Monday, November 14, 2016

Monday, April 2, 2012

Capital Punishment

    March 15, 2012

Dear Mr. President,

    My name is Joe. I am a student at Parkway West Middle School, and I am writing to share my thoughts about capital punishment.
    I became interested in the topic of capital punishment when I discovered what my dad accomplished at work--sentence people who have committed felonies. The worst crimes, such as arson, terrorism, manslaughter, are not always given the worst sentence. My dad has only sentenced one person to be executed. My dad is a federal judge whom you appointed! The specifications to be eligible for execution and the laws about death penalty are also very interesting.
    To begin, I want to clarify that the issue is not that we are intentionally killing other human beings, but that we are not strict enough with our sentencing. I am not suggesting that we kill anyone who litters or traffics drugs, but our eligibility laws for capital punishment are ridiculous. In the 90's, Missouri had a law that you can only be eligible for capital punishment if you had been charged with 1st degree murder previously. Does it seem logical that we let people commit two or more murders before we realize that we need to stop them? While reading the novel "The Trial of Dennis Bulloch," a case that my dad prosecuted in the 80's, I discovered that a man who had asphyxiated and burned his wife could be sentenced to only seven years in prison. Is it fair that an innocent family is being punished more than the criminal? This is common, too. A family will lose a loved one forever, and the killer will be back at home within a few years!
    Not only would an increase in capital punishment sentences be fair for our society, it would lower the total number of murders that occur. A person who considers committing a murder obviously thinks about their punishments beforehand, and you would obviously not commit a crime if you knew your punishment was going to be death. If we can increase sentence strictness, our states can put an idea in the minds of criminals: the idea that their actions are punishable with death. On many occasions, a murderer who is on death row or in prison would certainly have rethought their actions if they had known that they would be punished with death. To hypothesize, if we sentence every murderer to death, then our citizens will know what to expect if they commit a murder. States such as Texas that have the most annual executions, have a significantly lower murder rate than states that have not even reinstated capital punishment.
    All I ask is that you take my ideas under consideration in order to inspire ideas within the government. An average person who supports a family does not want to have to worry about being murdered. If our government can make a change to our states' sentence strictness, then we don't have to worry about this. A change like this will make a lot of citizens happy, and it will keep them safer.
    Thank you very much for your work and the time you take to take my ideas under consideration.

Sincerely,

Joe

Parkway West Middle School

St. Louis, Missouri

 

Lauren Kelly
Parkway West Middle
8th Grade Communication Arts
 
 
 
 

NOTICE: Any information contained in or attached to this message is intended solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, retransmission, dissemination of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this communication by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers.

Saturday, March 31, 2012

Sugar Tax

Dear Mr. President,

My name is JN. I am a student at Parkway West High and I am writing you today to share my thoughts about adding tax on sugar.

My Medical Science class watched a video that addressed the issue of sugar consumption. It stated that, "Americans consumed 13.8 billion gallons of sugar-sweetened beverage or approximately 45 gallons of soda, fruit punch, sweetened tea, sports drinks, and all other beverages with added caloric sweeteners per person." Because of this, sugar consumption had tripled in the past fifty years. Then the class talked about their opinion on whether the tax for sugar should be added. Most of the students agreed, seeing how it'll help reduce sugar consumptions and improve health issues.

Not only will it help improve health issues, it'll promote a healthy lifestyle. Consumption of sugar will be decreased. People will feel healthier to exercise and be active. A healthy diet will lower the risk of diseases, which means less medical payments. A study found that lowering the consumption of sugary drinks can lower the number of diabetes by 2.6 percent, 95,000 coronary heart events, 8,000 strokes and 26,000 premature deaths. Because of this, the country could avoid the medical cost of 17 billion dollars. A healthy lifestyle will allow one to be active, ward off disease and many other benefits.

People may be against the idea of a sugar tax or diminishing one food type, since people should build a realistic approach to their diet by varied, balanced meals and exercise. But U.S. Health experts claim that "sugar is as damaging and addictive as alcohol or tobacco." It was aid sugar meets all criteria for societal interventions as alcohol and tobacco does. As it can be seen, tax on sugar is needed to promote a healthy lifestyle so vote for a sugar tax.

Thank for your time.

Sincerely,

JN

Parkway West

Ballwin, MO

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Animal Testing is Ok

March 14, 2012

Dear Mr. President,

            My name is Henderson. I am a student at Parkway West Middle school, and I am writing to you today to share my thoughts about animal testing.

            I became interested in this issue because my class mates and I had to write about a hot topic. I thought it was interesting.

                This is not a big issue. It becomes an issue when animals become extinct, and we're still testing those animals. The reality is, animal testing helps develop vaccines for illnesses like smallpox. Animals are used to test products ranging from shampoo to cancer drugs. This shows that animal testing is helpful and scientist do not test for no reason, but for problems such as cancer.

            If we can't test animals, what will we test? We shouldn't test humans because there are animals just like us. Some people think that testing is painful to the animals and unnecessary. They say animal experimentation involves incarceration of animals, and causes poisoning, mutilation, diseases, and killing of animals. Some, but not all, is true. Yes, animals are poisoned, killed, and infected with diseases, but they don't feel much pain if they do at all. What these people don't get is that millions of lives are saved because of a drug or new surgery from testing. This proves that we need to continue with testing.

            I wrote this because I want you to tell people to stop harassing scientists and let do what they do best, save lives. I also would like to thank you for listening to what I had to say.

Sincerely,

Henderson

Parkway West Middle

St. Louis, MO

 

Lauren Kelly
Parkway West Middle
8th Grade Communication Arts
 
 
 

NOTICE: Any information contained in or attached to this message is intended solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, retransmission, dissemination of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this communication by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers.