Education within the Judicial system

Write a constructive and reasoned criticism or commentary on one of your classmate’s editorial or commentary published in Stage Seven. Post this article to your blog and as a comment in your classmate’s blog.

The judiciary system is by far the most complicated out of all of the three branches of government in Texas. Few people care to take a close look into it because of its many twists, turns and inconstancies, but the system should be looked at in order to better our own justice system. In our book, it explains the requirements of all the justices and judges. Their requirements vary quite drastically.  

Justices of Peace simply need to be registered to vote, no age or experience/ education required.

Constitutional County judges need to be '"well informed in the law of the State"' which doesn't include any sort of degree or education.

Statutory County court judge requires twenty five years of age, licensed attorney, and minimum four years experience.

District court judges "must have resided in the judicial district for two years and have been a licensed attorney in Texas or judge for four years."  

Supreme court, courts of appeals, and court of criminal appeals requires thirty five years of age and practicing attorney or judge of a court for ten years. 


Technically speaking, the only job that requires an education indefinitely is the statutory county judge, the rest of them have a loop hole for the education requirement. With most of these requiring little to no education, one starts to wonder how well informed our judges can be. Experience within the system is a plus, however one cannot learn everything through experience, just like students cannot learn everything through books. To be a well rounded, well informed judge, he/she needs to know all aspects of the judicial system. Being that this is the most complicated branch out of the three, and education in government would be essential no matter what how far up in the courts they are. Most people want to progress in their careers, earn more money and become more important. The system cannot assume that judges will remain stationary in the position they are in, they will progress and as they do more experience AND education will be required. Therefore, I believe an education in the judiciary system should be a standard for ALL of the courts. There are too many variations within the system to not be well informed of it all. The criminal court and the court of appeals are two opposite sides of the spectrum. Judges should have knowledge of both and understand how the other half of their system works. Without and in depth look into the system, an education, it's difficult to be well informed about the laws and the system itself.

RE: WWJS

Ashley Pina has strong points in her editorial 'Where would Jesus shop' and it's difficult not to agree with her. She has pointed an extremely negative picture for products made in China, with thousands upon thousands of people half way around the world receiving less than bearable wages. The happenings in China reflect our own mentality back in the early days of industrialization, and obviously need to be monitored by their government in order to fix it. If that were to take affect, the competition between factories in America and overseas wouldn't create the difficulties of job shortages we face today. With the Chinese wages producing American products, naturally Wal-Mart and Target can sell things for much less than any local business producing American made products since Americans have higher wage requirements. However, even though Wal-Mart can sell for less, statistics Pina shows proves that it does more harm than good for our local economy. Saving a few bucks in the house hold can be worth a lot overall, allowing a family to manage extra needs into their budget. If Wal-Mart does, however, take away over three fourths of our money out of the local money pool, that means there is less money in the area to support our city. Less money towards local wages and producing means less money for consumers to spend. It seems like an all around bust for the local people and a great success for the big shots in the big companies. Local businesses, while they are becoming scarce around the country, they are necessary to keep our local economy afloat. With less and less money being put in our pockets today it's essential to keep as much as we can as close to us as possible.

RE: Lawmakers want to slow tuition hikes at Texas public universities

In Elaine’s blog, she talks about how Texas Legislature has put a stop to the rapid increase of tuition in Texas Universities. While I do agree with what Elaine is saying, we should all look at a very important fact that Legislature failed to come across when they allowed the universities to determine their own tuition. Like any other organization a university is a business. It makes money like any other business, has employees and has an input and output of merchandise, but-more rather- it is people instead of merchandise. Universities offer advancement in knowledge to students a priceless tool that benefits them in terms of advancing in careers and having basic knowledge to survive and prosper in life. Since they are a business, their goal will be to make money. Without restrictions holding them down, they will attempt to milk as much money out of their customers in order to make a profit. Legislature should have thought about this whole scenario before giving them the ability to abuse the freedom. If they wanted to raise the tuition on students, they should have also increased the number of scholarships given by public institutions in order to assist students who cannot meet the necessary fees. Public institutions are stingy enough as it is, giving many students little to nothing especially if they are middle class. Everyone wants to get into a public institution because of how much less expensive it is compared to private institutions. Increasing tuition so dramatically in just a year appears to be an attempt of guarding an education from the less fortunate, since the price is so intimidating. I agree with Elaine and that the Hinojosa's bill should be taken into affect. It keeps education affordable for those less fortunate, yet wish to continue on and better themselves through education.  

Texas Abortions

Here in Texas, legislators tend to favor laws that regulate moral decisions, such as marriage to a person of the same sex and the decision to terminate a pregnancy. These have been two very controversial issues for the 20th and 21st century, and they have yet to slow down. In Austin, there is still the occasional crazy who will throw homemade bombs at abortion centers or students who take ‘a vow of silence’ day in schools to promote gay rights. However, there have been little changes to either of these rights. Abortions are still looked down upon by our Republican government as they regulate abortions for women. Minors are now required to inform parents of their decision, which gives them the ability to basically become the decision makers for the baby. Since then, abortions have decreased for teens between 15-18 years of age by 11%. While it seems typical and traditional for parents to make decisions for their daughters, it isn’t the parents who have to carry the child to term. It isn’t legally the parents’ of the pregnant teen who have to take responsibility to care for their daughter’s child after it’s born. Therefore, while abortions of younger teens should be regulated by parents, it shouldn’t become the parents’ decision as to whether or not it is performed. It should be the bearers decision unless otherwise not mentally capable to make a responsible decision for herself. With the ability to conceive a child, we should also have the ability to make our own decisions, to better our lives and make the best decision for the child. While it is a sacrifice of a human life it would (hopefully) prevent another teen mother from going on welfare and becoming stuck in economic poverty.

California vs. Texas

In the Texas observer blog, Forest Wilder compares the radical state of California to that of Texas. Throughout this election season we’ve all seen the farfetched pitches against Barack Obama; everything from associating with terrorist to being a closet Muslim has been conjured and passed around through emails and blogs. In Wilder’s entry “California, you got nothin’” he compares how utterly radical it gets between these two polar opposite states, yet share equal passion when it comes to politics in general. He extracts from an article that is linked from the Hay’s county Republican website that compares Obama to infamous dictators like Hitler, Sadam Hussein, and Mao. The article claims that like them “‘his continuous struggle to find his identity make him a prime candidate for NPD (narcissistic personality disorder).’” It goes on to create several other less than positive comments against the candidate to make him as unattractive as possible. Throughout Wilder’s blog, it’s obvious that he’s simply trying to inform his readers how farfetched and vicious the opposing party can be. By pitching this onto his blog he is presenting a very unattractive side of the Republican Party, as it makes a fool of itself with fallacy. There is an underlying tone of sarcasm within his blog which attracts several kinds of readers, but the main one that he seems to pitch this article for are the “swing voters.” By presenting such an unattractive side of the Republican Party, he creates an argument within the argument. Such fallacy shown by a Party easily makes that Party unattractive, especially to a person that is uncertain about where he is devoting himself in such an important election. While it seems like he is aiming for Californians to read the blog with his ending statement ‘Take that California!’ it hides his real objective, and who he’s truly pitching the statement to.

While the author doesn’t seem very argumentative statement, he is attempting to be informative and showing little hostility. This is to show that he, along with his Party, will not stoop down to the level of the Republicans and create blasphemy as they have. As stated above, his argument is within the argument. He only wishes to prove how unreliable the Republicans and does so by exploiting a presentation made by their own. Wilder’s tactics were throughtout well as he pitched this blog, because her certainly did prove his point with saying very little words against the opposition.

The Texas Observer. 16 Oct 2008. The Texas Observer. 28 Oct 2008. [http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/index.php/2008/10/16/california-you-got-nothin/].

With such a memorable election coming up, there are people out there trying to get the last minute comments about the dozen of choices we are going to have on the ballot. Most of these propositions and candidates we know nothing about and will simply vote ‘straight’ for the party we are committed to. In this editorial, the author is trying to get his audience, the tax payers, to approve a tax increase in Austin during a time of financial crisis. For propositions there isn’t a way to determine what is ‘straight’ unless people look at how democrats/ republicans have voted on the subject. In this article, the author is showing how crucial it is for a tax increase to occur for teachers, since that is the source of their income. While he admits that ‘timing for a tax rate increase couldn’t be worse’ he does make a good point as to why it should occur. Even though it is more money out of our pockets, it means that teachers can stay afloat financially during our economic crisis and keep their salaries steady during inflation.  

Their argument is obviously meant for the tax payers, to persuade the tax payers, who have the power to make this needs become reality. Without the approval of the tax payers this proposition could never get though, so it is up to all of us to make the difficult decision. The author’s credibility is valid since he has obviously looked up key points and researched the numbers to accurately provide information to his audience. The author has spelled out every financial detail about this bill, explaining how much of a tax increase will be needed, and where we stand now when it comes to how much in taxes they obtain and where it goes. Their overall claim is that the tax payers need to approve this bill in order for teachers to remain financially comfortable, or as they previously were before inflation. Without the tax increase their income decreases since it does not meet with the demand of inflation. As people, teachers need to have their pay increased as well in order to stay economically stable. It is a job just like everyone else’s, with the exception of the tax payers paying for their income, and just like everyone else, they need raises too. With this reasoning, I agree that teachers should have a raise. The bare minimal will allow them to keep up with the inflating dollar, but keeping income stable and reasonable for them could change the quality of their performance, since they will have less to worry about financially. The more financially stable a person is, generally the happier they are. Therefore, in theory, the more willing teachers are to teach and put quality into their work.  

Blog Part 2: The Judiciary system

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/gen/ap/TX_Murder_Trial_No_Body.html

After listening to quite a few detective shows on T.V. I would have to say that this is a bizarre verdict. A man in Fort Worth (Owens) was convicted of murder ALTHOUGH there is NO body to prove the killing; the 'victim' (Furch) is still considered "missing". Instead of using the body to prosecute this man, they linked Owens with peculiar things that were found in Furch's trash can such as "electrical and telephone cords tied in unusual knots, a towel, clothes, and other items belonging to Furch". In the end, this man gets life in prison due to the courts assumptions of the circumstance. The only thing that they can relate him to is a piece of duct tape they found in her trash can that had his fingerprint. That is very weak evidence, and the court completely bases their case against him upon the circumstance that he happened to be her next door neighbor.

Could it just be that he was rushing out of his house after taping up something and didn't have his own trash can out so he used his neighbors? It's guilty till proven innocence, once they found any DNA besides the victims in the trash can they HAD to be the murderer. Remind me to never have neighbors if I’m going to be accused for murder simply by throwing something away in someone else’s trash can because I didn't have time to rush back into the house.


If the man in THIS article can get life in prison for having his DNA in her trash can then THIS man:

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/10/10/06/1006woodford_edit.html

Should DEFINETLY get life in prison, or death row. He was on death row, but California temporarily banned death row while he was on it, therefore he got knocked down to jail WITH probation. This is a man who DEFINETLY killed someone, and HE was able to get out of jail for a few months. Just long enough to kill another person and assure the court that he should be on death row.

In my opinion, this shows the inconsistency between the states and the judicial system.

I find the first article to be very important because this is an example of our judicial system. With the power of assumption, anyone can easily be put in jail. What happened to Innocence till proven guilty? Has this constitutional right been forsaken? Shouldn't the evidence be stronger than just a piece of duct tape that's in the victims trash can? Assumptions like these can leave the wrong person in jail for a very long, an unforgivable amount of time, and it has before.