Texas officials are working on a proposal to use cell-phone jamming technology at the Travis County jail. This technology will terminate all cell phone signals so that they may not be used in prisons. It has been performed in South Carolina and has been said that it does not interfere with two way communication between officers or outside signals. This action is being proposed because there have been a few incidents on death row where prisoners have used cell phones to threaten citizens.
In today's society, prisoners are coming up with more and more ways to break out of prison or to punish those who put them there. According to Kittle's article about this issue, cell phone use by inmates has increased because outsiders have found clever ways to get them inside the prison. Cell phone jamming is an excellent way to help prevent this from happening. This would reduce the communication between inmates and any outsider. One problem is that the jamming signal only works within the prison walls, so if an inmate found a way to make a call outside they could.
No matter what, some prisoners will find a way to get around this. However, to keep our society as safe as possible we should do what we can and help enforce cell jamming in prisons.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
We're In This Because Of Greed
State Representative, Rob Eissler, is being fined $10,600 and has to payback an estimated $18,000 from improper expenditures from his campaign donations. Before this decision was made he previously told the media that he might have to payback as much as $70,000.
Why such a big jump in dollar amounts?
In my opinion, Eissler knew up front the amount of donation money he had spent on things he wasn't suppose to. Otherwise, why would he give that high of a dollar estimate?
He had spent around $52,000 on paying his wife to run his legislative office and $17,000 to, as he says, "pay rent" for an Austin Condo. The law states that a representative may not use the donations to pay himself, spouse, or any dependent children. It also states that they may use to money for living expenses but not to buy real estate. The ethics commission is not making Eissler payback the full amount due to his claims of using part of the money on living expenses.
Without a doubt, Eissler should either have a larger fine or have to payback more of his campaign expenditures. He blatantly spent around $52,000 on his wife. That obviously goes against the state law yet he's not having to repay that amount. Eissler claims that part of the "rent" included living expenses. Therefore, the ethics commission lowered the amount he had to payback. What Eissler did was wrong and the fact that he's not having to payback what he owes is wrong. He's using money that others have given him for his own personal needs and not using it towards what it was intended for.
Why such a big jump in dollar amounts?
In my opinion, Eissler knew up front the amount of donation money he had spent on things he wasn't suppose to. Otherwise, why would he give that high of a dollar estimate?
He had spent around $52,000 on paying his wife to run his legislative office and $17,000 to, as he says, "pay rent" for an Austin Condo. The law states that a representative may not use the donations to pay himself, spouse, or any dependent children. It also states that they may use to money for living expenses but not to buy real estate. The ethics commission is not making Eissler payback the full amount due to his claims of using part of the money on living expenses.
Without a doubt, Eissler should either have a larger fine or have to payback more of his campaign expenditures. He blatantly spent around $52,000 on his wife. That obviously goes against the state law yet he's not having to repay that amount. Eissler claims that part of the "rent" included living expenses. Therefore, the ethics commission lowered the amount he had to payback. What Eissler did was wrong and the fact that he's not having to payback what he owes is wrong. He's using money that others have given him for his own personal needs and not using it towards what it was intended for.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
A tax increase at this time?
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/10/16/1016schooltaxes_edit.html
This editorial was written to pursuade Austin voters to approve the "Austin Independent School District Tax Ratification Election Proposition No. 1", which will increase the tax rate to 3.9 cents per $100 valuation, so that Austin teachers may receive a raise. The writer of this editorial is hoping to convince middle to upper class tax payers to pass this proposition. Throughout this commentary they let the reader know about the recent and past budget that the Austin School District has had. The writer goes on to explain how Austin approved a higher budget that drew more money from the fund balance. Finally at the end, a numerical example of how the new proposition will affect someone was revealed. While the writer is trying to pursuade the audience to vote for this proposition they also state that the timing for this couldn't come at a worse time. The writer uses a lot of examples and evidence to educate the reader on the current Austin School District budget, however they fail to give any sources on where they retrieved their information from, leading the reader to possibly question their credibility. While reading this article I felt torn between deciding on whether I would vote for this proposition or not. I do agree with the writer in that teachers should receive a pay raise, however I feel that the writer could have done a better job at convincing the reader to agree as well. Asking tax payers to increase the money taken out of their own paycheck at a time where our economy is hurting and having it go towards someone else's pay raise is probably not on anyone's priority list. In today's society people have the mentality of doing things for others only if they receive something in return. This editorial was written to only reveal the teachers' benefits. I do think that this is an important issue and that the writer has somewhat of a decent argument, but I feel that they should have given more creditable evidence to help support their editorial.
This editorial was written to pursuade Austin voters to approve the "Austin Independent School District Tax Ratification Election Proposition No. 1", which will increase the tax rate to 3.9 cents per $100 valuation, so that Austin teachers may receive a raise. The writer of this editorial is hoping to convince middle to upper class tax payers to pass this proposition. Throughout this commentary they let the reader know about the recent and past budget that the Austin School District has had. The writer goes on to explain how Austin approved a higher budget that drew more money from the fund balance. Finally at the end, a numerical example of how the new proposition will affect someone was revealed. While the writer is trying to pursuade the audience to vote for this proposition they also state that the timing for this couldn't come at a worse time. The writer uses a lot of examples and evidence to educate the reader on the current Austin School District budget, however they fail to give any sources on where they retrieved their information from, leading the reader to possibly question their credibility. While reading this article I felt torn between deciding on whether I would vote for this proposition or not. I do agree with the writer in that teachers should receive a pay raise, however I feel that the writer could have done a better job at convincing the reader to agree as well. Asking tax payers to increase the money taken out of their own paycheck at a time where our economy is hurting and having it go towards someone else's pay raise is probably not on anyone's priority list. In today's society people have the mentality of doing things for others only if they receive something in return. This editorial was written to only reveal the teachers' benefits. I do think that this is an important issue and that the writer has somewhat of a decent argument, but I feel that they should have given more creditable evidence to help support their editorial.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
What next? Letting murderers off with a slap on the wrist?
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/10/19/1019tickets.html
The Austin Police Department is looking to pass a policy that allows Austin officers to write tickets instead of arresting citizens who have committed either a Class A or B misdemeanor. These are things such as posessing a small amount of marijuana or driving with a suspended license. They claim that it would save the officers time and allow them to spend more time catching "real" criminals. I understand that it takes time to take anyone who has committed any crime to jail and to fill out paperwork. I also understand that by passing this policy Austin officers would in fact have more time to patrol the streets. This policy might sound like a good idea right now, but if we're reducing the punishment for these type of crimes, how much longer do you think it will be until we do the same thing for slightly bigger crimes. It's like punishing a child for stealing any cookies from the jar. Then a year later letting them get away with taking one and only punishing them if they take two. After a while we'll think it's ok to take two and only punish them for taking three. To me it seems like this new policy could possibly weaken the affect of our police force over time. The APD will continue to let what they think are "minor" crimes off the hook with just a ticket. I feel that passing this new policy might lead to higher crimes because criminals will be able to get off with a more reduced punishment.
The Austin Police Department is looking to pass a policy that allows Austin officers to write tickets instead of arresting citizens who have committed either a Class A or B misdemeanor. These are things such as posessing a small amount of marijuana or driving with a suspended license. They claim that it would save the officers time and allow them to spend more time catching "real" criminals. I understand that it takes time to take anyone who has committed any crime to jail and to fill out paperwork. I also understand that by passing this policy Austin officers would in fact have more time to patrol the streets. This policy might sound like a good idea right now, but if we're reducing the punishment for these type of crimes, how much longer do you think it will be until we do the same thing for slightly bigger crimes. It's like punishing a child for stealing any cookies from the jar. Then a year later letting them get away with taking one and only punishing them if they take two. After a while we'll think it's ok to take two and only punish them for taking three. To me it seems like this new policy could possibly weaken the affect of our police force over time. The APD will continue to let what they think are "minor" crimes off the hook with just a ticket. I feel that passing this new policy might lead to higher crimes because criminals will be able to get off with a more reduced punishment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
