Death Penalty

In chapter 16 the book discussed people’s differing opinions on the death penalty. It was decided that the death penalty would have been too harsh and that the jury would not have been able to sentence Frediani to death simply based on the evidence presented. Although Heilig did not agree and she thought that yes Frediani deserved to die because of what he did to Helena. I wanted to know more about the death penalty in the United States and if most people agreed with Heilig’s mentality of an eye for an eye.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-death-penalty-deserves-the-death-penalty

I found this article that put the death penalty into a different perspective for me. Lincoln Caplan talks about how there have been “more than fourteen hundred executions in the United States”. This really puts into perspective how much the death penalty has been used throughout the years. Is this acceptable? He also goes into talking about the different ways that these people are killed and how many of these drugs have not been approved by the FDA. Also he says that 152 times people have been exonerated. Mistakes have been made and this has cost innocent people their lives.

I know that Frediani is guilty but what if he wasn’t? Is killing him because he killed Helena really a good punishment? Should the punishment always fit the crime? Before I read this article I completely agreed with Heilig, but after reading the article I have begun to rethink my stance on the death penalty.

Death Penalty

Evidence Planting

“Why would we want to plant evidence?”

“To close the case.” -(Weinberg 230)

While reading this chapter of Pointing From the Grave, Frediani’s interrogation by the police struck me.  When asked why they would have his DNA, Paul claimed that the police must have planted evidence against him.  Based off what I know about Paul and the case so far from the book, I do not think the officers involved with Frediani’s crimes framed him at all, but hearing about this type of tampering got me curious.  After a quick google search on evidence planting, I found this article  .  The article does a good job explaining how it is very much unclear how often evidence is planted by cops.  There are no agencies run by the government that look out for and track this type of injustice and it seems the only way people get caught is in the act itself.  The New York City example from 2008 is fascinating based off of the guilty officer’s quote.  He went on to testify that nothing will happen to the wrongly convicted, although he is being completely blind to the fact that these people he planted evidence on will have records of drug possession.  Besides trying to meet an arrest quota, like the New York cop, some officers plant evidence for personal and vengeful reasons.  The article mentions how a police sergeant planted meth in his ex wife’s car as an attempt to win custody of their kids.  How can these types of evidence planting be stopped?  Should there be more agencies that look into and monitor these falsehoods, or should policemen have no quotas and less pressure to meet a certain number of arrests?

 

Evidence Planting

Life After Prison

While reading chapter 12, I was fascinated by how quickly Paul adjusted to life outside of jail.  It seemed in a matter of no time he had another corporate job, another girlfriend in Eileen, and had regained a sense of freedom in relationship with himself again.  This got me thinking about how prisoners in general feel when they first step foot outside of prison and how they fit back into the society they have not been a part of for years.  Paul was in jail for a  relatively short sentence, unlike Otis Johnson.       This link provides a short video detailing of what life is like for 69 year old Otis Johnson, who served 44 years in jail.  In Otis’s case, life evolved so much since he was incarcerated.  He thought people walking around on their phones were members if the CIA because that was the only use of headphones he could remember.  Based off the video, I would say it is impossible for Otis and other people who served long sentences to become fully accustom to a new life outside of jail, but, like Otis, they can still enjoy the fact that they are free and the fact that the past is the past.  Otis seems like he will always find new things in society that he doesn’t recognize, however he still is optimistic about his future of being free.

Life After Prison

Justice or Revenge

In this chapter the jury was not notified of Helena’s death. Obviously this happened while the trial was underway, not before. This makes me think what if the jury had known that she was murdered. Do you think the punishment toward the defendant would have been more harsh? or is it just a humane right for the jury to be notified of this death. I feel if the jury had known about this, this would have forced a biased opinion, maybe it is right but the punishment would have to fit the crime and the jury would have been thinking in vengeful ways because the last memory Helena had was one of hate due to the defendants actions.

Justice or Revenge

Scientists Can Be Wrong

“the majority of geneticists were still concentrating on protein at the time, and were apparently loath to abandon something into which they had poured so much time and intellectual energy” (Weinberg 34)

This one belief could be one of the most frustrating part of science: scientists are stubborn enough to work on something for years even if they know it is leading to know where. This is across all fields of study, scientists who have poured their lives into an idea that will never come to fruition because it is just not right. I have always wondered how many countless technologies and theories have been struck down simply on the belief of a majority of scientists that your idea is wrong; just because a majority of scientists believe something, does not mean it is right, for 50 years before inflation theory was discovered, scientists believed that the universe was constant, Einstein himself believed this.

 

Scientists Can Be Wrong

False Interpretation

In this chapter it was mentioned that the idea of ‘exaptation’ is central to the idea that animals develop certain adaptions and physical prowess for a specific use. Following that point, it is mentioned that after years of research on a specified animal, the function that we had thought the animal had grown a certain adaption for was for something else. For example, for decades we thought that birds had developed feathers for warmth, but it turns out that a birds feathers have many more functions that we had thought in the first place, like air regulation and flight stimulation. What I got from this idea brought up in chapter 6 was it may be possible that birds could have used this unknown trait for the specified uses stated for many years, we just hadn’t known about it. All in all, I feel that certain theories are solely based off of human idea, not biological evidence.

False Interpretation

Get it Wrong to Get it Right

“Two brilliant scientists with great technological acumen stumble across evidence of the universe’s origin- evidence that would ultimately lead to a Nobel Prize for both of them- and yet their first reaction is: Our telescope must be broken.“- Johnson 139

In this chapter, Johnson proves that one of the greatest forces of innovation in the world is, strangely enough, making mistakes. Seemingly limitless amounts of inventions, from Viagra to vacuum tubes, were discovered by accident. This raises the question, “Why do schools tend to punish people so harshly for making mistakes?” I went to a kind of competitive private high school, and when it came to tests and grades (especially when taking the SAT and ACT exams) I was taught that mistakes were unacceptable. People got taunted for getting bad grades, for making tiny mistakes or misinterpreting the questions asked. My friends who went to public high school tell me similar stories, if not as extreme. If schools are supposed to teach us to generate ideas, think freely, and live independently, then why do we so aggressively attack something that is proven to be one of the greatest sources of innovation ever, specifically human error? I believe that this is a major problem with our school system today and it needs to be addressed before more people are misled into putting perfect scores before good ideas.

Get it Wrong to Get it Right

Learn from your mistakes

The trouble with error is that we have a natural tendency to dismiss it- pg. 138

We as humans make mistakes all the time. To be honest, it is in our nature. If we did everything perfectly right that would not be normal. However, when mistakes are made we should not dismiss them. Mistakes happen for a reason so we can learn from them. If something wrong happens let us not urge to dismiss the mistake but embrace it. A perfect example of a big error would be Steve Harvey announcing the wrong winner for Miss Universe 2015. Instead of announcing Miss Philippines as the winner for the pageant he said Miss Columbia. From the moment Steve Harvey knew he had made a mistake he acknowledged it and apologized.Steve Harvey made it clear to the audience who the real winner was, Miss Philippines. He was honest and corrected what happened as soon as he knew he was at fault.

men of science

Picture

Don’t dismiss error. Embrace it. We can all learn from our mistakes.

Link

Accidents May Happen

This chapter reminds me of a book I once read titled, Accidents May Happen. This book was about many of the greatest discoveries/inventions that were discovered by error or mistake. For example, the author of the book describes how chocolate chips cookies were created because a baker used chocolate chips instead of regular baker’s chocolate to make a dessert, but the chips did not melt, thus turning the dessert into a what would be called a cookie. This just goes to show how often times, some of the greatest (and tastiest) inventions are created as a result of an error, and that mistakes can be meaningful.

Accidents May Happen

Error drives Innovation

After reading Chapter 5 of Where Good Ideas Come From, I thought it was very interesting to talk about the topic of error. Specifically, I liked how the chapter discussed error in a positive way. Often times, the word error or mistake has a negative connotation. In the chapter; however, error was described as the path to innovation. Essentially, error and mistakes, while can be discouraging, force people to look for the right answer. In looking for that right answer and exploring other choices or options, innovations come about. Johnson states a very powerful quote when he says,

“Being wrong forces you to explore” (p137).

In essence, being wrong isn’t necessarily a bad thing – it can drive the possibility for new explorations. Being wrong means looking for the right answer – it paves the path for new things to be discovered. This is very relatable in science and in research laboratories. Researchers go into an experiment with a hypothesis and prediction; however, the outcome could be totally wrong. This forces the researchers to research further eventually allowing them to be successful in finding a new cure or new treatment. Personally, I can also relate to this because I am in the process of conducting breast cancer research. My professor and I have predictions however we do not know if they will be right and we may fail. In the midst of that failure, we will find something new in a new type of experiment. Thus, this chapter was very insightful in the fact that it turned the negative connotation of error into a positive idea.

Error drives Innovation

Innovation Through Mistakes

Chapter 5 of Where Good Ideas Come From concentrates on the idea that error leads to new innovation. After reading the story about De Forest and his accidental innovation, I began to ponder how important mistakes are to innovation. I did some research about mistakes and innovation and I found this short but very insightful powerpoint online. If you get a chance check it out the link is below. It talks about the ways that mistakes lead to innovation. Perhaps our parents and teachers have been right this whole time. We do learn from our mistakes.

https://www.innovationleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Why-Real-Mistakes-Lead-to-Bigger-Innovations_FINAL.pdf

 

Innovation Through Mistakes

Mistakes: They Can Actually Be Beneficial

“It’s not that mistakes are the goal— they’re still mistakes, after all, which is why you want to get through them quickly. But those mistakes are an inevitable step on the path to true innovation” -Johnson, p148

I thought this quote did a good job of summarizing the message of this chapter. In this excerpt, Johnson emphasizes that mistakes are important in the process of creating a successful innovation, and that they are pieces of the puzzle that we cannot avoid. I also thought it was important that Johnson made sure to explain to his audience that he was not saying to make mistakes on purpose, but he was instead assuring his readers that when mistakes do happen they can be helpful instead of hurtful. For me personally, I always thought of mistakes as bad things, things that set me back in whatever I was doing, but after reading this chapter I feel more confident in the fact that mistakes can be beneficial and act as stepping stones that lead to great innovations.

Mistakes: They Can Actually Be Beneficial

Dewey Defeats Truman

Chapter 5 talks a lot about how error and mistakes can be positive. While I am all for learning from my mistakes it made me think of one of the most famous mistakes of all time. In the above picture Harry S Truman is holding up a Newspaper which wrongly printed the outcome of the presidential election the night before. This always reminds to me to not jump the gun and carefully review things which might not benefit from a mistake. I also just really like this picture because it shows that not all mistakes can lead to progress and everyone should be careful of making mistakes regardless of if there are benefits.

Image

Connections are better than separation

I thought it was interesting how the lack of connection between certain hunches proved to be a disastrous problem, if hunches about the 9/11 attack had be intertwined, maybe the attack could have been prevented. There are also many ideas contradicting to this. When certain hunches are connected and eventually work to get together to get to one implementation it could cause problems like who gets the credit for the one hunch. This result can bring us to other conclusions and ideas that hunches could be better off forming individually in order to avoid future problems between the innovators of these hunches.

Connections are better than separation