Philip Rubacha October 22, 1996
American Politics-Essay #1 Essay-Debate
The presidential debates between democratic President William Clinton and Republican Senator Robert Dole proved to be a game of "dodge-ball". Bob Dole fired criticism and attacks while Clinton tried to "dodge" them. Dole attacked him on most of his ideas, and his tendency to exaggerate. Clinton avoided the lies he made since the 1992 presidential campaign (brought up by Dole, of course) by revealing all that he accomplished for the good of the people. Clinton focused on politics at a federal level at home, and tried to avoid foreign affairs. Dole based his debate on a state or local level. They both had separate ideas on different topics such as education, taxes, etc. They used these opposite ideas to attack each other.
The debates went smoothly through the first minutes without a lot of conflict but shortly into the debate Clinton makes his claim that "The United States is better off now than it was four years ago". Dole attacks by saying "He's (Clinton) better off than he was four years ago". Although it cracked a few laughs, it showed how little respect he has for Clinton and how desperate he is getting to resort to such cheesy remarks. The first several minutes of the debate had Clinton summarizing all that he has done in the past four years such as 10.5 million more jobs, the Brady Bill, and Family, Medical, and educational bills. In turn Dole complains that the United States has stagnant wages, and that 40% of wages are spent on taxes. On the topic of drug use in the United States Clinton claimed that cocaine use decreased 30% and crime decreased as well. Dole soon reacted by saying, rather sarcastically that drug abuse has doubled and for so much money that has been spent on crime little has changed. Throughout the debates Clinton claims he has done so much good for the country such as cutting the size of government, and stimulating economic growth. In return Dole would blame him for exaggerating and stealing credit for other's work such as governors, senators, etc. Clinton did little direct attacking but at one point, for example, he criticized Dole's 550 billion dollar "scheme" to cut Medicare and Social Security.
Clinton and Dole showed very different views on education. Clinton observed education as dependent on the federal government program for funding. Bob Dole believes that education should be brought more local, and on a state level. Dole wants to cut all federal programs and move programs such as Health Care, Medicare, etc., to more of a state level.
Bill Clinton likes to keep his ideas as well as debates on not only a federal level but within United States boundaries as well. He tries to avoid foreign affairs as that is an area of weakness. Bob Dole knows this and he attacks Clinton's policies. He claims that Clinton handled the situations incorrectly in places such as Haiti, Bosnia, Northern Ireland, North Korea, and Cuba. He says it has cost the United States billions of dollars to attempt to keep peace in the world. Clinton had no real answer to the remarks accept to give little positive outcomes of United States actions in these countries. He attacked Clinton's defense cuts as well. The President had claimed he would cut 60 billion dollars in defense spending, when in fact he cut 112 million dollars, according to Dole, but then again who knows.
Clinton and Dole possess very different outlines. Clinton believes in Federal power as Dole believes in state and local power. Clinton wants to decrease fire arms, reduce defense, and increase Welfare and Medicare. He plans to further stimulate education and his health plan. Dole on the other hand wants to increase defense spending, cut taxes on individuals but increase taxes on a national level, and take power from federal programs and pump it into state and local power. These are very different ideas which led to a lot of bickering and attacking of the issues (typical of any presidential debate). They both show completely different attitudes. To summarize the debate, it can be simply said that Dole attacked and avoided questions, while Clinton defended himself and directly addressed the people. For these reasons, Clinton clearly won this debate. Although he was not great he clearly won more respect from myself and many others. In all honesty, this was truly a g
Saturday, January 12, 2013
People accused of Violent Crimes should not be to post bail
People accused of violent crimes should not be allowed to post bail and remain out of jail while their trial is pending. There are many reasons to why I strongly agree with this statement. Many factors are unknown to the public without conducting some sort of extensive research. Whether it is simply reading in the paper about pending trials, or as complicated as researching previous trials. Bail is decided by a judge, and their lives are devoted to handling these types of decisions. There are three solid reasons to why I feel it is necessary to deny bail to those accused of violent crimes. One is that all conditions for release are decided by a judge who is fully aware of the circumstances. Another is that these defendants, since being arrested, should be considered a threat to public safety. My last, and final, reason is that my rationale strongly agrees with denial of bail to the accused.
In Nebraska, as written in the Statutes of Nebraska, bail is granted after a judge takes into account the nature and circumstances of the offense charged. This judge looks at the defendants family ties, employment, financial resources, character and mentality, having resided in the community, conviction records, and record of court appearances or of flight to avoid prosecution or failure to appear. A judge, when deciding if bail is to be granted, does not just flip a coin to decide. He or she looks at all aspects of the situation. It all rests in the judge's hands. When a judge looks at a person accused of a violent crime, such as murder, a few things are liable to pop into perspective. One would be to how violent and detrimental the accusations are. Any rational thinking person would realize that if arrested, they are in suspicion. Therefore, a state appointed judge is also going to realize that this person must be a threat, especially if accused of a violent crime. It does not violate the accused rights, because once under arrest, their rights are strictly defined as what the judge's final decision is.
This leads me to my next point, that these accused people are a threat. The purpose of bail, as defined by the Nebraska Statute, is to ensure that the defendant will show at the trial. I researched a case where this was strongly considered. Brian Mase is accused of shooting and killing John Boyer, after Boyer refused to leave Mase's home. They were in a fight over a stolen watch. Friends and relatives gave evidence that Mase had premeditated the murder by making numerous phone calls to Boyer and various threats outside of Mase's home. The judge denied bail for reasons that I completely agree with. Since the prosecution had evidence that Mase planned to kill Boyer if he ever came to his home, the judge felt there was a risk involved with Mase staying in the county if granted bail. They suspected that Mase might flee after he learns what type of case the prosecution has against him. The defendant's attorney argued that Mase had nowhere to run, and many relatives. The judges decision in this case did not follow all of the rules show above. However, the one factor of threat overshadowed all of the rest. Even though Mase had strong family ties and nowhere to go to, even the slightest suspicion that he might flee was enough. I agree with the decision to deny bail. I cannot think of anyone who would want a man accused of killing someone over a watch being able to roam free on bail while their trial is in progress. This, in my own opinion, is a perfect example of how judges look at the circumstances of the case.
My final argument to why bail should be denied is solely based on my own personal analysis. Bail, in my opinion, is a privilege. If I had my own way, bail would only be used in misdemeanor offenses. If a person is accused of a violent crime there is evidently some inclination for the arrest. These accused people are not just randomly drawn out of a hat, they have had warrants out for their arrest. As many know, warrants have to be approved by a judge, the same judge who will decide if they are able to post bail. There was enough evidence, circumstantial or solid, for the arrest to be made for these violent crimes, and so there is enough evidence to deny bail to these accused individuals. It is inhumane for someone accused of a violent crime to be able to roam around free when their trial is pending. Once they are arrested, they should lose their bid for freedom until the verdict is in.
In Nebraska, as written in the Statutes of Nebraska, bail is granted after a judge takes into account the nature and circumstances of the offense charged. This judge looks at the defendants family ties, employment, financial resources, character and mentality, having resided in the community, conviction records, and record of court appearances or of flight to avoid prosecution or failure to appear. A judge, when deciding if bail is to be granted, does not just flip a coin to decide. He or she looks at all aspects of the situation. It all rests in the judge's hands. When a judge looks at a person accused of a violent crime, such as murder, a few things are liable to pop into perspective. One would be to how violent and detrimental the accusations are. Any rational thinking person would realize that if arrested, they are in suspicion. Therefore, a state appointed judge is also going to realize that this person must be a threat, especially if accused of a violent crime. It does not violate the accused rights, because once under arrest, their rights are strictly defined as what the judge's final decision is.
This leads me to my next point, that these accused people are a threat. The purpose of bail, as defined by the Nebraska Statute, is to ensure that the defendant will show at the trial. I researched a case where this was strongly considered. Brian Mase is accused of shooting and killing John Boyer, after Boyer refused to leave Mase's home. They were in a fight over a stolen watch. Friends and relatives gave evidence that Mase had premeditated the murder by making numerous phone calls to Boyer and various threats outside of Mase's home. The judge denied bail for reasons that I completely agree with. Since the prosecution had evidence that Mase planned to kill Boyer if he ever came to his home, the judge felt there was a risk involved with Mase staying in the county if granted bail. They suspected that Mase might flee after he learns what type of case the prosecution has against him. The defendant's attorney argued that Mase had nowhere to run, and many relatives. The judges decision in this case did not follow all of the rules show above. However, the one factor of threat overshadowed all of the rest. Even though Mase had strong family ties and nowhere to go to, even the slightest suspicion that he might flee was enough. I agree with the decision to deny bail. I cannot think of anyone who would want a man accused of killing someone over a watch being able to roam free on bail while their trial is in progress. This, in my own opinion, is a perfect example of how judges look at the circumstances of the case.
My final argument to why bail should be denied is solely based on my own personal analysis. Bail, in my opinion, is a privilege. If I had my own way, bail would only be used in misdemeanor offenses. If a person is accused of a violent crime there is evidently some inclination for the arrest. These accused people are not just randomly drawn out of a hat, they have had warrants out for their arrest. As many know, warrants have to be approved by a judge, the same judge who will decide if they are able to post bail. There was enough evidence, circumstantial or solid, for the arrest to be made for these violent crimes, and so there is enough evidence to deny bail to these accused individuals. It is inhumane for someone accused of a violent crime to be able to roam around free when their trial is pending. Once they are arrested, they should lose their bid for freedom until the verdict is in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)