Where I Stand: Crime and punishment

Friday, Dec. 26, 2003 | 9:29 a.m.

Editor's note: Nearly 900 students from 41 high schools participated in the 48th annual Sun Youth Forum on Nov. 25. The students were divided into groups to discuss various topics. A spokesperson was chosen from each group to write a column about the students' findings. Andrew Chang of Green Valley High School writes about his group's discussion on law and crime.

OUR GROUP'S moderator, Robert Siller, a board member of the Gaming Control Board, was particularly well versed in our topic. With years of experience in the FBI, he made an excellent match of experience and knowledge in the field to bring the Sun Youth Forum alive for us.

After introducing himself, Mr. Siller began the discussion by choosing the first topic -- the death penalty. The majority of the members in favor of the topic agreed that it was an effective deterrent and that it was a viable means of punishment for heinous crimes.

For the majority of the people opposed to the death penalty, it was not so much the severity of punishment, as it was the reliability of the system that troubled them. They believed that the system, as it used juries and judges composed of ordinary citizens, unfortunately proved not to be 100 percent certain.

I find myself opposed to the death penalty for the same accountability issues. One wrong conviction, one innocent life lost indicates a failure of the system.

Interestingly, one of the members of the room explained that as a pacifist, she found herself morally opposed to any violent measure, especially death.

Mr. Siller also gave the hypothetical example of a wartime killing -- is this not murder, too? What is the standard for an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth? Ultimately, the group split apart into two groups, those for and those opposed to the death penalty, and each side was given three minutes to explain their position to the other side. A vote revealed that 20 were for the death penalty and 12 were against it.

The second area of contention was over abortions. Again a highly sensitive topic, the discussion was brought down to a personal level, as certain individuals were courageous enough to volunteer their own stories.

Those opposed to abortions claimed that the denial of life in any instance was morally unjustifiable, and that every child needed a chance in this world, especially with the existence of foster homes and adoption.

Those in favor stated that they didn't advocate the use of abortions as a means of birth control, but that it is an option in the case where a woman is raped or her life is in danger as a medical result of the pregnancy. As she has to carry and support the baby, the woman should have the right to make the decision.

The third discussion focused around the question of whether the Bill of Rights extended to the rite of marriage for homosexual individuals. The basic breakup was not as I had believed it would.

Interestingly, the argument for religion never made a strong face, as some individuals cited the recent promotion of the gay bishop, and one of the religious members of the forum supported gay marriage.

There was also much citing of the Declaration of Independence in its application of the pursuit of happiness. Further debate resulted over the issue of integration and the naming of gay civil unions by different names such as domestic unions.

Our last topic, which was fitting as it applies to our lives now, was about when we should have full rights as adults. We are allowed to enter the armed services, vote, and are considered legal adults at 18, yet are unable to drink or gamble.

A major consideration here was over drunk driving and maturity involved in the decision-making process. An interesting piece of evidence, as brought up by one discussion member, was that in Germany, young adults can drink at 16. However, they can't drive until 21. An interesting tradeoff, and certainly one to consider.

Overall, the group's participants proved to be mature and the forum was enjoyable. Our moderator, Mr. Siller, carefully and fairly mediated, and the members, though certainly passionate, remained respectful. Through the discussion, I'm sure that everyone in the room learned a great deal about how they and their peers felt about issues of concern in our community and nation.