-analysis of 33
studies comparing the well-being of
children raised by opposite-sex couples
with children raised by same-sex couples.
This study found no evidence that children
raised by same-sex parents fared any
worse than other children on a range of
behavioral, educational, emotional or
social outcomes.
gave the impression that every donor-
conceived child was searching sadly for
their genetic parent.
This is not the case . Some donor-
conceived children are highly driven to
meet donor parents, some are curious and
others arent interested. There is no
evidence that donor-conception causes
children emotional or social damage.
Do children get teased at school?

The researchers also concluded there was

A 2008 study by the Gay, Lesbian,
no evidence that children raised by a
Straight Education Network (GLSEN) in
single parent or same-sex couples were
the United States found many children
less competent or well-rounded than other
raised by same-sex parents had
children. If anything, studies of single-
experienced or witnessed some form of
parent families show these men and
homophobic harassment at school.
women are more flexible in their
parenting styles than they are given credit
for. Men are capable of gentle, nurturing But more commonly, young people
parenting. Women are capable of setting reported feeling excluded or isolated
rules and boundaries for children, while because schools did not acknowledge their
also teaching them football. family makeup. In some cases, staff
actively discouraged students from
speaking about their families due to a
What about donor-conceived children?
misguided concern that this amounted to
talking about sex or sexuality in the
Political concerns about lesbians access classroom.
to fertility services means the well-being
of donor-conceived children has entered
Other studies have found more mixed
debates about same-sex marriage and
results.
parenting.

Australian research has shown that some

In 2013, the story of Narelle Grech , a
children worry they will experience
young Australian woman who had been
homophobic discrimination and this
diagnosed with terminal cancer, hit the
anxiety may affect their well-being. But
news media. Grech was donor-conceived
most children with same-sex parents do
and desperately wanted to meet her
not encounter more frequent or intense
biological father before she died.
schoolyard bullying than other children.

Grechs story made a powerful statement

Additionally, children with same-sex
about the importance of donor-conceived
parents generally have good social
children having the option to know their
networks and peer relationships, which are
genetic heritage. But media reports often
a strong buffer against stigma or
discrimination.
Is this research reliable?
Studies on the well-being of children
raised by same-sex parents have been
criticized because most rely on small
convenience samples. Critics argue
convenience sampling is inherently
unreliable because people who are healthy
and resourceful are more likely to opt in to
studies than those who are socially
disconnected or less capable.
However, large population-based studies
tend to include only a small sub-sample of
children raised by same-sex parents. This
doesnt generate the numbers needed for
reliable statistical analysis.
Methodological limitations provide fuel
for conservative arguments against the
validity of these studies. What critics do
not acknowledge is that repetition of
findings numerous studies conducted
over time and in various locations, all
which show children with same-sex
parents are doing well is a major
strength of this body of research.
What about same-sex marriage?
Children raised by same-sex parents do
better when they are living in a city or
country that is more socially progressive
and accepting of homosexuality. As such,
openly supporting the rights of same-sex
couples is one of the best things
governments can do to support children
being raised by same-sex parents.
Beyond this, funding programs which
seek to ensure schools are well-equipped
to address homophobia, will have a direct
impact on the day-to-day experiences of
children with same-sex parents.
Effects of same-sex parents on childrens
adult outcomes: Reviewing a controversial
study
Tags: CHILDREN, GAY ISSUES, PARENTING
Research Findings
Media/Analysis Tips
How life outcomes for children with
same-sex parents might differ from those
raised in traditional unions has been the
subject of a large body of academic
research. In advance of the Supreme
Courts June 2015 ruling on same-sex
marriage, the American Sociological
Association prepared an amicus brief that
reviewed prior studies on the subject.
In the brief the ASA researchers wrote:
We conclude that there is a clear
consensus in the social science literature
indicating that American children living
within same-sex parent households fare
just as well as those children residing
within different-sex parent households
over a wide array of well-being measures:
academic performance, cognitive
development, social development,
psychological health, early sexual activity,
and substance abuse. Our assessment of
the literature is based on credible and
methodologically sound studies that
compare well-being outcomes of children
residing within same-sex and different-sex
parent families. Differences that exist in
child well-being are largely due to
socioeconomic circumstances and family
stability.
A 2012 study by Mark Regnerus of the
University of Texas at Austin, included in
the ASAs literature review, was based on
a large, nationally representative random
sample of young adults from the New
Family Structures Study. A total of 15,058
individuals between 18 and 39 were
contacted and screened, and 2,988 were
given full surveys. Based on analysis of
the survey information, the study
concluded that the NFSS clearly reveals
that children appear most apt to succeed
well as adults on multiple counts and
across a variety of domains when they
spend their entire childhood with their
married mother and father, and especially
when the parents remain married to the
present day. When it was released, the
U.T. Austin study received significant
support and criticism, even as its methods
and conclusions were drawn into question
by a large number of sociological
researchers.
In a 2015 study published in the July 2015
issue of Social Science Research
Measurement, Methods and Divergent
Patterns: Reassessing the Effects of Same-
sex Parents, Simon Cheng of the
University of Connecticut and Brian
Powell of Indiana University,
Bloomington, re-analyzed the publicly
available data from the 2012 study. The
scholars examined the extent to which the
differences found in the original research
were attributable to the ways in which
family types were defined, and to other
analytical and methodological choices.
A particular challenge involved defining
and classifying family types: In the
original 2012 paper, respondents were
considered to be from intact biological
families if they reported having lived
with both their biological mother and
biological father from birth until age 19.
However, a substantial proportion of these
respondents had been removed from this
category because their parents were not
married at the time of the interview. This
potentially over-inflated the positive
impact of growing up in an intact
biological family, as those whose families
may have been unhappy or dysfunctional
were not considered to be part of this
group. The authors also found that certain
methodological decisions increased the
number of differences between the
outcomes of adult children of same-sex
parents compared to adult children of
intact biological families.
Nearly 35% of the respondents classified
as having been raised in same-sex families
provided answers for other questions on
the survey that called their data into
question. Approximately one-third of the
respondents who the original analyses
considered to have been raised in same-
sex families never lived with the lesbian
or gay parent, and half never lived with
the lesbian or gay parents partner. Of the
236 respondents classified as having been
raised in a same-sex household, only 51
could be reasonably understood to have
lived in a two-parent same-sex household
for at least a year.
After correcting a number of
methodological issues misclassification
of data or variables, and use of
inappropriate statistical tests the
authors re-ran the original analyses
multiple times using different corrective
methods.
The papers findings include:
After correcting for errors, adding
appropriate control variables, recoding
race/ethnicity to reflect multiple
(instead of two) categories, and
controlling for the effects of
misclassified or uncertain data, the
authors found only six differences
between adult children of lesbian
mothers and intact biological families,
and three differences between adult
children of gay fathers and intact
biological families.
Of the differences found among
adult children raised by lesbian
mothers, three were extremely
questionable, and disappeared
following the deletion of one or two
extreme data points that were driving
the differences. Of the remaining three
differences, two were not considered
to be objectively worse for either
group (identifying as homosexual, and
having had a same-sex relationship),
leaving only one statistically
significant difference between adult
children raised by lesbian mothers
compared to adult children raised in
intact biological families.
Among the 51 respondents who
were identified as having lived in a
two-parent same-sex household for at
least a year, only four significant
differences were demonstrated. Of
these, two were not objectively worse
(identifying as homosexual and having
had a same-sex relationship), and two
did not take place during adulthood
(receiving public assistance in
childhood, and sense of safety and
security growing up), and therefore
cannot be reasonably considered
consequences of their childhood
family situation.
The reanalysis [of the source data] offers
evidence that the empirical patterns
showcased in the original Regnerus article
are fragile so fragile that they appear
largely a function of these possible
misclassifications and other
methodological choices, the authors
state. Our replication and reanalysis of
Regneruss study offer a cautionary
illustration of the importance of double
checking and critically assessing the
implications of measurement and other
methodological decisions in our and
others research.
Further reading: A 2015 research roundup,
Same-sex Marriage and Big Research
Questions Behind the Debate, gathers
together research questions and provides
links to associated resources that can help
analysts and reporters go beyond the
headlines.
Keywords: parenting, LGBT, lesbian
mothers, gay fathers, same-sex parents,
same-sex parenting, children, family
structure, sexuality
Child Well-Being in Same-Sex Parent
Families: Review of Research Prepared
for American Sociological Association
Amicus Brief
Wendy D. Manning, Marshal Neal Fettro,
and Esther Lamidi
Author information Copyright and
License information
See other articles in PMC that cite the
published article.
Go to:
Abstract
Recent legal cases before the Supreme
Court of the United States were
challenging federal definitions of marriage
created by the Defense of Marriage Act
and Californias voter approved
Proposition 8 which limited marriage to
different-sex couples only. Social science
literature regarding child well-being was
being used within these cases, and the
American Sociological Association sought
to provide a concise evaluation of the
literature through an amicus curiae brief.
The authors were tasked in the assistance
of this legal brief by reviewing literature
regarding the well-being of children raised
within same-sex parent families. This
article includes our assessment of the
literature, focusing on those studies,
reviews and books published within the
past decade. We conclude that there is a
clear consensus in the social science
literature indicating that American
children living within same-sex parent
households fare just, as well as those
children residing within different-sex
parent households over a wide array of
well-being measures: academic
performance, cognitive development,
social development, psychological health,
early sexual activity, and substance abuse.
Our assessment of the literature is based
on credible and methodologically sound
studies that compare well-being outcomes
of children residing within same-sex and
different-sex parent families. Differences
that exist in child well-being are largely
due to socioeconomic circumstances and
family stability. We discuss challenges and
opportunities for new research on the
well-being of children in same-sex parent
families.
Keywords: Gay, Lesbian, Review of
literature, Children, Same-sex parents,
Legal brief
The American Sociological Association
(ASA) filed an amicus curiae brief to the
Supreme Court outlining social science
research findings on the well-being of
children in same-sex parent families on
February 28, 2013 (Brief for the American
Sociological Association 2013).
Sociological research was used in a
number of cases reaching the Supreme
Court, challenging the Defense of
Marriage Act (DOMA) and Proposition 8
in California (Prop 8). A talented legal
team led by Carmine Boccuzzi at Cleary,
Gottlieb, Steen and Hamilton LLP
prepared arguments, wrote the final brief,
and submitted the brief to the Supreme
Court. The ASA has a tradition of
contributing the consensus on social
science research findings to the legal
system.
Below we provide our assessment of the
literature that was used to assist in the
preparation of the amicus brief. The ASA
Council requested a balanced review of
the current social science literature on the
effects of same-sex parenting on child
well-being. The aim of this review was to
note that the strengths and weaknesses of
prior research and offer a scientific
assessment of what can and cannot be
concluded from the evidence. The review
we present here developed through work
with the legal team and has been
reorganized and modified for journal
publication. Since the filing of the amicus
curiae brief, there have been a few new
studies which are discussed in the
update section at the end of the
document. The ASA continues to submit
amicus briefs in state and circuit court
cases.
Go to:
Summary
To date, the consensus in the social
science literature is clear: in the United
States, children living with two same-sex
parents fare, as well as children residing
with two different-sex parents. Numerous
credible and methodologically sound
social science studies, including many
drawing on nationally representative data,
form the basis of this consensus. These
studies reveal that children raised in same-
sex parent families fare just, as well as
children raised in different-sex parent
families across a wide spectrum of child
well-being measures: academic
performance, cognitive development,
social development, psychological health,
early sexual activity, and substance abuse.
Go to:
Review
This assessment of the literature is based
on the social science research on child
well-being in same-sex parent families
over the last decade (published work since
2002). This time restriction focuses on
childrens most recent family experiences.
The review is limited to studies based on
U.S. respondents and includes over 40
published original studies in reports, book
chapters, and journal articles. There have
been many recent reviews of the literature
(e.g., Biblarz and Stacey 2010a, b; Biblarz
and Savci 2010; Bos et al. 2005; Marks
2012; Meezan and Rauch 2005), but few
have been recent enough to include all of
the latest literature. Taken together, the
studies included in this review represent a
collection of extensive research and
indicate that children under the age of 18
raised by same-sex parents fare, as well as
their counterparts in different-sex families.
The gold standard for much research on
American families is the use of nationally
representative data (Russell and Muraco
2013). Yet, as discussed below there are
many valid reasons why nationally
representative data may not be available to
study same-sex parent families. We
discuss the handful of recent studies
reporting that children fare worse on any
measure of child well-being (Allen et al.
2013; Goldberg et al. 2011; Gartrell et al.
2011; Regnerus 2012a, b), and each has
shortcomings making broad
generalizations impossible.
Data Sources
Table 1 provides a list of the studies used
in the review of the literature (as well as
the update), and are organized
alphabetically. We denote whether the
studies are based on nationally
representative data or convenience
samples; the number of children in same-
sex parent families; the age range of
children; and type of same-sex parent
family. The four nationally representative
data sets include the Early Childhood
Longitudinal Study Kindergarten Cohort
(ECLS-K), National Longitudinal Study
of Adolescent Health (Add Health), New
Family Structures Study (NFSS), and U.S.
Census data. Each data source reflects
family experiences across a unique time
period. For example, the ECLS-K is a
cohort designed to represent the
experiences of children who were in
kindergarten and first grade in 1999 and
2000 and mid-adolescents in 2010. The
Add Health references the experiences of
teenagers (1218) during the mid-1990s.
The Census presents the living
circumstances of school-age children in
2000. The NFSS is not specific to an age
group or time frame, and it is challenging
to assess a broad spectrum of ages and
time periods. New data collections that
reflect the current social, legal, and
political environments are merited.
THBT anorexic people should be forced
to eat
Anorexia nervosa, often referred to simply
as anorexia,[1] is an eating disorder
characterized by a low weight, fear of
gaining weight, a strong desire to be thin,
and food restriction.[2] Many people with
anorexia see themselves as overweight
even though they are in fact underweight.
[2][3] If asked they usually deny they
have a problem with low weight.[4] Often
they weigh themselves frequently, eat only
small amounts, and only eat certain foods.
Some will exercise excessively, force
themselves to vomit, or use laxatives to
produce weight loss. Complications may
include osteoporosis, infertility and heart
damage, among others.[2] Women will
often stop having menstrual periods.[4]
The cause is not known. There appear to
be some genetic components with
identical twins more often affected than
non-identical twins.[3] Cultural factors
also appear to play a role with societies
that value thinness having higher rates of
disease.[4]Additionally, it occurs more
commonly among those involved in
activities that value thinness such as high-
level athletics, modelling, and dancing.[4]
[5] Anorexia often begins following a
major life change or stress-inducing event.
The diagnosis requires a significantly low
weight. The severity of disease is based on
body mass index (BMI) in adults with
mild disease having a BMI of greater than
17, moderate a BMI of 16 to 17, severe a
BMI of 15 to 16, and extreme a BMI less
than 15. In children a BMI for age
percentile of less than the 5th percentile is
often used.[4]
Anorexia Nervosa (AN) is an eating
disorder defined as severe, self- inflicted
starvation leading to body weight at least
15% below that expected for the
individuals sex and height and age.
According to the 10thedition of the
International Classification of Diseases
(ICD-10) of the World Health
Organization (WHO) AN is a mental
illness. It should not be confused with
Bulimia nervosa (cycles of bingeing and
vomiting or other compensatory
behaviour) although these mental
disorders have a lot in common and may
occur in the same person both sequentially
or concurrently. Body image disturbance
is a symptom of AN. AN is much more
common in teenage girls and young
women compared to male individuals and
in other age groups, affecting up to 1% of
female adolescents in industrialized
countries (with money to spend on
epidemiological field studies to acquire
such knowledge about a- regarding the
whole population - rather rare disorder).
However, it is a serious disorder with a
high mortality between 5% and 18%, and
especially considering the young age of
those afflicted. Unrealistically slim media
portrayals of the female body may
increase the risk of developing AN. .
Patients who are dangerously thin are
sometimes force-fed using a naso-gastric
(through the nose) or transdermal
duodenal tube (PEG). Normally, medical
treatment cannot be administered without
the consent of the patient. However,
mentally ill patients may not have the
mental capacity to make a choice. Despite
this, medical ethics, pragmatics and
human rights call the treatment into
question.
POINTS FOR
Life is more important than dignity
POINT
Life is more important than dignity,
many medical treatments are
unpleasant or painful but they are
necessary to preserve life. Without
force feeding the anorectic patient will
often die. In Australia about 80 per
cent of all anorexic children required
hospital admission (from 101 cases),
and of those, 50 per cent required tube
feeding as a life-saving measure to
manage starvation.[1] When a patient
requires emergency treatment doctors
should do what is necessary to save
the patients life. Psychological
problems can only be treated if the
person is alive. Treatment for the
psychological problem should be
considered to go hand in hand with
saving the patients life as in the B vs.
Croydon Health Authority where force
feeding was ruled to be complemented
the use of other methods to treat her
psychiatric problems.[2]
[1] McLean T., Half of anorexic kids
need force feeding, 2008,
http://news.theage.com.au/national/hal
f-of-anorexic-kids-need-force-feeding-
20080528-2itg.html , accessed
07/22/2011
[2] Keywood K., B v Croydon Health
Authority 1994, CA: Force-Feeding
the Hunger-Striker under the Mental
Health Act 1983., University of
Liverpool,
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/~nlawwww/articl
es3/keywood3.html , accessed
07/22/2011
improve this
COUNTERPOINT
Life is more important than dignity.
None the less there is a significant
difference between someone who is in
an emergency condition being treated
without their consent and someone who
has previously refused treatment being
forced to have treatment. Patients are
allowed to make decisions doctors
believe are unwise.[1]
[1] Patients.co.uk, Consent To
Treatment (Mental Capacity and Mental
Helth Legislation) 2009,
http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/Consent
-To-Treatment-%28Mental-Capacity-...

IMPROVE THIS
Anorectic patients are not able to make
the decision for themselves.
POINT
Anorectic patients are typically treated
under mental health legislation (e.g.
the UK 1983 Act). They do not make a
free choice because they are not
rationally able to weigh up decisions
and consequences, they feel fat when
they obviously are not and are
irrational as they are willing to starve
themselves to the point of death when
suicide is not their intent.[1] The
patient is not capable of forming
unimpaired and rational judgements
concerning the consequences (British
Medical Association 1992). There
have been court cases that have
confirmed that force feeding should be
allowed when a patient is considered
mentally ill. For example the case of
B vs. Croydon Health Authority in
1994 it was judged, that B (a
borderline personality disorder patient,
which involves suffering from an
irresistible desire to inflict-self-harm)
can be force fed, even though she did
not give consent to the treatment.
The court explained that because she
was not aware of the seriousness of
her condition and she had found it
difficult to break out of the cycle of
self-punishment, she was deemed unfit
to make decisions about her nutrition.
[2]
[1] Fedyszyn & Sullivan, Ethical re-
evaluation of contemporary treatments
for anorexia nervosa, 2007,
http://leedsmet.academia.edu/GavinSu
llivan/Papers/255145/Ethical_Re-
Evaluation_of_Contemporary_Treatm
ents_for_Anorexia_Nervosa_Is_An_A
spirational_Stance_Possible_In_Practi
ce , p.202
[2] Keywood K., B v Croydon Health
Authority 1994, CA: Force-Feeding
the Hunger-Striker under the Mental
Health Act 1983., University of
Liverpool,
http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/articles3/keyw
ood3.html , accessed 07/22/2011
improve this
COUNTERPOINT
Force feeding is undignified. The World
Medical Association considers Even if
intended to benefit, feeding
accompanied by threats, coercion, force
or use of physical restraints is a form of
inhuman and degrading treatment.[1]
This is treatment which the European
Convention on Human Rights prohibits
in Article 3 on the prohibition of torture.
[2] The patients right to refuse treatment
should be respected even if they are
mentally ill. (N.B. Anorexia is not
recognised as a mental illness in every
country).
[1] World Medical Association, WMA
Declaration of Malta on Hunger
Strikers, 2006
[2] European Court of Human Rights,
Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,
2010, P.4
IMPROVE THIS
Force feeding can help psychologically.
POINT
A healthier body weight is necessary
to be able to treat the patients
psychological problems. Studies in
Minnesota show that when normal
volunteers were starved, they began to
development anorectic patterns. They
over-estimated the sizes of their own
faces by approximately 50%. This
shows the impact of starvation on the
brain.[1]
[1] Fedyszyn & Sullivan, Ethical re-
evaluation of contemporary treatments
for anorexia nervosa, 2007,
http://leedsmet.academia.edu/GavinSu
llivan/Papers/255145/Ethical_Re-
Evaluation_of_Contemporary_Treatm
ents_for_Anorexia_Nervosa_Is_An_A
spirational_Stance_Possible_In_Practi
ce , P.202
improve this
COUNTERPOINT
Far from helping solve the patients
psychological problems force feeding is
just as likely to exacerbate the problems
and make them much less willing to seek
out treatment, something that they are
often already unwilling to do.[1] While
it may be the case that when starved
people over-estimate their own size
those who are anorexic in the developed
world did not start out starved so there
must have been a different initial cause
of the anorexia that will need to be
found and solved, there are numerous
different types of psychological
treatment that can help do this.[2]
[1] Jimerson, Shane R. et al., Eating
Disorders: Treatment, 2002,
http://education.ucsb.edu/jimerson/eatin
gdisorders.html
[2] NHS Choices, Treating anorexia,
2010,
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Anorexia-
nervosa/Pages/Treatment.aspx
IMPROVE THIS
In the first instance, doctors should
always act to keep a patient alive
POINT
Medical ethics say that a doctor has a
responsibility to keep the patient alive
to administer treatment. In the UK
Diana Pretty was denied the right to
die by the House of Lords even though
she consistently requested it. The
Israeli Courts ordered the force-
feeding of political hunger strikers
arguing that in a conflict between life
and dignity, life wins. India prosecuted
a physician who allowed a hunger
striker to die. The medical profession
take their responsibility for life very
seriously on a global level.
improve this
COUNTERPOINT
When it comes to hunger strikes the
World Medical Association says that
Forcible feeding is never ethically
acceptable.[1] While there are
obviously differences in terms of the
objective when it comes to the consent
of the patient there is no difference. In
both cases the patient does not want to
be force fed and understand what the
consequences may be.
[1] World Medical Association, WMA
Declaration of Malta on Hunger
Strikers, 2006
POINTS AGAINST
Compulsory treatment is not a long
term solution.
POINT
Compulsory treatment may only be
successful in the short term. In the
long term it does nothing to reduce the
fear of food, weight and hospital felt
by the patient and is a barrier to
treatment. Hospital admission often
has a worse outcome for the patient;
there are increased mortality rates
which are then even higher for those
who are admitted against their will.[1]
Suicide accounts for 27% of
anorexia deaths.[2] Compulsory
treatment may make the patient more
depressed and at greater risk from
harm.
[1] Fedyszyn & Sullivan, Ethical re-
evaluation of contemporary treatments
for anorexia nervosa, 2007,
http://leedsmet.academia.edu/GavinSu
llivan/Papers/255145/Ethical_Re-
Evaluation_of_Contemporary_Treatm
ents_for_Anorexia_Nervosa_Is_An_A
spirational_Stance_Possible_In_Practi
ce , p.201
[2] BBC News, Compulsory
treatment helps anorexics, 1999
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4083
62.stm
improve this
COUNTERPOINT
Short term success is all that is necessary
to save a life. Once the anorectic patient
is out of danger then more long term
treatments can be explored. This means
working out how to reduce the fear of
food and of weight and if the patient has
become worried about going to hospital
then at least there is time to sort that out
as well. While emergency force feeding
has to be within a hospital not all
treatment has to take place in such an
environment and ongoing psychological
treatment can take place elsewhere.
IMPROVE THIS
Anorexics need to be able to trust their
doctors.
POINT
The most successful policies are where
anorectic patients feel safe and trust
their doctors so are willing to go to
clinics voluntarily as they feel that
they are in control of the situation.[1]
Conversely an anorectic patients fear
of weight gain, especially forced
weight gain in hospital is an obstacle
to treatment. If an anorexia nervosa
sufferer thinks that they will be force-
fed they may be less likely to seek
treatment or advice.
[1] Susic, Paul, Anorexia Treatment
and the Unwilling Patient,
http://www.psychtreatment.com/anore
xia_treatment.htm , accessed
07/21/2011
improve this
COUNTERPOINT
In 1997 the Mental Health Act
Commission opened the door to
allowing force feeding of anorexic
patients in the UK by allowing the
compulsory admission of anorexics to
hospital. This change of policy did not
reduce the number of patients being
admitted for treatment which has gone
up from 419 in 1996-7 to 620 in 2005-6.
[1]
[1] Disordered eating, Anorexia Nervosa
Statistics (Uk), http://www.disordered-
eating.co.uk/eating-disorders-
statistics/anorexia-nervosa-statistics-
uk.html, accessed 07/22/2011
IMPROVE THIS
Force feeding strategies may cause
physical harm
POINT
Force-feeding has negative
consequences. If the patient is
dangerously thin and is then force-fed,
it can led to Hypophosphataemia
(reduction of phosphates in the blood)
which causes heart failure. Anorexics
are characterised by self-denial and
often do not come forward voluntarily.
Indeed it according to Dr Sacker
anorexia is often not even about food
rather "By stopping food from going
into the body, what they really feel is
they can be in control of their body.
[1] This desire is actively harmed by
force feeding as a result they are even
less likely to come forward voluntarily
if they are faced with the possibility of
force- feeding.
[1] CBS, A very thin line,
02/11/2009,
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/
05/20/48hours/main47832.shtml ,
accessed 07/22/2011
improve this
COUNTERPOINT
Yes there will be negative consequences
to such a step as force feeding however
this is only done when it is absolutely
necessary and the negative consequences
of not doing so are much worse. Doctors
will only force feed if they are
convinced that doing so is for the good
of the patient, indeed they are prohibited
from taking such a step if it is not
absolutely necessary.
IMPROVE THIS
The focus should be on palliative care.
POINT
Some doctors advocate focusing on
palliative care (relief of pain but not
treatment of cause) due to the low full
recovery rates of anorexia sufferers.
Research Studies show that over 10
years only approximately 20% of
patients recover. Those patients who
are sufferers for more than 12 years
are unlikely to ever recover.
improve this
COUNTERPOINT
Palliative care is defeatist and does not
attempt to cure the problem. Recovery is
always a possibility and that is what
doctors should be striving for In a 10
year follow up of 76 severely ill women
with anorexia, Eckert et al found that 18
(24%) had fully recovered, about half
had a benign outcome, and only five
(7%) had died.[1] Doctors do not often
have to deal with severe or chronic
anorexia. Just because it is a very long
treatment schedule that can be harrowing
for a doctor, this not a reason to settle for
palliative care. Better support structures
ought to be put in place to enable the
doctor to fulfil their obligation to the
patient.
[1] Williams, Christopher J. et al., We
should strive to keep patients alive,
1998,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article
s/PMC1113542/
IMPROVE THIS
THBT it would be better if we adhere the
perpetua principle of utilitarianism

utilitarianism

yoootilternizm/

noun

the doctrine that actions are right if they

are useful or for the benefit of a majority.

the doctrine that an action is right

insofar as it promotes happiness, and
that the greatest happiness of the
greatest number should be the guiding
principle of conduct.

Death Penalty
In the Philippines, it is one of two
sentences (the other being life
imprisonment) designed to replace the
death penalty and is in legal parlance near-
synonymous with life imprisonment.
However, there are several important
distinctions between the two terms:

Reclusin perpetua is prescribed

on crimes punishable by the Revised
Penal Code, while life imprisonment is
imposed on offenses punishable by
Special Laws.
Reclusin perpetua carries the
accessory penalty in which, as defined
by Philippine Law, guilty parties suffer
lifetime barring from holding political
office. Life imprisonment does not
carry this penalty.
Unlike life imprisonment, the
length of a sentence for reclusin
perpetua is indivisible penalty fixed at
40 years and cannot be altered during
sentencing.
Reclusin perpetua does not allow
pardon or parole until after the first 30
years of the sentence have been
served; after 40 years without pardon
or parole, the sentence ends. Life
imprisonment does not have any
definite extent or duration of
imprisonment, and prisoners serving
life imprisonment can have parole at
any time.