|
Support to stay sober
Dear Annie: My three sisters and I are very close, and we want to take a vacation together, but there is one problem. My older sister, "Rhonda," has recently been ordered by the court to go to AA or she will lose visitation rights to her kids.
In spite of this court order, we happen to know Rhonda still drinks. We are concerned that if we take her with us on vacation, especially if the rest of us drink, she will get out of control. If we go without her, she will be very hurt. But if we take her, we'd have to watch her every second. What should we do? -- Little Sister
Dear Little Sister: Rhonda needs your support to stay sober and be part of her children's lives, but your plans should not be dependent on her. Maybe if she knew why you preferred to go without her, it would give her the incentive to stop drinking. Meanwhile, please look in your phone book for Al-Anon, or call 1-888-4AL-ANON (1-888-425-2666) (www.al-anon.org), and ask how best to help your troubled sister.
Dear Annie: I have been married to "Ricky" for several years. He and his widowed mother own a cabin in the woods. Ricky and I work hard, barely seeing each other, and look forward to spending weekends at the cabin where we can rest and relax.
The problem is Ricky's cousin "Karl," who is unmarried and unemployed. Karl is the biggest mooch you have ever seen. He constantly drops by the cabin uninvited and intrudes on our time. If we have guests for the weekend, Karl assumes he is part of the gang. When Ricky and I go out with friends, Karl finds us. He has never once reciprocated, brought anything or chipped in to pay for refreshments.
Ricky and I argue about this constantly. I have discussed it with my mother-in-law and have even told Karl directly that he should call first and contribute once in a while. It has made no difference.
I rarely go to the cabin anymore, and I leave if Karl shows up. Ricky says it's his mom's cabin, too, and she likes having Karl there, although he has never done a single thing for her in his life. I say we've earned the right to choose who spends time with us. Karl is ruining our marriage. What can we do? -- Marsha in Montana
Dear Marsha: Obviously, it doesn't bother Ricky or his mother that Karl visits all the time or that he comes empty-handed. He is family, and they love him, which means they are not going to toss him out because he is a freeloader.
Decide how much this bothers you, because if it is wrecking your marriage, you are giving it more importance than it merits. The cabin is a nice getaway, but it comes with Karl attached. Look for ways to relax without going there.
2005.03.03
Irrelevance of Death Penalty
By Bae Ha
At the dawn of the 21st century, the death penalty is considered by most civilized nations as cruel and inhuman. According to Amnesty International, it has been abolished by 106 nations. It has been outlawed by 30 countries since 1990. However, the death penalty continues to be utilized in other nations. Recently, one of the worst serial killers in Korean criminal history, Yoo Young-chuel, was captured.
Much debate has arisen in Korea as to whether Yoo's crimes deserve the death penalty. Many Koreans believe that not only does the death penalty deter crime, it is also a cost-effective measure. However, the majority of these arguments are false. Since most advanced countries have already abolished this system and U.N. International Law bans the death penalty, it should be abolished in Korea.
First, the death penalty is an ineffective deterrent. Many people feel that the death penalty will deter criminals but this does not correspond with all of the available data. According to 80 percent of criminologists who belong to the American Society of Criminology, the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, and the Law and Society Association, the current death penalty system does not indicate a deterrent effect. Furthermore, 75 percent of these same criminologists felt that more executions would not result in any proven deterrence. As a matter of fact, people commit murder for a variety of reasons.
For example, some people kill their spouses on accident because of domestic disputes. Obviously, there are many other causes of murder related to alcohol, drugs, and other substances. In other words, a very small percentage of murders occur when people are in a rational frame of mind. As such, it is not so obvious that any form of capital punishment acts as a deterrent.
Because the death penalty is not a proven deterrent, it has been abolished in many countries. Since the U.N. proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, a whopping majority of the 191 U.N. member countries have abolished the death penalty. Furthermore, the Council of Europe requires new members to undertake and ratify Protocol No. 6, which aims to abolish the death penalty. This has, in effect, led to the abolition of the death penalty in Eastern Europe. In other words, according to the statistics released by Amnesty International, the number of countries that have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice rose from 64 countries in 1984 to 117 in 2004. Those countries continuing to execute prisoners are now a tiny minority. When it comes to the number of countries that have abolished the death penalty, we can say that it is not a common penal activity throughout the world.
While the death penalty has been abolished in many countries, pro-death-penalty advocates claim that life imprisonment is more expensive than the death penalty. They even argue that the elimination of the death penalty would result in lost revenue for most nations. The reverse, however, is true. If the death penalty is much more effective than life imprisonment, why have many countries around world abolished it?
In fact, a New York study estimated the cost of an execution at three times that of life imprisonment. For example, in Florida, each execution costs the state $3.2 million, compared to $600,000 for life imprisonment. Studies in California, Kansas, Maryland, and North Carolina have all concluded that capital punishment is far more expensive than keeping someone in prison for life. Another reason people believe that the death penalty is effective is that the Bible condones it. For example, the Hebrew Scriptures say, ``an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.'' Nevertheless, most Christians feel that such grounds for the death penalty no longer apply to Christian societies. Indeed, on many occasions, Jesus taught us to forgive people who have wronged us, not kill people who have killed others.
All in all, the death penalty should be annulled. Since it is an ineffective deterrent and many nations have already abolished it. Even critics who use Biblical and economic arguments to support capital punishment cannot prove the death penalty is a real deterrent. Furthermore, people should know why so many countries have abolished it.
Finally, the nations that have abolished the death penalty must take action to promote the abolition of the death penalty. Meanwhile, people and agencies supporting its discontinuance must get the word out through petitioning, picketing, demonstrating, concerting, debating and meeting in order to make this world a more humane place to live.
The writer is studying at Sogang University in Seoul
02-22-2005 19:23