Jury of Peers

The basis of the above argument lays in the "fact" that students have NO fundamental powers within the educational system. It lays in the belief
that students cannot, or should not have a say in their own education. Now, I think the fallacy of this belief becomes evident when one examines
the purpose of our educational system. Our educational system is created as an institution where learning takes place for the students. The focus
of this institution is to instil in students knowledge and skills necessary to become productive and homogenous members of society. If the said
institution has the purpose of bettering students, then would it not make sense for said group to become an active part of its own betterment?

The school should very much be a democracy. The status quo suggests that even the school board will not deny the fact that the school system
should be a democracy. The fact that students sit on the school board meetings and are required to provide student feedback is a gesture which
hints at the school board's realization of democratic education. Here is why the "three objects" stated above - which purportedly undermines any
possibility of the school becoming democratic - do not hold water.


1. "Students do not take the role of adults"
- First of all, society is composed of children and seniors in addition to adults. The government is forced to recognize those groups just as much
as they would "adults." For example in the No Child Left Behind Act, or the Seniors Disability Act, Social Security Act, etc. Thus, using such a literal
distinction between age is a weak argument in undermining the power of students in schools. Now that we have proven the age argument moot,
we can establish the composition of society as its citizens, the group which the government is forced to recognize and protect.
- I concede that students cannot take the role of adults within the same parameter of one society, but when split into the microcosm of the school
in comparison to the macrocosm of society, their relationship as contemporaries can be clearly seen. Adults within society are rewarded for good
behaviours, and punished for bad behaviour. Similarly, students within the school are rewarded for good behaviour, and punished for bad behavior.
(monetary v. corporeal / grades v. discipline)

2. "School not democratic because its decisions not sovereign"
- This is clearly taking one whole and forcibly separating it into two parts. The administration and teachers (under normal circumstances) behave in
accordance to the Vancouver School Board. As such, their decisions can be seen as one. Any "repeal" of decision is a check on one branch of gov't
like any good government in a democracy would have. This strengthens the argument for democracy.
- Furthermore, the checks made by the government are moot because they have nothing to with the microcosm of the school. The only government
intervention occurs in criminal or financial matters. In financial matters, the school or school board then become one whole entity in the larger
society which has to then answer to the government. In criminal matters, the individual faces the government as one part of the larger society, and
not as part of the microcosmic school.

3. "Parents better represent the 'citizens' than do students"
- Although parents have an inordinate amount of influence over students, parents cannot take the place that students hold in the education system.
When the parent complains to the school board, the parent is acting on behalf of the interests of the student, not as the corporeal entity of the student.
The parent is representing the student in NAME ONLY and not in body. Thus, the student retains his position in the micro-society.
- This is similar to a lawyer representing his client in court. The court will ASK what the lawyer wants KNOWING that the lawyer is REPRESENTING the
interests of his client. The court will know that the lawyer is acting on behalf of his client when he steps out onto the floor. In very much the same way,
the parents represents the student when speaking before the school or school board, as a spokesperson to the interests of the student. He or she is in
no way capable of replacing the student as an entity of that micro-society.

"in this sense there is a very good check and balence"
Ongoing dialogues between schools and parents are far from effective means of checks and balances. What I am concerned with is practical force and
effect in the hands of students which can make a impact NOW. Change that we are able to see. Granted, parents complaining to school boards are seen
as the way to change, but that is ineffective and time-consuming. When the school holds the power, why would it go out of its way to please its students,
or for that matter, the parents of its students? In the public school sector this is IMPOSSIBLE.

"the students demanding a board such as gary had mentioned is infact not justified"
I would like to think of it as politely requesting a means to achieve a democratic end. An "Honor Code Committee" would be a jury of one's peers, something
close to a right, and not merely a privilege. The school should be a democracy, and as such, the board is justified. I'm surprised to hear this from you Yue...
My fellow VDSC rep, we're supposed to be championing student voice, student voice as a tool to democracy, not tearing down the notion of democracy upon
which many of the century's most advanced civilizations were built.

Capital Punishment - Morality on Death Row?

Think- if every murderer who killed someone died instantly, the homicide rate would be very low because no one likes to die. We cannot do this, but if the Justice system can make it more swift and severe, we could change the laws to make capital punishment faster and make appeals a shorter process. The death penalty is important because it could save the lives of thousands of potential victims who are at stake.

• Hugo Adam Bedau, 1982

We use panel data for 50 states during the 1960-2000 period` to examine the deterrent effect of capital punishment, using the moratorium as a 'judicial experiment.' We compare murder rates immediately before and after changes in states' death penalty laws, drawing on cross-state variations in the timing and duration of the moratorium. The regression analysis supplementing the before-and-after comparisons disentangles the effect of lifting the moratorium on murder from the effect of actual executions on murder. Results suggest that capital punishment has a deterrent effect, and that executions have a distinct effect which compounds the deterrent effect of merely (re)instating the death penalty. The finding is robust across 96 regression models.

• Emory Faculty of Law

http://aler.oxfordjournals.org/content/5/2/344.abstract

We may nevertheless assume safely there are murders, such as those who act in passion, for whom the threat of death has little or no deterrent effect. But for many others, the death penalty undoubtedly, is a significant deterrent. There are carefully contemplated murders, such as murder for hire, where the possible penalty of death may well enter the cold calculus that precedes the decision to act.

• US Supreme Court Justice Steward in Gregg v. Georgia

Should we open up the death penalty as an optional measure of punishment for our provinces to adopt?

I had always been a opponent of the death penalty. I thought it hypocritical to condemn one's killing of another as murder but glorify the government's killing as justice. I also thought that it would be unethical for the government to play god. However, I am having second doubts about my position.

It seems that much of my research points to capital punishment as not only a plausible but also a highly effective method in discouraging the occurrence of serious crimes. Studies show that occurrences of murder are far less common per capita in countries with capital punishment than in countries which place a ban on it.

I won't state my position as I'd like to see some debate on this issue.

Please NO religious arguments.

Some issues to address when discussing this:

• Bodycount argument --> killing 1 to save 2 justify the killing

• What is the most sustainable method of punishment?

• Method of death (chair v. bullet v. Injection)

• Ethical consequences of capital punishment

• Why our society shuns the death penalty

• Canada (no CP) v. USA (yes CP)