Online social networks reduces the amount of face-to-face conversations that people use to have back in the twentieth century. A social network is an outlet where people can chat, make new friends, share experiences, bond, and meet together- all at the same time. Common websites like Facebook and Twitter, more intensely Facebook, fit the description perfectly, when describing a niche for social interactions. Although they are an easy gateway to gratification, they diminish the quintessence of real human interaction.

              Back in the old days, typically the mid to late 1900s, people did not have all these fancy virtual websites so often there would be personal conversations. But now, it is becoming a problem for us to be able to approach and speak to people or make a phone call, without seeing it as awkward or a hassle. According to the article Why can't we all just stop texting and have an actual face-to-face conversation for once?, by news editor David Thomas, people are starting to consider things like ‘’What? TALK to someone? Who does anything as old-fashioned as that any more?” Now a days people text, tweet, and make Facebook post. Although these modes of communication are certainly convenient and easy-to-use, they are definitely not as effective as a legitimate phone call. In the article, Social media is Transforming the Way We Communicate, by Sukhraj Beasla, a blogger on viralheat.com, this was her reaction of phone contacting: “I stare longingly at the phone missing out on hearing a dial tone, the butterflies I get when it connects through and the person on the other end picks up and I hear their sweet voice.” Obviously by her reaction, it is reasonable to say that the feeling of a phone call, in comparison to a text message, is much more intimate. It also says that old ways of communicating via phone call, face-to-face conversations are more real and feel a lot more human because they trigger emotions like jitter and nervousness.        

              The biggest problem of social networking sites is anonymous intimacy. This is when people spend countless hours on Facebook and Twitter and start to develop a false sense of actually knowing and befriending people who they communicate with. According to Rachna Jain, a clinical psychologist specializing in couple and marital therapy, this poses problems because considering what really makes an intimate relationship: “shared experiences, shared time together — like doing things together — and it relies on a shared history.” Being on Facebook or Twitter does provide some form of shared experience, since there is involvement in the same spectrum of imparted information; however, there is still a digital divide. There

is a big difference in feelings when you are in the presence of a person as opposed to being accompanied by people online. In person, there are facial expressions, body language, and voices are heard. They are a lot more resilient indicators of someone’s feelings toward a person than online because none of those characteristics are present; feelings are always mislead online and can never always be able to be estimated well, so it can’t really be telled when someone really considers a person to be friend or not. That is why communicating online is more effective in making friends.              

               Considering what anonymous intimacy does on social networks, It gives off a fake feeling of engagement and makes it seem a user has thousands of friends, when really the numbers are quite shorter. The infographic: Is social media making us socially awkward?, given by Sam Laird, a Mashable reporter, states that “despite the ease of connecting online, only 50% of Facebook users have 100 or more “friends.” This means that only half of all Facebook users have actual and real relationships with other people, not 1000 or 3,000, which is blown way out of proportion. The friend list is what keeps people tuned in and gives the false idea that someone has all of those friends, but they really don’t. This is because instead of going out and making actual friends, people would rather add or follow random people on Facebook and consider them a friend when they really aren’t. The statistics don’t lie, in the article Is Social Media Destroying Real-World Relationships?, it says that “20% actually prefer communicating online or via text message to face to face conversation, while a third said they're more likely to approach someone new online than off.” This shows that people are endeavoring more to make these “fake” friends/followers on facebook and twitter rather than developing real relationships and friends through personal communication, in the 21st century.

                The sheer fact that the preference of online chatting is more prevalent than face to face conversations shows that people don’t talk as much personally. As a result of this, there will be less intimate relationships if these trends continue to rise, because people will prefer the more artificial feeling of communicating online (less personal bonding), rather than in person.

Works Cited:

1. Laird, Sam. "Is Social Media Destroying Real-World Relationships? [INFOGRAPHIC]." Mashable. Schools.com, 14 June 2012. Web. 07 Oct. 2014. <http://mashable.com/2012/06/14/social-media-real-world-infographic/>.

2. Morgan, Mandy. "Social Media Impacts Real Relationships."DeseretNews.com. DeseretNews, 27 Mar. 2013. Web. 06 Oct. 2014. <http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865576858/Social-media-impacts-real-relationships.html?pg=all>.

3. Beasla, Sukhraj. "Social Media Is Transforming the Way We Communicate." Viralheat Social Media Is Transforming the Way We Communicate Comments. Viralheat, 15 Jan. 2013. Web. 08 Oct. 2014. <https://www.viralheat.com/blog/2013/01/15/how-social-media-is-changing-the-way-we-communicate/>.

4. Bates, Chelsea. "The Dangers of Social Networking Sites | Commonplace."The Dangers of Social Networking Sites | Commonplace. McGraw Hill, 2009. Web. 08 Oct. 2014. <http://www.mhlearningsolutions.com/commonplace/index.php?q=node/5582>.

5. Goessl, Leigh. "How Does Social Networking Affect Socialization." Sciences 360. Sciences 360, 21 Sept. 2010. Web. 07 Oct. 2014. <http://www.sciences360.com/index.php/how-does-social-networking-affect-socialization-2-8428/>.

6. Thomas, David. "Why Can't We All Just Stop Texting and Have an Actual Face-to-face Conversation for Once?" Mail Online. Associated Newspapers, 18 July 2012. Web. 08 Oct. 2014. <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2175274/Why-stop-texting-actual-conversation-once.html>.

The transgression that the offender has done is viewed, but the other aspects have been associated with what the punishment will be. In court, unfortunately a lot of cases have been judged by different variables rather than just what the offender has done. Race, occupation, income and religion play a huge role into a lot cases, especially when determining the death penalty. The death penalty is sentenced unfairly, causing people to be put on death row due to who they are rather than what they've done. The death penalty is unfair due to the fact that one may be on death row due to income level, race and the retribution in the hearts of victim`s family.

The death penalty is given out to certain people, not necessarily being solely based on their crime. Income level is a major factor when it comes to the death penalty. The income level of one offender is looked at based upon if they are able to afford a good attorney. If they are unable to present a good attorney the state will adjourn one making it even harder to beat the case.  Anti- death penalty activist Helen Prejean said, “After all the rhetoric that goes on in legislative assemblies, in the end, when the net is cast out, it is the poor who are selected to die in this country. And why do poor people get the death penalty? It has everything to do with the kind of defense they get. Money gets the offender good defense. Getting a defense team that will win a death penalty case will have to be anywhere from $8,000 to $50,000. People who are sentenced to death tend to be lower than the poverty line or close to it. Many of what goes into consideration is if the offender has a good attorney. A good attorney needs to be appointed due to the fact that one can not afford to have a less worthy defense team on a death penalty case. If it was a drunk driving scenario, then it would be much different.

Race can determine whether a criminal is sentenced to the death penalty or not.This next verification shows how the death sentence is unfair is because of the race of the criminal.Studies have shown jurors in Washington state are three times more likely to recommend a death sentence for a black defendant than for a white defendant in a similar case where the sentence should be the same. (Prof. K. Beckett, Univ. of Washington, 2014). This shows just how the color of a person`s skin can persuade the jurors. One may say the evidence and crime should be the only thing weighed in for a  fair trial, but there are people saying otherwise".Another quote, from NAACP said, “The U.S. Department of Justice’s own figures reveal that between 2001 and 2006, 48 percent of defendants in federal cases in which the death penalty was sought were African Americans… the biggest argument against the death penalty is that it is handed out in a biased, racially disparate manner.13 percent of our population is African American, but 50 percent of African -American make prison`s population. The death penalty is biased and is evident through the statistics. African-Americans are at a way higher risk at receiving the death penalty than a white person. The statistics are very overwhelming going off the fact that an African-American is 3 times more likely to go to death row. The jurors are chosen because they are not biased to the case, but when given all the information, like the color of the victim and or suspect, things shift a lot. Thus proving the  thesis that  race is a key component to giving one the death penalty.

The last  piece of information that may shift the decision of the death penalty is the retribution in the heart of the victim`s family. The anger in the family`s heart makes the decision of the death penalty be pushed even further.  When the loved one of a family gets killed, it is one`s instinct to want to kill the offender. People may say that sending the offender to death row is giving closure or desistance to the family, but indeed that is a lie and is only being done to get revenge back.  A professor for Humanities at St. Peter's College, Raymond A. Schroth, SJ  once said  To kill the person who has killed the loved one of a family is simply to continue the cycle of violence which ultimately destroys the avenger as well as the offender. That this execution somehow give 'closure' to a tragedy is a myth. Expressing one’s violence simply reinforces the desire to express it. Just as expressing anger simply makes us more angry. It does not drain away. It contaminates the otherwise good will which any human being needs to progress in love and understanding." ( Raymond A. Schroth, SJ) This is a cycle that must be stopped. Killing the offender is not the answer and definitely does not put heal the scar because the loved one will never come back. The anger of one, will then set off the next and will be a repeating cycle that will continue unless someone can see that is is palpable that the death sentence is just another way of violence that is justified by the court systems and by society. Also including that the testimony of the family can sway the jurors, due to the fact they may want them to feel as if they lost the loved one and to make the case sound very personal.

In conclusion, the death penalty plays a lot into the biased sides of things. Crime should be judged purely off of the evidence and how it played out, instead of the logistics of race,income and so forth. The statics are very overwhelming going off the fact that an African-American is 3 times more likely to go to death row. The atonement of losing a loved one is not by killing the offender, because it is just contradicting the entire situation and also continuing the cycle. Although the death penalty may only seem important to people on death row, it should in fact concern anyone who cares about families of the victims. People may think that the people on death row are chosen due to die due to their crime, but it also involves, race, income and the retribution in the family of the victim`s hearts.   

Works Cited:

"Death Penalty - ProCon.org." ProConorg Headlines. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Oct. 2014.

"BalancedPolitics.org - Death Penalty (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against, Advantages & Disadvantages)." BalancedPolitics.org - Death Penalty (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against, Advantages & Disadvantages). N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Oct. 2014.

"The Pros And Cons Of The Death Penalty: Two Parallel Discussions." St. Louis Public Radio. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014.

Penalty, Death, and States (32). U.S. Military NUMBER OF EXECUTIONS SINCE 1976: 1,389 (n.d.): n. pag. Death Penalty Information Center. Web.

The United states is a first world country, with a relatively wealthy population in comparison to other countries. The country is considered an upstanding and prospering nation. However, the United States has the highest incarcerated population of any country in the world. The American criminal justice system has caused this large and growing amount of prisoners. The United states has an overly high incarceration rate, which is due to severe prison sentences of specific groups of people for drug related crimes, and a poor criminal reformation system which keeps them trapped in the prison system.

The United States has a population of over three hundred million people, making it the third most populated country in the world. Despite being less than a third the size of the two most populated countries, the United States has the world’s largest population of incarcerated people, around 2.3 million. More than 0.7% of Americans are currently incarcerated. One percent of adults over the age of eighteen in the United States are currently in prison. (NY Times). The fact that the United States criminal justice system puts so many offenders in prison causes the country to have an overly high crime rate because so many people are convicted.  The way that it’s criminal justice system works is what is causing this high population.

The amount of prisoners in the U.S. has increased over time. This increase isn’t entirely due to an increase of crime overall, rather the increase of a specific type of crime that has been greatly penalised by the justice system in recent years. The United states illegality on the selling and usage of certain drugs has resulted in a massive increase in the number of arrests.In 2012, 1.55 million people were arrested on drug related charges (Drug Policy.org). Penalties for drug related crimes can be severe, and have resulted in increases in the number of arrests. Introducing a new type of crime by placing such heavy penalties on drugs.

The goal of prison is to punish criminals. Ideally prisoners should leave prison with a changed attitude towards their crime, and hopefully will not commit one again. Often this isn’t the case. 68% of all released prisoners end up back in prison within three years of their release. This proves that the prison system is ineffective for most people. This is because the punishment of felons doesn’t always help them. Incarceration might make someone more wary of committing a crime, but they often they have no other ways to make a living but to live a life of crime, and that doesn’t often change after they get out of prison (Barrish). United states prison’s often do not reform criminals. Prison is a harsh place, and prisoners may feel alienated and depressed. But these emotions don’t always serve as a punishment, rather they just negatively affect the mental health of the prisoners, which doesn’t help to reform them. If anything it can make them feel like outcasts of society, which does not aid them to be productive members of it.  Also being surrounded by other criminals creates an atmosphere of concentration crime, and that doesn’t help prisoners to get away from that lifestyle (Henry).

“In seeking to severely penalize the criminals away behind safe walls actually provides them with the means of greater strength for future atrocities glorious and otherwise.” Jack Kerouac, author and former prisoner.

This is why prisoners usually end up back in the prison system.

Targeting specific ethnic groups, while unjust is an effective way of arresting a lot of people. There is racial profiling in the U.S. criminal justice system. Police specifically target neighborhoods with high black and hispanic populations, thus arresting more blacks and hispanics. Only fourteen percent of drug users are black, but forty five percent of people incarcerated for drug related offenses are black. White’s and Black’s use and sell illegal drugs about the same amount. That means that a greater percentage of blacks are being are being arrested for a crime than whites, when both actually commit the crime at the same rate (Rushing). This shows that police are racially profiling blacks. Targeting these ethnic groups has caused an increase in prison population because the police are paying a lot of attention to areas with a concentration of crime caused by non-white people. This racism allows the police to target these areas and arrest a lot of people from them.

The high prison population in the United States has to do with the fact that to many people are being sent to prison for too long, and too many people are returning after they are released. The country is trapped in a cycle of high incarceration rates. Providing for these 2.3 million prisoners is expensive and is costing taxpayers a lot of money. The police cracking down on drugs, and targeting groups of people who use them is resulting in a large number of arrests. Many prisoners are not becoming productive members of society, they’re just trapped in this cycle of crime, which will keep hurting society, both socially and economically.

Works Cited:

1. Barrish, Cris. "Study: 8 in 10 Released Inmates Return to Del. Prisons."USA Today. Gannett, 31 July 2013. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. <http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/31/delaware-prison-recidivism/2603821/>

2. Henry, Stuart, Ph.D. "Defining Punishment and How It Works." On the Effectiveness of Prison as Punishment. Wayne State University, 24 Oct. 2003. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. <http://www.is.wayne.edu/StuartHenry/Effectiveness_of_Punishment.htm>.

3. Liptak, Adam. "U.S. Prison Population Dwarfs That of Other Nations."Nytimes.com. New York Times, 23 Apr. 2008. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. <http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2008%2F04%2F23%2Fworld%2Famericas%2F23iht-23prison.12253738.html%3Fpagewanted%3Dall%26_r%3D1%26>.

4. Rushing, Keith. "The Reasons Why So Many Black People Are in Prison Go Well Beyond Profiling." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 23 June 2011. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-rushing/the-reasons-why-so-many-b_b_883310.html>.

5. "Drug War Statistics." Drugpolicy.org. Drug Policy Alliance, 2014. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. <http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-war-statistics>.

6. "Population of All Countries of the World / All National Populations Largest to Smallest - Worldatlas.com." Population of All Countries of the World / All National Populations Largest to Smallest - Worldatlas.com. Worldatlas, n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2014. <http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/populations/ctypopls.htm>. Web. 30 Sept. 2014.