Blog #3: "Dead Teen Walking"

As I read “Dead Teen Walking,” I was amazed at how my opinion changed. As I read into this story, I both favored the death penalty and was against it in regards to juveniles. Being underage myself, I would find it pretty hard to contain my anger with our judicial system, if I were convicted wrongly, and sentenced to death as a result. That being said, I’m not saying that Shareef Cousin was innocent or guilty of the crime he was punished for, only that if he was wrongly accused and sentenced, this incident is more than just unfair, it’s immoral. I’ll start at the beginning and with my initial thoughts:

The first sentence of the article, “Dead Teen Walking” astounded me. “The U.S. is one of the few nations that put juveniles on death row” (1). My immediate response was “WHAT?” Never in my wildest dreams would I have guessed that we, as the “free world” and the leader in so many things, would be capable of legally killing kids. The article later mentions that only “Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Nigeria, Yemen—and the U.S. have executed juveniles” (3). Compared to the rest of the list, the U.S. stands out above the rest of being more humane, except in this circumstance. It just amazes me that this occurs here. As Cousin’s story unfolds, I initially take his side, partly because I feel sorry for him (the article mentions being locked up 23 hours of the day), and partly because he was a victim of child abuse. Growing up, the article mentions many things that I can’t imagine having to live through day after day. Such things as “being thrashed with wooden sticks and electric cords, hit in the head with bricks, breaking a baseball bat over his head, and smashing a dinner plate, also on his head” were common and never once treated. Being that most of this abuse was primarily done to the head, both the aspect of abuse as well as brain damage come up as issues. Being that he was a kid taught that violence was part of the “norm,” and that he had substantial brain damage, perhaps could have contributed to the potential violent action for which he was sentenced and imprisoned.

As the story continued, I began to turn away from Cousin. It was pretty interesting to find myself changing “sides” as more evidence was presented and different sides of the same story were told. At this point, I stated to view Cousin as a criminal, just because the prosecutors made it seem that he was one. Yet as time marched on, certain things were omitted or “lost” that favored the prosecutors. At this point, I started to favor Cousin again, especially after the listing of evidence that could prove his innocence was shown, but not used in court.

Whether or not Cousin was actually guilty, I do not know. I do know, however, that I believe that we, as a nation, should not “put teens, guilty or not, in a situation where they are forced to fight for their lives” (4). There are many more possibilities, especially for teens, than simply killing them.

Connecting this article to Jack London’s White Fang proved to be challenging. The differences between the two writings significantly outweigh the similarities, but nonetheless, there are a few. First, both articles deal with survival. The “main characters” were forced to adapt to what was happening around them in order to stay alive. White Fang had to change into a “pet” in order to earn his keep with Weedon Scott, while Shareef Cousin had to fend for himself after his dad left and his mom gave up on him. (On a side note, I can’t imagine being in this situation. I feel as though every kid deserves a good childhood. Sadly, this isn’t the case, as shown by Shareef Cousin’s childhood.) Both characters adapted to their surroundings, which would lean to the “nurture” side of the debate of whether people (or beings) are evil by birth or by choice. They were able to change to survive, and that could’ve been good or bad.

Looking back at my final opinion of teens on death row, I would say that White Fang only strengthened my choice. I believe now that teens should not be placed on death row. This is mainly due to the fact that I believe that people are influenced by their surroundings or the environment into being the person they eventually become. This is the “nurture” side again, and both White Fang and “Dead Teen Walking” show this. First, in “Dead Teen Walking,” Shareef was the subject of harsh child abuse that influenced both his character and brain. This was an outside force that changed the way he thought of the world. Next, in White Fang, White Fang changed many times throughout the book, from violent and savage, to calm and mellow because of the situations he found himself in. Both the story and the article reflect my view on the debate between nature and nurture, and that is nurture.

(Blog #2) TIME Magazine Blog: "What Makes Us Moral"

Since elementary school, we have been taught that first impressions are lasting impressions. With the first two paragraphs of Jeffrey Kluger’s “What Makes Us Moral,” I was at a loss of words. To put it better, I had never thought of the human species as “diverse” (if you want to use that word) before.

“…We nurse one another, romance one another, weep for one another…At the same time, we slaughter one another…[People are] the highest, wisest, most principled species the planet has ever produced…[But also] the lowest, cruelest, most blood-drenched species…” (1).

Like I said before, I’d never sat down and thought of how far humans reached into both ends of the spectrum. While it’s really interesting, it’s really quite depressing. Looking at how far we’ve come in the world is great, but how far we have to go is a hurdle we will be trying to clear for many years to come.

The theme we’ve been discussing this year so far is the one of “Nature versus Nurture.” I take this to mean that we as human beings and being of human nature, have two options. We can either be bad from the get-go, or we can turn bad because of our surroundings, whether it be peer-pressure, harsh living conditions, childhood abuse, etc. “What Makes Us Moral” mentions that “psychologists believe kids feel a sense of morality innately,” meaning they can tell right from wrong based on some sort of inherited instinct or prior teaching, or in other words, the nature part of the debate. However, later on, the article mentions that those around us create the “moral grammar” that we have to apply in order to be effective.

“Something still has to boot up that software [to determine the right’s and wrong’s] …and that something is the community…It’s the people around us who do that teaching…” (3).

This suggests that the community, meaning outsiders, have a dominant role in shaping one’s morality. This is the other side of the argument, meaning the "Nurture" path.

I thought it was interesting how the author presented the idea that “moral judgment” is something that most humans have and are pretty consistent with each other, but “moral behavior” is not uniform with all humans. This means that we all know what is right and what is wrong, even though we sometimes act contrary to it.

My view on the theme of “Nature versus Nurture” is that humans are influenced by outside forces, meaning I agree more with the “Nurture” side. I’m not saying I’m completely one-hundred percent there, but it’s close. I think it’s pretty hard to say that no matter what happens, humans are going to turn bad. I believe that the environment they are placed in (or forced in) determine how they will react and act to it. This article expressed both sides briefly, and I think that the “Nurture” side is more accurate of human behavior.

William Golding’s The Lord of the Flies expressed the “Nature” side of the debate. Golding suggests that man is inherently evil, and nothing can be done to change it. While, I enjoyed reading The Lord of the Flies more that Jack London’s White Fang, I agree with White Fang’s view of the theme more. In White Fang, White Fang was influenced and “shaped” by his environment. He had to adjust his behavior to stay alive. From the beginning of the story, he was a fighter, who hunted and learned aggression early in life. This transferred with him when he lived under Gray Beaver, and later Beauty Smith. Especially because of Smith’s abuse, White Fang continues to be a savage killer. However, when the kindness of Weedon Scott engulfs him, White Fang can’t help but transform his nature to that of a loyal pet. This just shows how the environment of one (whether that one be of human or animal nature - in this aspect, it no longer matters) directly changes one’s nature.

In closing, the article, “What Makes Us Moral” addressed both sides of the debate of “Nature versus Nurture,” but more importantly gave perspective to human nature, and how far to each end of reality we stretch. We are givers and takers, literally, and I believe we need to find a common balance somewhere closer to the middle. This could be perhaps the largest challenge man-kind will ever face. This article shed light on both sides, but it did not change my opinion. I truly believe that human nature is influenced by the environment in which they find themselves in. The debate is “Nature versus Nurture” and as for me, I choose “Nurture.”

Blog #1: My Summer Reading Favorite

I enjoyed reading The Lord of the Flies by William Golding more than White Fang by Jack London for several reasons.

First, the character types in both books were completely different, at least in my eye. In The Lord of the Flies, the characters were people who talked. In White Fang, most of them were either dogs or wolves, and they used actions as speech. It was a little harder to figure out what conversations between two or more characters were about. While that is not my main reason for liking The Lord of the Flies better, part of it comes from the fact that I found the style of White Fang kind of annoying after a time.

Second, the conflict in The Lord of the Flies was clearly defined. The intensity between Ralph (the good) and Jack (the bad) was so interesting, I couldn’t put the book down. This is perhaps the largest factor in my determination. Reading The Lord of the Flies, I couldn’t help but feel Ralph’s frustration with the others, especially about keeping the fire going. I can relate to his frustration, because I too have experienced the feeling of being the only one who thinks a certain way, and all efforts to persuade others had failed. Back to the book, it was this “stirred emotion” that made reading The Lord of the Flies more enjoyable than White Fang. Also, as mentioned earlier, I couldn’t put it down – it had my attention.

Lastly, the whole topic of the summer assignment was the focused around the question, “Is man inherently evil?” I found that White Fang was more complicated to relate to this theme than The Lord of the Flies. Perhaps because The Lord of the Flies was so easy to figure out, it made White Fang all the more difficult. That aside, both books related to the theme, The Lord of the Flies was just clearer.

In closing, while White Fang was somewhat enjoyable to read, I enjoyed reading The Lord of the Flies more. As stated above, the characters were actual people and they actually talked. The conflict was easy to see and easy to understand. And, the main theme was more relatable to The Lord of the Flies. All in all, they were both good books, The Lord of the Flies just came out on top for me.