Counterintuitive Spring 2023

The Most Expensive and Imaginary Punishment

People in the United States often think that the use of capital punishment is cheaper than giving life sentences but this is simply not the case. Capital punishment is extraordinarily more expensive than life without parole. According to a former jurist from California, Donald McCartin, “it’s 10 times more expensive to kill than to keep them[prisoners] alive.” When the death penalty is spoken about, the argument is not whether killing a man is morally right but, if killing a man is cheaper than sentencing a man to life. Advocates that support capital punishment insist that we need punishment this severe to deter people from committing horrible crimes. Advocates of the death penalty have failed to reveal any statistics that show an increased deterrence in states that use the death penalty over states that do not use the death penalty. If the advocates are informed it’s not cheaper or effective to use the death penalty than they might be reconsider their views on the death penalty.

Capital punishment has been one of many shadows that covers the United States history. The costs of capital punishment alone are radical in comparison to other forms of punishment such as life in prison and the deterrent effect on crime is little to none. Even with these obvious downfalls of capital punishment, there are still states that practice capital punishment, but the death penalty should to be done away with completely. As of now there are still 31 states that still use the death penalty. Of those states the last to abolish the death penalty was Nebraska in 2015 and the first was Michigan as early as 1886. There is about a 130 year gap in between the abolishing of the death penalty. All of the states that have done away with capital punishment have done so to save money.

A Kansas State senator Carolyn McGinn was quoted in a statement saying, “We’ve had the death penalty since 1994, and we continue to pay for the process with little results…But we continue to cut the programs that could prevent these types of crimes.” Many politicians do not realize that the United States Government can save money by abolishing the death penalty, which would present an opportunity to  designate more funding to programs that prevent crime. Putting money back into deterring crime so less people commit crimes should be politician main goal instead of the hoax that is the death penalty. In implementing measures to stop these major crimes from happening we can try and find the root cause of why these criminals murder.

The appeal process is something that people do not think about when thinking about capital punishment.  People assume once a criminal is given the death penalty that the criminal is almost instantly put to death but this is simply not the case. Appeals elongate the prisoner’s sentence even after a conviction and the sentencing to be put to death. Not only are the appeals process time consuming but they are also very expensive for the states that still use the death penalty. The death penalty is substantially more expensive than giving someone life in jail without parole. There have been reports in which it’s stated that by abolishing the death penalty in a state will save them 90 million dollars annually. In Florida it was learned that each death penalty costs the state 3 million dollars extra to sentence a man to death than to keep them locked away for life.

The University of Denver Law performed a study on the appeals process which found that the, “LWOP cases took an average of 526 days to complete; death cases took almost 4 calendar years longer–1,902 days.” The study is astounding in how it puts  the length of these cases into a perspective of an exact number of days. The appeals can take so long due to there being a life at stake. The constitution requires a long and complex process when dealing with capital punishment.The death penalty is a final solution and can’t be undone. Everything must be done to make sure that no innocent person is be put to death. By sentencing a person to life in prison, countless amounts of money can be used in other areas to actually lower crime and help the community. There are various programs in the community that could use this money including the local police, roads, drug and alcohol rehabilitation clinics. Some of these alternatives can lead to lower recidivism rates which the death penalty is not doing.

In recent studies done by a Supreme Court of Appeals Judge Arthur L. Alarcon, he found that California has spent an outstanding $4 billion dollars on capital punishment since the reinstatement of it back in 1978. Yet there were only a total of thirteen death sentenced fulfilled resulting in about $308 million dollars for each of those executions. The majority of this money is being spent on legal expenses and can run the state around $184 million each year.  The study also found that California has not executed anyone since 2006 due to legal reason with their use of lethal injection. If the state has not executed anyone since then, than why have they not done away with capital punishment altogether. As a result of California abolishing the death penalty they can use the amount of money to greatly help the terrible prison conditions that inmates are faced with and also the rehabilitation for the inmates to help their habits and issues. That money that had been spent on capital punishment would have been better if it was burned. Judge Alarcon sees the cost of keeping the death penalty will more than double by 2030. If this happens there will be an even greater problem than what the United States has faced to date.

The people that are actually paying for this is the taxpayers of the states that still use it. Taxes are raised and the local police budgets are cut in order to get the money needed to keep capital punishment. The states are raising taxes and cutting budgets to make money to give someone the death penalty but no money is raised for the victims of the crimes. If the politicians are not going to formally put an end to the death penalty then they must try to make it cheaper. There is just no possible ways to make a significant cut in death penalty cost. In states like Texas where the death penalty is quicker than most states, the costs are still four times as much as life without parole. A former supporter the death penalty who ultimately switched sides was James Abbott, a police chief in West Orange, New Jersey. Abbott said, “As a police chief, I find this use of state resources offensive… Give a law enforcement professional like me that $250 million, and I’ll show you how to reduce crime. The death penalty isn’t anywhere on my list.” More and more people are realizing there is no need for the death penalty anymore.

The death penalty is practically a fictitious idea that is only there to scare people into not committing the heinous acts that land them the death penalty. The problem is there are no facts backing the death penalty when it comes to deterrence rates. In cases where the death penalty is handed down, they do not always get carried out. The argument that the death penalty deters crime can be rebutted by strong evidence. According to The North Carolina Coalition for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, North Carolina has not executed anyone since 2006 and have not sentenced anyone to death. Yet the murder rate in North Carolina has been on the decline with no one being executed. For some people this would seem surprising that there was a decline in murder even though the death penalty was not being given.

The terrible criminals that are to be put to death would not be deterred from crime due to many of them not being cognitive during the act. They do not think about the consequences whilst engaging in the act of murder. Even in some studies it is found that the murder rate increases in states that support the death penalty still. Looking at the murder rate nationally in states that do not practice capital punishment it shows the rates lower as well.

A survey done asked police chiefs across the country in the accuracy of a few statements. In this survey they were asked if the statements were accurate or inaccurate. The first statement was, “The death penalty significantly reduces the number of homicide rates.” The greater number of chiefs found this statement to be inaccurate. Another statement was, “Murderers think about the range of possible punishments before committing homicides,” and the percentage of chiefs  was almost seventy percent of the officers. In the research that can be found it shows a great number of law officials that do not feel capital punishment is necessary in this country anymore.Politicians are always looking to get elected as much as they can by almost any means necessary. Many of them speak about exactly what the voters want to hear. The people often times want to vote for someone who is tough on crime and this includes keeping capital punishment even though there is no factual evidence revealing that it does not have any effect on crime.

Everyday More states are coming to realize the pointlessness of the death penalty. Every year there is another state coming to this conclusion based off factual evidence. It is a matter of time until the entire country will have abolished the death penalty. The country will have been able to use the capital punishment budget to make greater strides in crime prevention. The death penalty is the most expensive form of punishment in the criminal justice system with the lowest deterrence rate of all. This would seem counterintuitive to keep putting money into a program that does not solve any crime problems.

Work Cited

“Wasteful and Inefficient.” <i>Wasteful and Inefficient</i>. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2015.

“COSTS: New Study Reveals California Has Spent $4 Billion on the Death Penalty.” <i>COSTS: New Study Reveals California Has Spent $4 Billion on the Death Penalty</i>. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2015.

“Death Penalty Focus : The High Cost of the Death Penalty.” Death Penalty Focus : The High Cost of the Death Penalty. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2015

“Prison Spending Rises, Even as Inmate Population Plummets.” <i>Southern California Public Radio</i>. N.p., 29 Sept. 2015. Web. 03 Dec. 2015.

“Death Penalty Does Not Deter Crimes.” NC Coalition for Alternatives to the Death Penalty. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2015.

“Law Enforcement Views on Deterrence.” <i>Law Enforcement Views on Deterrence</i>. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2015.

Big Brother

The NSA are doing more harm than good to everyone and only recently has there been anything done to stop them. In their attempts to keep the United States secure, they have overstepping their boundaries in every major country in the world, including the United States. The American government is built on a system of checks and balances but there is nothing balancing the power of the NSA. The court that is supposed to keep the NSA in check, approved over 2000 applications for surveillence in 2012 with no rejections. The NSA watches over ally countries of the United States as well as the American public which is unneccessary to its security as well as an intrusion of privacy. Starting with Edward Snowden’s revelations, reform for more transparency has begun but there is much more that we as Americans can do to move this process along.

Starting in June of 2013, Edward Snowden, a former NSA contracter, began releasing documents that were previously classified from the American public about the NSA, their capabilities and their actions. He was the spark that ignited the controversy that still continues on today. Because of him, other whistleblowers have emerged with information of their own but due to the shear volume of information Snowden has released, he remains the driving force for reform of the NSA.

The reasons Snowden released the information was for the benefit of all. More specifically, for the privacy of all, and to protect us from living in a state of surveillance and fear. In an article on Forbes by Kashmir Hill, she quotes Snowden on these reasons. He believes “the greatest danger to our freedom and way of life comes from the reasonable fear of omniscient State powers” and that his “sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them.” His actions match his words and intent for the betterment of the system. He gave up a well paying job and his own safety to release this information so it is only fair that we trust this man and accept that his intentions are good.

The information Snowden first released was the FISA court aquisitions of call records from Verizon. It was important that this was the first information released because this was American information. Had it been information on NSA activity in Germany–which was revealed later–the uproar would not have been as loud. Many people would have rationalized it as protection for our country. But telling America that its own government was listening to its phone calls hit a soft spot. In addition, we were told about PRISM: a secret program that has collected information from Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, YouTube, Skype, AOL and Apple. Not only were our phone calls being listened to but everything we did online was being monitered. This was the first time that most Americans had been made aware of this.

Edward Snowden’s unveiling of information has led others like him to also come out with information on the NSA. He stated that he wanted to “to embolden others to step forward.” William Binney has also released a great amount of information about the NSA. As a former employee of a fairly high position, he interacted with imporant information every day. He states, “I think the place needs a total lobotomy. I think they need to scrap it and start again.” He had been with the NSA for a long time and understand now that what they are doing is wrong. He is an experienced opinion and believes that the NSA needs a fresh start.

To understand how the NSA is supposed to be protecting us, we must know what they are allowed to moniter and what they are actually monitering. We as the American public have come to imagine the NSA as the omnipotent Big Brother figure listening to our every conversation and looking at our every email. And it is not an incorrect interpretation of the NSA at all. They have no limits to their power which allows them to access all the information our lives on a whim.

What the NSA is allowed to moniter can be summarized in a single word: Everything. Absolutely nothing is off limits for the NSA to know, domestically and internationally. Before the NSA is allowed to start snooping around for whatever they feel like, they must first go through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). Under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, phone companies and other third parties are required to disclose information as long as it is relevant to international terrorism, counterespionage, or foreign intelligence investigation. Although those topics are important matters to the American public, their relevancy may seem subjective in some cases. There is nothing stopping them from just simply claiming that someone is suspicious and relevant to a foreign intelligence investigation. Their claims of relevance to international terrorism may be as relevant as random airport searches are “random”. In some cases, the NSA is not even clear about what they intend on doing but the FISC approves it anyway. They hide as much from us as they possibly can. In addition to unclear applications for aquisition, the providers of the information are held under “gag-orders” to not disclose the release or the use of this information. What they are doing is legal as NPR states because there has been no “‘spying’ on Americans without a court order” but such a lenient court allows for flexible legality.

Although we know most of our personal information is harmless, private information should still remain private. The FISC needs to be stricter with what is classified as terroristic and the amount of information and context that the required to approve an application for surveillance. What the NSA is doing now is unnacceptable and something needs to be done.

The NSA’s primary job is to keep us, the American public, safe. The heads of our government vehemently claim that the NSA’s spying has prevented 54 potential terrorist attacks as their big claim to legitimacy but the truth is that much of the information they collected from phones and the internet activity provided little to no value in preventing these attacks. What the NSA is doing is wasting their time and invading our privacy.

Defenders of the NSA have obstructed themselves from the truth by repeating loose claims of justice and forgiveness. There are five big bubbles that Cindy Cohn and Nadia Kayyali from eff.org are trying burst:

The NSA has stopped 54 terrorist attacks with mass spying. Bailey Cahall, David Sterman,Emily Schneider, Peter Bergen from newsamerica.org give some figures to help us understand what kind of information the NSA has collected and how useful it truly is.

“the controversial bulk collection of American telephone metadata, which includes the telephone numbers that originate and receive calls, as well as the time and date of those calls but not their content, under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, appears to have played an identifiable role in initiating, at most, 1.8 percent of these cases. NSA programs involving the surveillance of non-U.S. persons outside of the United States under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act played a role in 4.4 percent of the terrorism cases we examined, and NSA surveillance under an unidentified authority played a role in 1.3 percent of the cases we examined.”

Cahall et al. describe the information appropriately as bulk. The NSA collects such a massive amount of information so that it can sit around and do nothing.

The claim that, “collecting call detail records isn’t a big deal” is misguiding making it a weak defense for the NSA. Officials try to brush off the severity of this data by saying that it isn’t very useful. This data is not useful and that is why the NSA collects so much of it. If they were telling us the truth, the collection of this data would be a complete waste of time and if they are lying to us, the data must have some other purpose if so little of it is being used to prevent terrorist attacks.

The NSA and its defenders claim that the power and information they have is use appropriately and not abused for other means. With the amount of power NSA employees have over their fellow Americans, it can take Facebook stalking to an entirely different level. Some NSA employees have not been able to resist the allure of knowing the private information of people they may care about and spied on people for their own personal gain. There have been reports of these employees monitoring ex-spouses.

Defenders think that “invading privacy is okay because it’s done to prevent terrorist attacks.” Because the surveillance is done electronically, thinking about it in a physical way emphasizes how serious of a violation to everyday life it truly is. By no one’s standards would it be acceptable for the government to enter our homes looking for private information for “preventative measures.” That same attitude should be applied to the means of acquisition the NSA uses.

Finally, the loosest claim of all is that there is plenty of oversight from Congress, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and Agency Watchdogs. The process that the NSA must go through to start surveillance on a certain party or aquire a specific set of information requires them to make an application that must past through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court which as average American citizens, we would hope is strict about what information the NSA is allowed to get their hands on. The truth is that the FISC approves of almost anything that NSA asks for without even knowing the full context of the request. The court’s track record show that it has “denied just 10 applications, and modified several dozen, while approving more than 15,000” in 11 years. In most recent years, FISC denied none.

Since the original revelation, Snowden has released a vast amount of information about the NSA that ranges from surveillance of many of the worlds countries including England, China, Brazil, and just about any other major country. More documents and information is being released regularly. There has been some reform because of the release of this information. Investigations of mass surveillance are being conducted in the US, Europe, and Brazil. Bill proposals for greater transparency a making their way through the government processes and some FISA court opinions have even been ruled unconstitutional. In September of 2015, Congress passed a reform measure that takes away the NSA’s ability to collect the phone records of Americans. In June of 2015, Congress also passed amendments to the USA Freedom Act which limits the access to records that are relevant to a national security investigation.

We are making progress against the tyranical NSA but there is more that can be done. Congress has begun approving of reform bills that have changed what the NSA is allowed to do with decisions in favor 62 to 32. We as Americans need to continue voting for Congress members who care about keeping the NSA in check. We need to continue fighting for a more private America.

Works Cited

“DO NSA’S BULK SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS STOP TERRORISTS?” newamerica.org, Bailey Cahall, et al., 13 January 2014. 4 December 2015

The Top 5 Claims That Defenders of the NSA Have to Stop Making to Remain Credible Electronic Frontier Foundation, Cindy Cohn and Nadia Kayyali, 2 June 2014. 4 December 2015.

“Why NSA IT Guy Edward Snowden Leaked Top Secret Documents” Forbes, Kashmir Hill, 10 June 2013. 4 December 2015.

“Revelations” edwardsnowden.com. 4 December 2015.

“William Binney” PBS. 4 December 2015.

“Are They Allowed to Do That? A Breakdown of Selected Government Surveillance Programs” Brennan Center For Justice. 3 December 2015

“5 Things To Know About The NSA’s Surveillance Activities” NPR.org Krishnadev Calamur, 23 October 2013. 3 December 2015

Do people want to send their kids to school and fear one day that one day that he or she might not come home? No, of course not no parents should have to worry about their child’s safety when sending them off to school whether if it’s elementary, high school or college. Unfortunately because of the times that is of society today, there is a probably that parents could send their kids off to school and they will not return home. This is because that mass shootings are at an all time high. A mass shooting, by definition of the Federal Bureau Investigation, is defined as a single individual unleashes a mass attack that results four or more victims that have been either wounded or have been killed by the attack. Everyday more communities are traumatized as the result of mass shootings that occur in their hometown. So far in 2015, there have been a total of 294 mass shootings that have occurred in the United States that dates back to October 1st of this year. Which means that everyday a mass shootings occurs somewhere within the United States. The majority of mass shootings that have occurred have been in schools, but in recent months statistics prove that movie theaters and churches have also been prime targets for mass shooters. There are a couple of questions that are asked after a mass shooting occurs. Questions include “why would someone want to do this”, “could this have been prevented” and “what can be done to prevent this”? The main thing that is looked at when evaluating all of this is that mass shootings are mainly related to have mental health issues of the attacker or gun violence. Some people will say that one is the problem while others will say the opposite. There will even be people that say that both are the problem or neither is the problem. It’s obvious that both issues are the problems for mass shootings and nothing is being done to help prevent them.

There can be ways that mass shootings can be prevented such as having more strict gun control law, having strict background checks and having routine checks for people. The reason why mass shootings happen because it is too easy for crazy people to obtain guns. People will argue that it is only one of these three problems is the cause for mass shootings but that is not the case. Mass shootings occur because of the combination of these three problems put to get together. All of these non-strict regulations make it so that can mass shootings can poetically happen. Mass shootings have been a problem for over two decades now, dating back to the first mass shooting that occurred in 1998 at Columbine High School in Colorado. This trend has been continually happening since present day and nothing has been done to help prevent this form of domestic terrorism. All there have been is back and forth debates on what the main problem is and as a result nothing can accomplish because the two sides of people cannot agree on one thing. Statistics indicate that the United States leads the world in mass shootings by twice as much as the second country. This shows that this is an in country problem rather a world problem. How can other countries not have mass shooting problems but the United States does? This is the fact that gun control has proven to work in other countries. Banning guns would be difficult to do in the United States however. Banning guns would mean violating the second Amendment in the United States Constitution. Also there are plenty of guns that most owners have already registered for so how does the country deal with taking them away? People will also claim that need guns as self defense in case of being attacked in home or in public. Stopping mass shootings will take time and collaboration but with these proposals, the United States could dissolve the problem within a couple years.

Mass shootings have become a common tragedy in our society. These shootings represent a fairly recent trend of terror involving gun violence. The definition of the term or phrase, “mass shooting” appears only in medical dictionaries, which define it as, “the discharging of firearms multiple times by one or more parties into a group of unarmed victims.” In general terms, a mass shooting involves a person(s) who kills multiple victims with a gun during a single incident. Mass shootings is also considered to be a domestic form of terrorism. As stated, mass shootings have certain key characteristics. Mass murderers commit mass shootings. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) classified three different perpetrators who commit gun violence: mass murderers, spree killers, and serial killers. According to the FBI, the primary distinction between a mass murderer and a spree killer is that the latter strikes in multiple locations (as opposed to a single locale). Both kill in a relatively short time frame. The serial killer strikes over a longer period of time, in multiple locations, and engages in a “cooling off” period between attacks. For example, the infamous D.C. Sniper’s heinous acts of murder throughout the course of several weeks are not considered mass shootings. The FBI defines a mass shooting as an incident where people are killed, but research groups, such as the group that created the project, “Mass Shooting Tracker”, calculated that mass shootings involve at least four victims. Since the 1980s, researchers on the subject have used at least four homicides, excluding the shooter if killed during the incident, as the ground number for studying the subject and calculating statistics. However, experts, such as James Alan Fox of Northeastern University, who has written extensively on the subject, concluded that the number four was an arbitrary number. Using the criteria of at least four fatalities, the tracker reported that 294 mass shootings occurred in 2015. There poetically could have been a lot more mass shootings but the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have thwarted plots of mass shootings that individuals planned to do. Mass shooting attacks generally occur as a single incident, in a public place, such as a shopping mall, a movie theater, or a school. The FBI classifies school shootings as a sub-category of mass shootings, defined as an attack on any educational institute of learning. Using these key characteristics to define what a mass shooting is provides a starting point for the cause and solutions.

A mass shooting can occur because of a failed background check. Background checks exist so that guns do not fall into the hands of those who may potentially do harm to others. For example, minors should not be able to buy a gun. A person convicted of a violent crime should not be able to purchase a gun. A person who has exhibited some record of mental illness should not be able to buy a gun. While background checks will not prevent a person who possesses none of the red flags cited from buying a gun and later committing a mass shooting, background checks will prevent those whose history demonstrates that he or she is a threat to society, from legally buying a gun. Just a few months back, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) declared that the mass murderer who sat through an hour-long Bible study meeting inside a Black church before shooting and killing the pastor and eight parishioners in Charleston, South Carolina, should never have been able to legally buy a gun. A member of the FBI admitted that flaws in paperwork and communication between a federal background worker and state law enforcement allowed this man, a convicted drug felon, “to pass” a background check. “The gun dealers never heard back from the FBI” and as a result, the shooter was allowed to buy the gun. Background checks need to be thorough to lessen the likelihood of felons getting their hands on firearms. The tragedy that occurred in that South Carolina church raised awareness here in South Jersey where churches are now raising awareness about “open door policies and background checks against people.” Where accurate and thorough background checks exist, less mass shootings will occur. Surveys have found that more Americans are in favor of owning firearms than those who are opposed to gun ownership. As of November 20, 2015, a MSNBC network poll showed that 338,000 people voted that Americans should be allowed to carry guns because it is their Second Amendment right to carry a weapon in order to defend themselves. Only 16,000 people voted that it was too dangerous to carry around firearms in public. This year the number of guns estimated in the United States was more than 300 million. (Follman).

Just recently there has been another mass murder that occurred Umpqua Community College in Western Oregon. This was yet another community that has been traumatized by gun violence. Many questions unfolded with this story such as how and why did he commit such a heinous crime. The answers were obvious because as a country we have become accustomed to such gun violence before. Due to respect of the victims, the Oregon killer’s name will not be mentioned. The Oregon killer suffered from being lonely as a young adult and as a result he developed mental health issues and was angry toward other people that felt that did him wrong in society. He was a part of a notorious and now considered a terrorist organization by some people, Beta Uprising. This organization is mainly composed of young males, mostly in their early 20’s that feel inferior to society and what to take out their angry by unleashing a mass killing. This isn’t the first time something like this as occurred. Another mass murder, who’s name will also not be mentioned, also committed a mass shooting at Santa Barbara University in California. He was also apart of the same organization as the Oregon killer’s. Both of these people show signs of mental health issues and were not treated properly. This made them go out of their way to buy many firearms so they could go out and commit this crime. They also were able to by the guns legally which they shouldn’t have allowed to. The FBI confirms that the background check failed on both of these guys.

Another problem would be that on how they were able to buy these dangerous weapons so easily. This is because the United States also isn’t strict enough with gun control. I do believe people have the right to defend themselves with guns but the National Rifle Association (NRA) shouldn’t be selling assault rifles to the public people. Only the military and other law enforcement agencies should have the right to use these weapons. This has shown to cause multiple problems within this country. The only guns that the public should be allowed to own are hunting rifles, pistols and shotguns to defend themselves from attackers within their homes or out in public. This is because the majority of mass shootings are committed by using automatic weapons and other military equipment. People do have the right to defend themselves and if they want a one shot gun to make them feel safe, then they should be allowed to own these types of guns. The problem with taking away assault rifles is that it would go against the second amendment of the constitution, which will also cause problems to people. But this needs to be done other wise there will continue to be problems with mass shootings occurring every other week. This is a difficult process to fix but our leaders of this country should be motivated than they are currently.

Many people believe that the cause of mass shootings stems from the proliferation of guns that exist within our society as a result of lax gun control. Equally troubling is the large number of people who believe that mass shootings are the result of a deficient mental health system ill-equipped to deal with the mentally ill, who are often portrayed as violent individuals. In a Washington Post-ABC News poll on gun violence published on October 26, 2015, “by a more than 2 to 1 margin, more people said mass shootings reflect problems identifying and treating people with mental health problems rather than inadequate gun control laws.” (Follman). However, Mark Follman, who cited the above poll in his article, “No, Mental Illness Is Not the Main Cause of Mass Shootings in America”, noted that the poll presented a “false choice between mental health and gun policy.”

The cause of mass shootings is neither lax gun control nor the taxed mental health system. It is a combination of both as evidenced by the Santa Barbra. In which the shooter killed six people before killing himself in Isla Vista, California. He was able to amass a stockpile of weapons as he prepared to inflict retribution onto those who he perceived had wronged him, specifically because he was sexually frustrated. Further, he was able to buy the guns legally despite a history of mental health concerns according to his family. As this example illustrates, there is no one cause of mass shootings, but is rather a complex intertwining of a small sample of people with untreated mental illness legally obtaining weapons. “The vast majority of mentally ill people are not violent”, (Follman) and any examination of the problem of mass shootings must be cognizant of this fact in the national debate on gun control.

Mental illnesses isn’t the problem to clarify. The problem is that people become frustrated with their life and decide to go on a rampage. People can become frustrated for a number reasons that can include stressing over school, work or they are having relationship issues. This causes people to go crazy and get angry thus they go out commit a mass shooting. Most mass shooters commit their acts because they feel society has hurt them and they need to obtain retribution by going out and committing a mass shooting. The people that commit these mass shooters are considered to be the outcasts of society. This means that they are lonely and have no one to turn to due to their lack of friends and family. They think there is nothing left in life for them so they go out commit a terrorist act before they commit suicide. This is why the majority of mass shooters kill themselves after they are done with their act. The proposal to try to fix this problem is to do a better job at making everyone feel welcome in society. Everyone can help with this by not discriminating against anyone and make people feel more at welcome. A simple hello could brighten up someone’s day and make them feel better about themselves. Everyone gets a little stressed out over things, people just have to make sure they don’t take out their anger on anyone else. There also should be yearly therapy checks on people to ensure that every citizen is okay and getting the right amount of love between friends and family members. Every citizen would be included in this and would get a checkup from their local therapist every six months. This would keep people in check and clam. The calmer people are in society, then there would be a less likely chance that people will go out and commit mass shootings.

So far the discussion has been on what the country is doing wrong on handling mass shootings, however there are things that our leaders are doing right. As mentioned before, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have thwarted many mass shootings against individuals especially against schools. This is because people post their frustrations on social media and threaten to shoot up an educational insistue. Law enforcement are able to track certain terms that people post and are able to arrest the individuals that are responsible for posting their treats. Schools will also evacuate if there is a threat of a school shooting. Some schools will also close for a day to ensure that everyone feels safe and doesn’t get harm in a poetical school shooting. Recently there were threats on both Kingsway Regional High School in Woolwich, New Jersey and Rowan University in Glassboro, New Jersey. These are two different communities that are in the same county and had two different instances where an individual had plan to harm individuals. At Rowan there was a threat against all Philadelphia area colleges that some was going to attempt to shoot up a nearby university on October 5^th, 2015. Rowan University being one of them, advised all students of this threat and gave them opportunity to not to attend class if they didn’t feel comfortable going out. The other threat made towards Kingsway, there was an individual, most likely a student, made a threat online against the school that was considered to be a mass shooting threat on November 11^th, 2015. The community responded to the threat by having additional patrols to surround the school until the situation was resolved. “We are taking every measure to ensure the safety and well-being of our students and staff and will cooperate with local authorities in establishing the validity of these social media posts” the superintendent Dr. James Lavender wrote. (Forand) These two instances happened in one month between two separate towns that are only 15 minutes away from each other. This means that mass shootings can happen anywhere in the country and all law enforcement must be prepared at any minute. No one attempted to shoot up any of these schools and the law enforcement presence made so. Both schools and law enforcement have been doing a good job to ensure that no one gets harm in wake of a mass shooting.

There have been too many mass shootings to count for over the pass decade. Mass shootings occur because of the combination between people feeling angry and easiness to obtain guns due to weak background checks. There are certain guns that should be banned from the public such as assault rifles and other guns that the military would use. This would make it that only hunting rifles, pistols and shotguns would be available to the public for self defense against attackers. This will also have it so that the United States does not fully violate the second amendment of the constitution. There also should be yearly therapy checks on people to ensure that every citizen is okay and getting the right amount of love between friends and family members. This will also help people deal with stress with work, school and relationship issues. The calmer people are the less likely they will go on heinous acts. This trend of domestic terrorism is scary but if the country pulls through with these suggestions, they can be prevented more.

Works Citied

“What Exactly Is a Mass Shooting?” Mother Jones. Mark Follman, 24 August 2012. Web. Dec 4 2015.

“Another: The 45th School Shooting in America in 2015.” NewsWeek. Michelle Richinick. 1 October 2015. Web. Dec 4 2015.

Oh, Inae. NPR. FBI Says Background Check Error Let Charleston Shooting Suspect Buy Gun. 10 Jul 2015. Dec 4 2015.

Flowers, Matt. Courier Post. Charleston Shooting Shakes South Jersey. 19 June 2015. Dec 4 2015.

Follman, Mark. No, Mental Illness Is Not the Main Cause of Mass Shootings in America. Mother Jones. Oct 27 2015. Dec 4 2015

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-do-you-think-people-should-be-allowed-carry-guns-public

Serna, Joseph. Elliot Rodger meticulously planned Isla Vista rampage, report says. Los Angeles Times. Feb 19 2015. Dec 4 2015.

Forand, Rebecca. Police Probe Threat to Kingsway Regional High School. NJ.com. Nov 11 2015. Dec 4 2015.

 Legal Executions Cause More Harm Than Good

Too many states in the U.S execute their own citizens. States like California, Georgia, and Nebraska all believe killing an inmate justifies their criminal act and is also suppose to deter crime. The United States practice executing inmates to lower the crime rate, but in 2013 states that utilize capital punishment; their crime rate has increased rather than decrease. Every state in America refuses crime and violence. The use of death penalty subverts state’s values because killing an inmate is violent it self. States and courts that allow and legalize capital punishment do not realize the negativity and harm this “solution of crime,” brings to the table. The death penalty is violent and cruel, it limits rights to inmates, and it’s hypocritical to what states and justice system’s stand, which ultimately causes more harm than good.

The death penalty portrays itself to be cruel, violent, and inhumane rather than a way to achieve justice. It is currently legal to kill an inmate in 31 states by injecting their body with lethal drugs, electrocuting them, and gunning them down. Most people do not realize the cruelness the death penalty has on an inmate. Lethal injection, the most common used method of execution involves 3 inserted needles of sodium thiopental (poison to the body’s veins/arteries) in the neck, arm, and lower body. When the body is injected, the inmate will begin having dramatic seizures, foaming at the mouth, eyes start rolling back, and die within 10 minutes. A prisoner who’s executed by the electric chair receives 2,000 or more volts to the body, while being strapped down to a chair. A prisoner’s eyeballs may pop out, vomit blood and drool, and sometime their body can catch on fire. According to Robert H. Kirshcner, the deputy chief medical examiner of Cook County, “The brain appears cooked in most cases.” Many states do not reveal to their citizens the technical details, when performing these procedures. According to Mayor of Nebraska in 2007, “Every detail of capital punishment should be released to the people in the United States to assure them of what we are really doing to our people.”

Many people in the United States firmly believe in their own rights, especially right that are clearly states in the U.S constitution. The constitution ensures natural rights, which are life, liberty, and property. The death penalty violate and limit an inmate to one of the most important right, anyone believes they should have, the right to life. No matter how the death penalty is carried on, no man should have the power to another’s life. The Universal of Declaration of Human Rights state, “No one shall be subjected to cruel and degrading punishment.” If life is a human right, how can the United States continue to execute people? Michigan became one of the earliest governments in the world to declare the death penalty illegal in the U.S. Governor of Michigan at the time stated, “It’s important to follow and secure the liberty and life of a human being.”

Not only does the death penalty violate human rights, but it also violates what the State and Justice System want, which is to prevent violence and criminal activity. The procedure of capital punishment itself is violent. When electrocuting an inmate with over 2,000 volts or injecting a lethal drug/poison that causes to foam at the mouth, all falls under a violent category. Some witnesses of legal executions have heard a loud and similar sound like bacon or belt buckles rattling. States want less violence but isn’t it violent to hold someone at their will to watch them suffer to their death. Bernice King, Martin Luther King Jr.’s daughter states, “Although I have lost my father and grandfather to murder, I can’t accept the judgment that killers need to be killed, a practice that merely perpetuates the cycle of violence.” It is hypocritical for states to practice a violent punishment, when they themselves do not “stand” for any kind of violence.

Everyone in the U.S needs to understand the harm and defect of the structure of the death penalty system in the country. Many people do not know, most states that allow capital punishment can sentence criminals under the age of 18, in other words juveniles to death. They are teenagers and children that have the potential of still learning what is wrong and right. No person who is immature or mentally inadequate should be put to death. George Stinney, a 14-year-old boy was executed by the electric chair for attempted murder, in 1944, South Carolina. 25 years later, South Carolina reopened the case and found the boy to be innocent. Approximately 5 years later after the young boy was found innocent, the death penalty became fully banned throughout the state of South Carolina.

The Criminal Justice System must realize the death penalty ultimately does not deter crime. A recent study of most leading criminologists in the country found 88% do not believe the death penalty acts a deterrent to homicide. States or justice systems should realize other proper solutions to deter crime, rather than taking an inmates life away. The most obvious and other used solution is giving life in prison. By giving life in prison will still deter or discourage anyone to commit a criminal act again. Although prison is dangerous itself, any inmate would rather take his chance to be in jail, rather than knowing they’re going to be put to death. A study that was done in a California detention facility, found 95% of inmates would rather be sentenced to life in prison, than receiving the death penalty. Police Chief James Abbot of West Orange, New Jersey said, “I..know that in practice, the death penalty does more harm than good. So while I hang on my theoretical views, I stand before to say that society is better off with out capital punishment. Life in prison without parole in a maximum-security detention facility is a better alternative.

It is clear the death penalty brings more negative factors rather positive. Capital punishment is well used through out the United States, currently being legal in 31 different states. It shows violence, unfair rights, cruel, and inhumane to a country that is suppose to defy every one of those factors. States need to realize execution is not the answer to deterring crime, there can be better alternate solutions, like life in prison. No matter what a person had done, no one should have a say on another’s life they should live or not. Capital punishes causes more than good, when serving justice.

Works Cited

McCann, Erickson. “Amnesty International.” Death Penalty. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Nov. 2015.

“States With and Without the Death Penalty.” States With and Without the Death Penalty. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Nov. 2015.

Hayworth, Michael. “5 Reasons Some People Think the World Needs the Death Penalty.” Amnesty Australia. N.p., 10 Oct. 2013. Web. 27 Nov. 2015.

“What’s New.” DPIC. Death Penalty Information Center, n.d. Web. 27 Nov. 2015.

 McElwee, Sean. “It’s Time to Abolish the Death Penalty.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 8 July 2013. Web. 27 Nov. 2015. 

“What’s New.” DPIC. Death Penalty Information Center, n.d. Web. 27 Nov. 2015.

“Methods of Execution.” Methods of Execution. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Nov. 2015.

Errors can kill

Surprisingly, even the most brilliant doctors are more human than we think they are. Medical professionals study extensive hours to become who they are today (Doctors, surgeons, nurses, etc.). These people specialize in the study of the human body and other medical diagnosis.  They are expected to uphold a certain standard on the quality of their performance. Medical personnel often go out of their way to give patients the best quality service possible; however, these “experts” make mistakes as well. These mistakes can be minor or major and some can be life threatening. In over the last couple of decades, accountability has been a big issue. Should doctors be accountable for their mistakes or should they be pardoned? Study shows that Doctors are not improving their skills because there is no visible punishment for them; also, there are no expectations set upon some medical personnel. In result, medical personnel will give the minimum quality service possible. The patient to Doctor relationship is not established and this creates a tough environment for the patient. As a patient, we want to be as comfortable as possible and trust our doctor to give us the best care. However, the trusts in doctors have diminished greatly because of the mistakes and minimum effort the doctors put in. If doctors are accountable for their mistakes, the quality of their performance will rise and the amount of mistakes they make would be less.

Medical errors are still an issue in today’s society, even if it was addressed in 1999 by the Institute of Medicine. About a million people or more die from medical errors a year, and there is no way to tell if these medical errors decreased in the last 15 years or not. This is the result of agencies not tracking the errors the hospitals and doctor offices make.

There are several ways medical error can decrease. One way is to implement leadership within each group and get physicians to be involved in various duties in the clinic. There should be an organized workspace for the physicians and leaders should give them jobs that enhance the physician’s skills. A basic class about safety would help physicians know what is the right procedure and what is the wrong one. Hospitals should spend more money on technology and other tools to enhance the knowledge of safety. This will prevent any mistakes if the physicians learned them.

A mandatory reporting system should be established in hospitals and doctor offices. This system will let physicians and the government keep track of the physician mistakes the physicians made. The hospitals should report any injuries or any errors in checkups to the government as soon as possible. This leaves room for the hospital to fix the problem or make sure the physician knows what they did wrong. The system will let the physician know that they are being monitored and expected to perform well.

Physicians should be held to a certain standard that they need to uphold. These standards will give the physician room to improve and try their hardest in treating patients. Without these guidelines and expectations, the physician would not try their hardest. The minimum amount of effort would be put forth. Physicians will not go above and beyond for their patients. If there is no expectation, the medical personnel would put in the least amount of effort to get the job done. They will try to finish faster in order to leave. However, the consequence of this involves many mistakes to patients that can be minor or even deadly.

Safety systems should be placed in health organizations in order to practice on treating a patient safely and effectively. This also helps with creating a safe environment for both the patient and the medical personnel. Physicians will learn how to deal with dangerous situations and how to stay calm during mistakes during treatment and surgeries. The safety system will also allow physicians to judge which treatment would be the safest for the patient.

Physicians should be accountable for their mistakes because it will create a safer environment for the patient; also, so physician will slowly learn and progress throughout their career. However, some people do not think that physicians should be accountable for their mistakes. Doctors are people who help treat other people in need. They are trained several years to make the right diagnosis and treat patients. It also takes a very long amount of time for people to become doctors and with that comes stress. Years of handwork are being put into becoming a doctor; in result, when the doctors make a mistake, they feel guilty and make several apologies. Doctors trained for many years and they make mistakes. However, no disciplinary action is being enforced. This leaves room for more mistakes if they are not addressed. Doctors will get used to the minimum effort they put into treating the patient.

There are extreme circumstances where doctors make mistakes. Nurses would change in the middle of surgery so it would become confusing. Some nurses do not understand what is going on which puts more pressure on the Doctors. Also the Nurse that diagnosed the patient would not be present during the surgery so now the Doctor does not know what exactly was the diagnosis. In the hospital, sometimes surgeons and doctors are behind schedule, which makes things more complicated and stressful for them. A few mistakes are bound to happen. This claim supports the idea that doctors should not be accountable for their mistakes. The doctors and nurses should be accountable for their mistakes because they are supposed to give each other all the information about the patient and the procedure getting done. If a nurse switches off, they need to tell the other nurses that come in all the details about the patient. Doctors should double check if they are operating on the right person or even the right operation sight. If the doctor is stressed, then they should take a break or call in for a replacement. Doctor mistakes can be prevented if there was proper communication.

When doctors make mistakes, patients tend to be upset however they would forgive the doctors. However, the patient will slowly lose their trust in the physician if they make the same mistake five or six times. Patient-physician is an important aspect of the medical field.

I really do believe that most doctors, nurses and administrators are good , but it takes hard work and a lot of time to improve patient safety. We need to figure out what milieu will allow people to focus on safety and quality in the way that they need to. And I don’t see how we can get to that stage if people don’t have the appropriate level of concern. (Nytimes)

Physicians want their patients to be safe throughout the checkup or surgery; however, not a lot of physicians show the same amount of concern to patients. All physicians should get the same treatment (no favorites). This means all physicians need to have this bond with patients to ensure a comfortable visit. Patient trust and loyalty is the number one priority in hospitals. All physicians/ medical personnel should go out of their way to create a safe and comfortable environment for the patient.

Doctor accountability is important in improving health care as a whole. The quality service would be much better than it is now. Patients would be treated with respect and offered the best service possible. Medical personnel want to make the connection with patients, however, that is impossible if physicians cannot learn from their mistakes.

Accountability is a big deal because if physicians are not accountable for their mistakes, who is? The costs of these physician mistakes are detrimental to the hospital. A single mistake can cause the hospital millions of dollars; whether it is faulty equipment or a lawsuit. Hospitals should be accountable in replacing faulty equipment. If there is something wrong with equipment, the patient might get diagnosed with cancer or another terrible disease when the patient does not have it. The patient will pay large amounts of medical bills when it was not needed.

Without accountability, mistakes are still going to happen. Physicians should be monitored and kept at a certain standard at all times. This prevents future mistakes from happening. Physicians also learn from these mistakes and they will not make the same mistakes to a future patient. The medical personnel  are now all aware of what mistakes were common throughout the medical field and try to avoid making the same mistakes.  Doctors should be treated equally to create a better work environment. All the doctors should be held at the same expectation to create a hard working team. Accountability creates a work environment where everyone tries their hardest and not the minimum. The physician-patient relationship will be stronger than ever. In result of mistakes decreased, the number of patients dying each year due to small mistakes will soon decrease.

Work cited

“When Doctors Feel Pain After a Medical Mistake.” Top Stories RSS. 25 Jan. 2013. Web. 11 Nov. 2015.

<http://www.propublica.org/getinvolved/item/when-doctors-feel-pain-after-a-medical-mistake&gt;.

“Invitation to a Dialogue: When Doctors Slip Up.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 15 Oct. 2013. Web. 11 Nov. 2015. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/16/opinion/invitation-to-a-dialogue-when-doctors-slip-up.html?_r=0&gt;.

“LippincottNursingCenter®.” Lippincott NursingCenter. Web. 4 Dec. 2015.

“TO ERR IS HUMAN: BUILDING A SAFER HEALTH SYSTEM.” Web. 4 Dec. 2015.

Playing with Heroin

Who knew heroin  would soon be used to treat heroin addict patients. Heroin is one of the deadliest drugs that does tremendous harm to human health. The use of heroin has been increasing overwhelmingly over the years. One of the top cities in Canada, called Vancouver, has the largest drug trading port especially for heroin drug. Heroin addiction has went gotten so out–off[of]-hand in Vancouver that people get high on the streets and [in the alleys] valleys. The result of this harmful addiction [has] had many negative effects such as infection, [and incidents of suicide] suicide incidence and crime in the city. In order to control these negative impacts of heroin addiction, [the] government had created the harm reduction program, which is also referred to as the safe needle exchange. The harm reduction program keeps addicts out of jail and emergency rooms; however, it fails to prevent heroin addiction, which kills addicts or at least makes them critically ill.

The harm reduction program is a new strategy planned by the government to limit the harms and risks associated with drug usage. There have been increased rates of HIV transmission, viral hepatitis, aids and death from the heroin overdose. The Harm reduction program has range of different services including the safe needle exchange, opioid replacement therapy, community mobilization and policy reform. Unlike other programs, the goal of this program isn’t to stop the use of heroin but rather to stop the spread of infection and diseases caused from it. It was began as a scientific research project to see whether the supervised injection site will reduce the harm associated with illicit drug use. A safe needle exchange service provides the drug addicts with clean needles, safe disposal of used needles and other available resources. Along with resources, the users also receive free advice and get access to treatment services. Through the drug policy reform service, offered under the harm reduction program, drug users get protection from police harassment and get access to justice. The community mobilization service allows the drug users to meet their peers and use the coffee room facility. The harm reduction program has many clinics called the Insite facility where drug users can get needle exchange. The Insite facility is a clean and safe environment where the users can inject their own drug under a supervision of  clinical staff. The supervisor or clinical staff can also provide a first aid and wound care to the drug user.

In Vancouver, Canada most of the Insite facilities are served in poor neighborhood since poor people are more likely to use needles unsafely. The needle exchange programs or the Insite facilities are mostly located in private and secluded location. Some of the other countries that have Safe needle exchange program are United States, Ireland, United kingdom, western Australia and New Zealand. In the year 2003, down town east side of Vancouver in Canada was the first to open supervised injection facility in North America. One of the man who started the preposition to open this facility was Larry Campo. Larry campo ran for mayor in British Columbia to make his campaign of opening this facility a success. He did become mayor and got three years trial to run this program. Vancouver had about 12,000 injection drug users in which one third of the population lived in down town eastside. The down town east is considered to be the poorest neighborhood. The idea of creating this harm reduction program wasn’t even thought of by the government until the year 1980s. The rise of the HIV infection in the 1980s induced for needle exchange as a provision of clean injection equipments. During the year 1980, the first needle exchange took place in Amsterdam where the pharmacies sold syringes to heroin addicts. The syringe were sold in packs of five to the customers. About 2000 syringes were sold just in day. However it failed in doing any good to the community. Over the years, England went successful in opening safe needle exchange program in the year 1990. England held there international conference before the needle exchange program was started which caught attention of many people. The conference was such a success that it led to establishment of annual event in every major cities in the world. Many people got very interested to learn about the harm reduction model.

The Safe needle exchange program referred to as harm reduction is truly an blessing for many people of  Vancouver. People of the Vancouver city were able to find a place where they can be welcomed and freely help themselves through sterile injection. Heroin is the type of drug that is really hard to get rid off. Studies have shown that the spread of HIV, AIDS and Hepatitis reduced significantly upon opening of these injection facilities. The sharing of the needle had also decreased. Almost over 70 % of the people hadn’t shared needle upon visiting of the clinic in just 30 days. Not only has the HIV and other chronic viral diseases had dropped but so had the rate of heroin overdose. People visiting the Insite facility are exposed to clean and sanitized environment with highly skilled medical practitioners around. The injection site has mirrors placed right in every column where drug user would sit. The mirror allows the supervisor to see every act of the drug user. A study done by Vancouver health in Canada has shown fatal overdoses decrease by 35% within 500 meters of the Insite facility. Many people in the past had hurt themselves by injecting the drug in wrong manner. Some of these people don’t have the skills of injecting a needle properly into their veins. However upon opening of these injection site it couldn’t be any easier. The ambulance doesn’t have to rescue overdosed people of the streets to the hospital that often. Imagine how much difference this program can make if it lasts even longer.

Another beneficial effect that takes place from the Harm reduction program is, it decreases crime and increases the employment rate. It may seem counterintuitive, but heroin helps the addicts in a way. A heroin addict can’t function mentally or physically without heroin. Through injection facility, addicts get very easy access to the tools and equipment that may be needed for the drug usage. This easy access of heroin injection allows them to live their life comfortably. If these injection sites didn’t exist, they would have been more likely to steal or rob someone to get money. And repeat the same thing over and over again. Not only does the Insite facility provide them with sterile equipment but it also aids in further assistance. The facility includes the relaxing room, social counseling, and treatment rooms. The addicts are easily able to speak and share their problem to someone working there. Through multiple visits, most of the clients are encouraged to get treatment to stop their addiction problem. Many of the staff members working there encourage them to sign up for treatment programs in which some did. These services offered through will keep the addicts of the street doing crazy things. And through correct advice and guidance it keeps their mind of crazy thoughts such as suicide.

Although Harm Reduction has many positive affects it seems to avoid the root of the problem which is the drug addiction. The studies and research on the Harm reduction have shown that it makes a difference in society, however it fails to stop the use of the drug heroin. Finding a solution to end this addiction is equally important as it is to stop the spread of a infection or diseases. Needle exchange program will only cause people to continue getting high over again. This program clearly gives wrong message to these stubborn drug addicts or either they will take it the wrong way. The safe needle exchange will encourage people to go out and get high especially when it is legal.This makes it seem like the government or the doctors had really gave up in finding a cure to stop these people’s addiction. Even though the harm reduction program mentions about helping people get enrolled into ta treatment plan, it was less effective. And people who do go into a treatment program, don’t stay there for long. They soon end up coming back to Insite facility to get high again. It is understood that the program helps in preventing harm from reaching out to the members of the society who are drug free. But what about the harm that is increasing upon the drug users. It isn’t normal for doctors or anyone else to just watch these addicts inject needles in to their blood stream. It isn’t ethical for doctors and health organization members to participate in heroin needle injection knowing the addicts life is on jeopardy. Being a doctor, a patients health should be the first priority.

Most of the people had made attending Insite facility as their regular routine. The program doesn’t consider  the outcomes related to the number of deaths that occur from the long term use of heroin. Heroin has detrimental affects on an individual’s health which eventually leads them to death.  Heroin users typically fall from twenty to thirty times higher risk of death. After all it is one of the deadliest drug on this planet. Two of the most common result of long term usage is the heart disease and liver failure. According to the studies published by the journal of neuroscience, frequent heroin injection desensitizes opioid receptors in our brain. The chemical property of heroin wears your brain receptors down which is essential for a person to function. Compared to sniffing and smoking heroin, injecting is the most detrimental to one’s health. As heroin rushes towards your brain nerves, it flips a switch in a region called basolateral amygdale which links to the feeling of high of a drug. This destroys your brains ability to form new memories and much more worse depending on how often you consume the drug. Some argue that atleast the use of the drug keeps addicts calm and comfortable physically however that isn’t the case. The drug seems to be doing much more damage to one’s body when it’s at rest. Insite facility may prevent infection but the possibility of having arthritis, tuberculosis. pneumonia and even worse coma won’t disappear. In the year 1999, about  2100 teens died from heroine addiction. The number of death in teens doubled to 3100 by 2010. If nothing is done to treat the addiction, more and more people will be dying.

The addiction may not have cure but it certainly can be treated. The addicts should be treated as psychology patient rather than a social problem. This would help many addicts be treated and learn that they must stay away from what they were addicted to rather than just avoiding it for a time being. One of the alternative approach is rehabilitation facility. One reason some addicts do not go to these rehab centers is that they cannot afford them. Many rehab centers require larger amounts of money than these addicts can afford, and some of these addicts are not covered by insurance. This problem can usually be seen in the poorer areas of towns and cities where everyone struggles to get by. So, how are these addicts supposed to be treated? They cannot be. They sometimes cannot pay out of pocket and will just go back to the situation they were in. Another reason some addicts choose not to go to rehab treatment, is not because of the cost, but because of the negative stigma attached to it. They fear from withdrawing symptoms of the drug.

Rehab allows the addict and their families to participate in group sessions that helps addict realize how much suffering they have caused their family and friends. They are able to see the damage the drug is causing in their lives and are able to confront their emotions through interventions. After the addict accepts themselves for who they are, then they can start having healthier relationships with others. Rehab has been proven to have positive effects on those suffering from addiction. Rehab introduces the addict to the 12-step program, which is a set of tools to help guide the addict in reclaiming their life.  According to Jessica King, addicts tend to have trouble keeping in touch with loved ones because the only thing on their mind is the drug, not the people in their lives that should matter.  Rehabilitation and intervention methods have been proven successful by the A&E reality-TV show Intervention. The show has a 71 percent success rate for getting people into rehab, meanwhile 130 of the 161 addicts that were on the show are sober today. Treatment centers tend to keep the addicts busy with group sessions and other activities, not only to keep their mind off of the drug but to remind them that other things can be fun. Treatment centers want to remind these people that there are other people just like them, that they are not alone, and that they can be themselves without judgment. Rehab gives people the support and encouragement they need to help move on from their addiction.

A Needle exchange allows bad behavior to continue and then rewards the addicts with more needles. Insite facility is gateway for many to meet other drug addicts and start networking. Most of them are involved in gangs and drug trading. This can lead to people getting access to more heroin and get themselves involved in various gang activities.
Why not just stop the root of the problem from occurring which is addiction. By stopping the addiction overall, the spread of disease and harm to addicts health can be stopped. Instead of the government spending $160,00 on the harm reduction, the funds can be used towards rahibitalition or other counseling services. The government should provide health insurance for uninsured people and increase funding in treating heroin addiction. Maybe if there is opportunities for drug treatment and counseling available to addicts, they can stop their drug intake.  Since the Insite facility is funded by tax dollars, cuts can be placed to the program. There are many people who don’t support needle exchange   and will pressurize government to limit or cut off funding. This will prevent the addicts from receiving different types of services throughout the program which would make it less effective. The harm reduction program is a never ending program in which the government will continuously need to fund money. The cycle of Insite facility will continue forever until a approach towards stopping the addiction isn’t done. The Insite facility is only a temporary approach to control community problem not a long term solution.

In conclusion,  the harm reduction program achieves its goal of reducing Aids, Hiv, Heptatis C and many other infections caused from improper use of the intravenous drug.  The safe needle exchange has kept community in control by keeping them away from crime and emergency room however it hides the root of the problem. The addicts will continue to stay addicted which would lead them to their death overtime. In the hopes of preventing the spread of diseases, they are not taking heroin addicts health in consideration. These Insite facility openly gives people wrong message and encourages them to get high whenever they want without any consequences. It is important to understand that a person health is just as important as it is to prevent the spread of diseases. There are many effective alternative that have proven to treat addiction in heroin users. The government should start funding in rehabitilation, social counseling and other treatment programs to stop the use of drug by addicts. The root of all the problem is addiction which causes people to use heroin. This can be looked upon as a first steps towards trying to solve the root of the problem. The faster the problem is understood the better it is.

Work Cited

Beiser, Vince. “Vancouver’s Radical Approach to Drugs: Let Junkies Be Junkies.” Alternet. N.p., 18 Nov. 2008. Web. 24 Nov. 2015.

Rogers, Susan J., and Terry Ruefli. “Does Harm Reduction Programming Make a Difference in the Lives of Highly Marginalized, At-risk Drug Users?” Harm Reduction Journal. BioMed Central, n.d. Web. 04 Dec. 2015.

Stoové, Mark, Carla J. Treloar, Lisa Maher, Helen Tyrrell, and Jack Wallace. “Salvaging a Prison Needle and Syringe Program Trial in Australia Requires Leadership and Respect for Evidence.” Med J Aust The Medical Journal of Australia 203.8 (2015): 319-20. Web. 6 Dec. 2015. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Dec. 2015.

Understanding Harm Reduction. N.p., n.d. Web. 4 Dec. 2012.

“Vancouver Combats Heroin by Giving Its Addicts the Best Smack in the World.”Public Radio International. N.p., 4 Feb. 2015. Web. 24 Nov. 2015.