# data[].attributes.body
The main theme that Stevenson was trying to betray in Just Mercy is that harsh punishments in his eyes perpetuate violence rather than deter it. For Stevenson mercy is the only way to break the cycles of violence, punishment and hatred in the criminal justice system. Just mercy emphasized the importance of active resistance to unfair institutions. Stevenson states that racism, corruption and cruelty that goes around the American Court system lead to abuse of minority communities. Besides all these obstacles Stevenson remains in the idea that we have power to change conditions for individuals and for minority groups overall. For just mercy one of the main stories that shows injustice was obviously Walter McMillian case. With this case Stevenson writes about the failure in the criminal justice and how Walters live is one of the many that the criminal justice system has damaged. To him the underlying structural injustices of the criminal justice system haven’t been addressed. Minority groups are still being treated poorly when it comes to counsel or justice. As for Dead Man Walking the theme that Prejean tries to reveal is compassion and forgiveness. Sister Prejean tries to present love as one of the most powerful force to redeem a human life. Her overall theme was that love can solve all issues because of her personal background. She grew up in a household filled with love and had faith in God. The case that Prejean mainly talks about is Patrick Sonner. He was on death row for rape and double murder. Prejean met with Patrick and learns all the details of his case and she becomes getting more and more involved. Although towards the end Patrick still gets executed Sister Prejean helps him as his spiritual advisor and manages to reconcile himself to his death. Her main idea about the death penalty wasn't only to help those who are innocent but those who are guilty as well. She viewed it as we should do what is morally right and for her that was not the death penalty for anymore. In my opinion I agree with both approaches however with Stevenson I found it to be more realistic. Sister wanted to help everyone even the ones that were criminals so to me her approach didn't really make sense. As for Stevenson his main idea was to help those who are innocent and put on death row which I why I liked his approach better because I feel like it is a big issue. Even till now minorities are being treated unequal in our criminal justice system and are being convicted of crimes they didn't even commit. As well they aren’t receiving the counsel that they need which shows the failures that the system has. As I was reading Walters case, in Just Mercy everything that was happening I was expecting him to be executed and I found it very difficult for Stevenson to help him get his freedom. Which is why I believe Stevenson approach was more difficult. Overall I think Sister Prejean approach was good and it would be nice to abolish the death penalty because it is so cruel but I just think it’s unrealistic for now. In order to approve our criminal justice system, it takes baby steps.

# data[].attributes.body
When Bryan Stevenson writes “The real question of capital punishment in this country is do we deserve to kill?” what I believe he meant is literally who are we to decide who gets to die. It's the basic that we are all broken. When Stevenson quotes this in the book is during Walter McMillians funeral and Stevenson says beforehand “Walters case had taught me that the death penalty is not about whether people deserve to die for the crime they commit”. There is no dispute that people commit horrific crimes. They can, they do and deserve to face consequences. However, with this quote I believe that Stevenson is trying to say that the consequences should not be death. After reading just mercy I concluded that we don't deserve to kill and I also concluded that racism is still pervasive in America today. Although the justice system may say yes we deserve to kill, in this book Stevenson shows that the system is profoundly broken not just regards to the death penalty but how it treats rich versus the poor. I believe that Sister Prejean would agree with Stevenson’s answer that we do not deserve to kill. In dead man walking chapter 8 Howard Marsellus is apologizing to sister for the role of helping enforce the death penalty. He then says to her “I sat in judgement of these men like that, the guilty and the innocent. But who was I to sit in judgement?” Prejean then puts the perspective of how can we possibly trust government to make the right decisions of who lives and dies given that they make errors as well. Her main focus was that no man or system should have that much power granted in making the decision of someone’s live. At the beginning of the semester I was in between in deciding if death penalty was correct or not. I was leaned more towards the wrong because I really saw no benefit in practicing the death penalty. After reading these books it definetly helped in my decisions in believing the death penalty should be abolished. We are all humans and all make mistakes it makes no sense to me that one person is worthy enough to make a decision of sentencing someone to death because they are not. I always viewed the death penalty as who are we to kill and by killing we are becoming criminals ourselves so that make us just as bad.

# data[].attributes.body
What do the crime clearance rates of LVMPD look like? Discuss your reaction. Which of the rates surprise you? What reasons can you think of that might explain why some of the categories have such low clearance rates? What are the implications of having such low clearance rates? Also discuss if you compared LVMPD to any other police unit, for example, if you moved from another county or state.

After searching up the clearance rates for LVMPD I was kind of surprised. I am looking at the most recent year which would be 2013 and for violent crime the clearance rates are at 37%. As for murder and manslaughter it is at 78%, robbery is at 27%, aggravated assault is at 45%, property crime at 16%, burglary at 7%, larceny theft at 24%, motor vehicle theft at 6% and arson at 27%. I am pretty surprised because most of the numbers are lows besides murder which is the good thing since it is the most serious crime. I think it all depends on the crime the less serious they are they have a lower clearance rate which makes sense. However, what I was the most surprised with is that property crime is the crime that is most committed and it has one of the lowest clearance rates. In 2013 there is 48,225 crimes committed and only 7,799 of those crime was cleared with the rate of 17%. The reason for this I believe is because the slightest things can become property crime. For example, taking money of a property in many ways. Most of the time the owners of the property aren’t there and there is no evidence or no lead as to who committed the crime. As well many homes of property don't have cameras as well so I believe that's why the clearance rates are so low because it’s hard to identify who did it since there is no evidence. Another category that surprised me was the violent crime. Between both 2012 and 2013 there was a difference in the number of crimes committed. For 2012 there was 11,525 and 4,291 were cleared with a 37% clearance rate. As for in 2013 there were 11,295 and 4,200 were cleared with the same of 37% of clearance rate. In my opinion the difference between both numbers wasn't that high however there are 300 more crimes being committed in 2013 and the clearance rate stayed the same. However, I then compared LVMPD to Los Angeles, California and their violent crimes is way higher. For example, in 2013 they had 16,447 crimes and 5,663 were cleared with the clearance rate of 34%. Due that LVMP doesn't have that big of a number for violent crime and yet our clearance rate is higher shows that our department isn’t doing that bad compared to others.

# data[].attributes.body
From my understanding what Sister Prejean is trying to say here is that to be neutral or not do anything about injustices in our society is just as bad and would be seem like we are upholding that it is okay or correct. If I am correct then yes, I would 100 percent agree with her. I think the reason why we have so many injustices in our system is not just because of the abuse of power or the racial discrimination but also because people now in days are just getting away with it. I think when people shut their mouths and don't say or act upon it just makes things way worse. If people around and our society stay quiet when we are aware of an injustice makes us just as bad as the “bad people”.  However, in my opinion it’s kind of hard to change injustices because every human being has a different perspective on things. For some people a punishment might be unfair or injustice and for others it won't. As well many people are afraid to go against the authorities seen we assume that they always make the right decisions. At times we may want to protest certain issues but may feel useless because we have no power however we can make a difference. It’s the same concept with voting like your vote counts. As well as the quote says “see something, say something”. We all have the right of voice and can stand up for what we believe is right or wrong. As for my personal life to be honest there has been times that I just stand on the sideline but an issue that has been going on lately that I feel strongly passionate for is the DACA students. I personally am not a DACA student but I do have many friends that are. To me its’s a really sad subject because my friends don't deserve that or any DACA student they are just trying to improve their lives. Personally for me majoring in criminal justice I have learned about many more social issues that I didn't even notice. It's sad to know about them but knowing and not doing anything makes me feel just as guilty so from now on if I can make a difference when it comes to injustice situations I will try my best to take action.

# data[].attributes.body
After listening to In the Dark and researching crime clearance rates, evaluate APM’s argument that there are “no perfect crimes” only “failed investigations,” and instead, that blaming “perfect crimes” is just an “excuse by law enforcement, and we buy it,” in reference to police unable to solve so many major crimes. How can we improve law enforcement clearance rates? What policies should we put in place? Should agencies be penalized for not solving crimes? One pressing question I have is, how can we force police to do better without it being seen as an anti-police political movement? Discuss.

Fully understand why certain crimes are not solved is hard in my opinion because we are not in police officer’s shoes. As for being the victim or part of the victim families it is difficult to know that their loved one’s cases was not solved. I do think however that sometimes our criminal justice system really can't solve certain crimes and that some crimes really are perfect crime however I do think that there should be more of an effort and maybe some type of consequence if an agency can’t solve a crime. However, if it just one crime that an agency can’t solve but they usually do solve most cases I don’t think they should be penalized. I do think an agency should be penalized if it becomes a pattern of unsolved crimes. The U.S law enforcement is the worst in the Western world at solving crimes. Only one- eighth of burglaries lead to an arrest and rapes its only one- third and for murder two-thirds. A way we can improve these clearance rates may be by having investigations be more intensive, move faster and be more organized. In a crimes aftermath the first 48 to 72 hours are critical so a way to improve may be by having more detectives available to work the long and odd hours until all leads are exhausted. Also have more forensic work and data analysis to have as much as evidence as possible. The DNA testing pause can sometimes kill and investigation especially if it comes back negative and the real suspect will then be long gone. Overall I think leadership is really important in order to improve clearance rates. Police play a central role in helping societies produce justice by holding offenders accountable for their crimes. The performance of police is typically measures by clearance rates which I understand why because it shows that they are doing their job by having at least one person arrested for an offense, charges and turned over to the court for prosecution. I think it’s kind of hard to force police to do better when in reality most of them are doing the best they can. Overall to help police do better I think as a society we can help. By applying certain laws and policies will help with clearance rates for police since crime will be reduced. For example, having more community policing and watching over delinquent juveniles as well raising the age or grade for dropping out of school and having behavioral intervention programs.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Was “justice” finally served to Walter? Why or why not? What obstacles does he face now? Does his case represent the best or the worst of our criminal justice system? Explain why.

Although Walter conviction and death penalty sentence was declared invalid in my opinion I don’t think he was served justice. This did not officially declare him innocent. It’s really sad to know that Walter spent six years behind bars for committing a crime he had not done and that to me is not justice. They wasted six years of his life that he can never get back. I think after everything that happened Walter definetly faced many obstacles to fit back into society. In the book Stevenson mentioned how he believed that the media plays an important role into why Walter isn’t getting the support he needs because prejudicial media coverage would make a fair trial nearly impossible. The local press in Monroe County and Mobile would perceive Walter as a murderer, drug dealer, sexual predator and just the worst things possible in order to make its audience believe that he deserves to be executed for his crimes. So even though Walter was released, society still made it difficult for him. I think labeling someone like that makes it hard on them to become acting members of society. Im sure Walter had to struggle with getting a job again, finding a place to live and so much more. In my opinion this case represents the best and the worst of our criminal justice. This case showed that Walter was able to be released and not sentenced to the death penalty. However, it also shows how long the process is and how there is so many innocent people sentenced in our criminal justice system that are just wasting their lives away. I think there is no way to tell how many of the people executed in our history were innocent. Defense attorneys move on to other cases when client’s lives can be saved, if the client is dead then there is nothing to do about and no justice is served. It’s sad to know that this is true in our criminal justice system and that luckily in Walter case he was released but there are many cases in which the person is blamed for the crime being innocent.

# data[].attributes.body
Blog # 1

My personal history

To begin with my parents come from Mexico and my dad came to the United States for a better future for himself. He then met my mother here who also comes from Mexico and they built a future together towards success. Both of parents didn't even make it to high school because of economic issues. They both had to leave school at a young age in order to start working and bring money home in order to have food on the table. Since both of my parents had a lot of siblings it was hard and they lived in poor conditions. I just want to achieve what my parents couldn't and get a better education. Ever since I was younger I always had a goal to become something in life and earn a degree. Criminal justice has always been a passion of mine. I have always been attached to this field even as a kid and my mind hasn't changed since. My main goal is to just show my parents that the sacrifices they did of leaving their family and everything behind was worth it. I want a better future for myself and furthering my education will get me there. Making my parents proud is definetly the biggest goal for me. I’m still not quite sure what I want to do in the field of criminal justice but I am sure this if the field I want to be in. My mind has been lately on becoming a police officer and seeing where that takes me. As well becoming a parole officer also catches my attention or even being a social worker. Im still kind of confused on what to do I just hope that with time I can make up my mind. As for my personal history I can’t complain. My parents are very hard working and have always tried to give us the best. I like to say I have had it pretty easy compared to others which makes me want to work twice as hard to make my parents proud. My parent’s history has made me want to help others in need. I want to be able to feel like I am making a difference in the world as well as make one. I want to be able to be there for others and feel like I am making a difference in society just by helping at least one person. Learning about my parent’s history at a young age I think is what caught my attention to lean more towards criminal justice. I just feel like this field I can really help others.

# data[].attributes.body
Apply the punishment paradigms of utilitarianism and retribution, and the notion of just deserts to evaluate what a "fair" punishment for sex offenders might looks like. Consider the fact that a wide array of crimes, from urinating in a public place to raping a child, can lead to being forced to register as a sex offender.

To begin with Utilitarianism means the goal to maximize benefit to society or utility of happiness. Meaning a punishment that benefits the best for society. As to just deserts is the punishment or reward the recipient deserves no less no more. Meaning a punishment that is enough depending on the crime. Retribution is punishment that fits the crime no less of no more. Which is sort of has the same concept as to just deserts. The wrongdoer should get what he/she deserves. I think when it comes to sex offenders it’s kind of hard what punishment paradigms would apply since each situation is different. Obviously every situation is different so according to the crime then that paradigms would be applied. For example, when it comes to urinating in a public place vs raping a child have different consequences. All in all, I definetly think that retribution is the best fit when it comes to sex offenders. The criminal should be punished with what best fits the crime and what they deserve. Retribution prevents crime by giving victims or society a feeling of avengement. I think with retribution the whole idea is that is someone is punished for a past bad act then he or she is less likely to commit the same offense again in the future which creates deterrence. Examples of retribution punishments would be like the severe fines or long period of incarceration all depending on the crime they did to become sex offenders. For example, in my opinion I don't believe that a person urinating in public should lead them to being registered as a sex offender because I don't think it fits the crime. Being registered as a sex offender can really effect someone’s life and future. I think the ideal punishment would simply be some sort of fine since the crime is not that serious. Utilitarianism wouldn't be a proper fit I think because society can choose a punishment that doesn't fit the crime and wouldn't be the right choice. Utilitarianism would be towards more the benefit of the society than anything else and most of the time the punishment society chooses isn’t the one they should be getting.

# data[].attributes.body
What are some injustices that really stand out to you in just mercy?

Throughout the book it shows many injustices. To me it is obvious that Walter McMillian case really stand out as injustice however there are a number of other stories that show it as well. The story of Herbert Richardson and his execution raised some question about the conception of justice and the respect to the death penalty. Richardson was a Vietnam veteran that had psychological damage from war that resulted in him making reckless decision. Like putting a small explosive outside the front porch of his would be girlfriend. In the story Richardson’s plan was to save her from the explosion in order to win her affection but that didn't go as planned. The “girlfriends” niece found the explosion and shook it causing it to kill her instantly. Richardson then received the death penalty after a trial even though he had no intent to kill anyone. Richardson was neglected to offer mitigating evidence and the courts refused to consider him assistance of counsel claims raised by Stevenson which was his new lawyer. With this story it clearly shows what the death penalty really looks like in and puts doubts if in any death sentence cases there is any justice? There are also other little things that show injustice in this book like the time that Stevenson was the victim himself. He was listening to the radio in his car on the way home from work and parked his car outside of his apartment and continued to listen. The police then pulled behind him and ordered him to get out the car and pointed a gun at his head. They illegally searched his car while interrogating him and ignoring his explanation that he lived in those apartments next to his car. The examples of injustice that Stevenson shows in just mercy just reflects how deep the problems in the criminal justice system really are and how extend they are. I think that Stevenson’s story show that injustices happen because they are a product of deeper cultural norms. Race plays a significant role in these cultural norms and minorities are perceived as more dangerous individuals. Certain types of people often racial minorities and the poor receive the criminal stigmatization before they ever commit a crime. By labeling people with criminal identity practically from birth, communities marginalize such people. I think that society just has people labeled as “good” or “bad” and based on what group a person belongs to determines if they will get justice or not.

# data[].attributes.body
What does Stevenson mean when he says “the opposite of poverty is justice?” What examples in the text inform his position? Do you have any examples or experiences from your own life, or maybe something you read about, that supports his assertion? Or, if you disagree, explain why.

I think what Stevenson is trying to do is clarify the meaning of poverty and justice. Poverty is not just the simple absence of wealth but is the social condition of being disfavored. Poverty is communities that lack access to proper education, safe homes, decent jobs and reasonable healthcare. People that live in poverty have enormous consequences for their opportunities in life. I think with this quote is assuming that the opposite of poverty is not wealth its justice. Justice is not just a fair hearing in court but to ensure that all citizens have good opportunities, it's a social commitment to equality. Justice is the opposite of poverty because widespread poverty can only happen in the absence of justice. When we permit for every citizen to not have equal opportunity as everyone else that is what becomes injustice. I think through the whole book it shows many people who have been either falsely convicted or harshly sentenced. 1think with the central story is the case of Walter McMillian which is a black man that was wrongfully accused of murder and sentenced to death in Alabama. Stevenson himself was born to a poor black family witnessed a lot of racial and economic inequality in his community. I have never personally been affected by this however I do know a friend who has story that would support this assertion. She comes from a family that wasn't doing to good economically and her dad was accused of sexual assault from one her cousins that didn't like her family to begin with. She had told me the whole background story and there was clearly no evidence towards his case it was just her word against his. He then was in jail for a while I can’t remember how long and later on went on probation. He had another awaiting trial and I honestly don't know what happened after that. This story just really shocked because her family couldn't afford the legal help they needed and their lives were ruined. Her dad lost his job and couldn't live with his family anymore since my friend had younger siblings and he was registered as a sex offender. I agree with this quote 100 percent. I think especially now in our society we see it a lot and it’s not just poverty but it’s if you are a certain race, age or sex.