Possess the Knowledge

Did you know you can consult, talk, text, and video chat with your doctor and receive your lab results on your cell phone 24/7 and wherever you are? This, my friend, is called telehealth. 

If you want to know more about telehealth and how it is changing healthcare delivery and access to care, check out my latest podcast on azazel.info. Telehealth: Your cellphone is your clinic.

My guest today is Dr. Daffar Aditi. Dr. Daffar is a public health expert with commendable achievements in community health in India, Pakistan, Syria, the United States and Haiti. Dr. Daffar and I discuss telehealth and how he used technology to reach out to millions of patients around the world. 

Dr. Daffar, in your own words, what is telehealth? 

Hello to all, and thanks for having me as your guest Dr. Rousseau. Before I delve further, let me give you my opinion about telehealth. I love telehealth because it brings medical care to places and patients that otherwise would have never had access to healthcare, providers, or medical facilities. I have patients who live in rural areas which are now receiving care for the first time in their lives. Trust me, Dr. Rousseau, it is rewarding. I urge governments to fund projects aiming at bringing such a revolutionary medical tool to remote or low-provider availability areas. 

Excellent, Thank you for sharing this with me, Dr. Daffar.

You are welcome Dr. Rousseau. Telehealth delivers health care, education, and information services via remote technologies. Telehealth allows patients to consult health care providers, mental health counselors, or nurses via online videos or phone chats, whether at home, at work, or even in their car. 

Dr. Rousseau, you use the right words, timely and convenient. Telehealth is convenient because it reduces ER utilization. With telehealth, patients no longer have to visit the clinic or the hospital for a minor headache or wait to get an appointment. They can log in to the virtual platform to book and receive remote appointments as soon as possible. 

Dr. Daffar, you mentioned earlier that telehealth could improve access to care in remote areas;  can you expand on that? 

Telehealth improves access to care for everyone, whether rich or poor, whether they can drive to a medical center or whether there is a medical facility or providers near them. The real benefit of telehealth is that patients can use their cell phones to consult any doctor and, in various instances, 24/7. This means that people, regardless of their status or geographical location, have the opportunity to take care of their care. Many hospitals offer this service to their patients at low or no additional cost. Still, lately, I have seen individual doctors, NGOs, and even social entrepreneurs offering telehealth to underdeveloped neighborhoods. 

Dr. Daffar, I understand your statement, but my concern is social communication and outreach. Before we talk about how remote patients become aware of this program, do you foresee telehealth replacing face-to-face consultations and traditional hospitalizations? 

Oh no. never, because telehealth mostly focuses on non-life-threatening conditions. Patients are still required to go to emergency rooms for life-threatening diseases. Telehealth might be able to treat a patient with a headache or a skin rash, but it will not treat a patient with stroke, AVC, or cardiac arrest. Face-to-face consults and hospitalizations will never go away. 

Dr. Daffar, how do follow-ups work with telehealth? Do patients have to come to a clinic to get their lab results? 

Another benefit of telehealth is that providers can order labs and X-Rays. They can also read the results to patients over the phone and provide referrals to patients if necessary. Using telehealth, providers can also prescribe medications to pharmacies nearest to the patients and even talk to mental health patients. Therefore, the patients will return or ever visit a clinic if only their health requires it. 

Thanks for your time Dr. Daffar. That was insightful. We must encourage more people to sign up for telehealth because it offers shorter waiting times and allows patients to get care in the comfort of their homes. 

See you next time. 

Thanks

As you drive on highways and inner cities, you see signs that say“Entering Bexar County or Leaving Orange County.” Do you know what that means? As you send your children to school, you hear about school districts. Moreover, as elections approach, you hear candidates saying they represent district 3, 7, 30, and so on. Do you know what that means? Do you know the difference between a district and a county? 

This series talks about the different levels of American governance, and most importantly, it establishes differences between county and district and their role in local governments and politics. It also discusses the differences between  redistricting and gerrymandering.

A state is a territorial political and administrative division of the entire United States. Each state generally is divided into counties. The county is subdivided into districts, and districts are further subdivided into cities and towns. 

A county is part of a state that is larger than a city and has its own government to deal with local issues. I am sure you heard of El Paso County, Bear County, Orange County, Suffolk County, etc. Under the governance of various elected and appointed officials, a county serves as an administrative arm of the state to maintain records, provide courts and law enforcement, build roads, assess property, collect taxes, administer jails, and conduct elections.
 
A county is further subdivided into districts. A district is an agglomeration of many cities forming a congressional collectivity. Congressional districts, also known as electoral districts or legislative districts are divisions of a larger administrative county that represent the population of that county in the larger congressional body. What I meant was that district residents elect house and state representatives, and these elected officials go on to form the state legislature or the state assembly. The state legislature or the state assembly performs the same duties as members of the U.S. Congress, except that they vote on laws and legislations for their specific state. Do you now understand what I was trying to say? May I please proceed?

The number of districts depends on how many residents live in the county. Although the number of counties may not change, the number of districts may, due to population growth. As such, not all counties have the same number of districts, and the total of districts a county has may change at each election cycle. The federal and state constitutions allow parties to create new districts to bring more candidates to the field. This is called redistricting or political equality. Political equality means that all the districts must have the same number of residents to ensure equal representations at state assemblies. When redistricting favors one party or when a party does it to gain more seats at their state legislature, dissidents call it gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is the act of manipulating the boundaries of an electoral constituency so as to favor one party. It is the process of updating the maps for various districts to balance the population after each census. In a much simpler term, redistricting or gerrymandering takes voters from a current district to place them in a newly created district. 

In summary, in this series, I explored the difference between counties and districts, and the thin line between redistricting and gerrymandering. I mentioned that a county is an agglomeration of several districts, which are further subdivided into cities. Districts, on the other hand, which are composed of many cities, form a congressional collectivity forming state legislatures or state assemblies. Moreover, I explained that redistricting or political equality was the process of adjusting the boundaries of a district or county to meet population changes, while gerrymandering was the manipulation of the boundaries of a district by either political party to gain political advantages.

On Azazel podcast today, my guest is Heather Almeyda. She is a law student at St-Mary’s School of Law. She and I will talk about the State of the Union Address. I am your host Dr. Bobb Rousseau, and without further ado, let’s begin. 
Hi Angelica, welcome to my show. To me, the State of the Union is an American political tradition through which a sitting president tells Congress how the country is doing economically. It is a platform that both political parties use as a campaign tool to boost their agenda. In your own words, what is the State of the Union? 
Hi Dr. Rousseau and thanks for having me. The American constitution establishes that all presidents must address Congress to inform Americans on the country’s economic condition. As the name suggests, in a State of the Union, presidents tell America what they did in the previous years and what their administration will be doing in the years to come to improve the economy and foreign relations. As you mentioned in your intro, the State of the Union is also an excellent opportunity for the opposing party to fact-check the sitting presidents and provide different strategies to improve America.
Thanks Header, now, please tell us. how often do Presidents deliver their state of the union message? 
Annually. The State of the Union message is from the President to Congress, usually delivered once a year in January or February. In the State of the Union, the President exposes the country’s problems and proposes strategies to solve them, including suggestions for new laws and public policies. Some presidents delivered their message in writing; others delivered a speech on radios or televisions.
Again thank you Heather, what happens during the night of the State of Union. Better yet, how does the government prepare for such a big night?
During the night of the State of the Union, the members of the Congress meet in the House of Representatives alongside the President of the Chamber who happens to be also the Speaker of the House and the Vice-President, who is also the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate and the Vice President sit on the dais, a raised platform directly behind the place where the President speaks.
Key members of the Lower and the Upper Chambers escort the President to the chamber when the President arrives. The sergeant-of-arms of the House of Representatives announces the arrival of the President. The Speaker of the House then presents the President, who delivers his speech before Congress.
Heather, it seems to me that the entire government attends this event; what happens if something catastrophic happens to the president and the vice-president?
The State of the Union also implies presidential succession through a principle called “Blue Star.” Designated Survivor is another name for the blue star principle. According to custom, a member of the President’s cabinet does not attend the State of the Union address. This way, if a catastrophe were to occur and harm the President, the vice president, and the other members of the cabinet present, the member of the cabinet who would not be present at the State of the Union could then assume the duties of the President.
Heather who else attend the State of the Union? 
Presidents usually invite several American citizens to Congress for their State of the Union message. These citizens are invited because they have done something extraordinary. During their speeches, the presidents present and honor them for their achievements.
After the message, there is a response from the opposition. This gives the opposing political party a chance to express its point of view on what the President said. Usually, they offer different suggestions than the President on how to improve America.
Heather, your friends told me that you are also an historian. As such do you know of any facts related to the State of the Union?
Thanks Dr. Rousseau. That was a great question. Here are some facts related to the State of the Union
George Washington gave the first State of the Union message in 1790. It was also the shortest message (833 words).
The most extended State of the Union address was given in 1946 by President Harry Truman. It was more than 25,000 words!
President Franklin Roosevelt gave 12 State of the Union messages – more than any other president.
President Calvin Coolidge was the first to deliver a State of the Union message on the radio (1923).
Harry Truman was the first president to give his State of the Union message on television (1947).
To keep up with traditions, Presidents deliver their State of Union on the first Tuesday of January or February.
Due to COVID, Biden was the first president to deliver his State of the Union on the first Tuesday of March 2022.
Thank you Ms Heather Alemyda for your participation. Here is a summary of the interview. 
The State of the Union is an annual address Presidents give to Congress to report on the country’s progress and to outline their plans for the coming year. The Constitution requires that Presidents deliver this message to Congress to keep them informed on the country’s economic condition. The State of the Union is also a platform for both political parties to promote their agendas and fact-check the President. It presents an opportunity to discuss and solve the country’s problems and propose new public policies. It is a key part of the American political process, and ensures that the President can keep the people informed and the country on track for growth and prosperity.

This concludes our interview with a guest Ms Heather Alemyda who is a law student at St-Mary Law School in San Antonio. I was your host, Dr. Bobb Rousseau. Thanks for your contribution.

Do you ever feel great when you learn that it is someone who did not look like who committed a crime? Or even proud when it is someone who looks like you who achieved something great? Well, you are either racist or hypocrite or both and either way it is normal to wish good for our kind and bad for not our kind. All who we are and however we deal with others is based on our race and their race. 

This series discusses critical race theory and how it further divides us to become our own minoritized or majoritized racial group. Let’s begin; shall we?  

Martin Luther King’s dream of judging people based on their character and values, rather than the color of their skin, has not been realized. People are still judged based on their race, and no matter what their race is, they are still victims of racism. 

According to critical race theory, the most important thing about you is not your value, your behavior, or your qualifications but your race or the color of your skin. The way you succeed, the way others treat you, and the way you behave are based on your race. That theory holds that if you are a minority, the system is rigged against you, and conversely, if you are white, you are privileged, and the system is built to make you succeed. 

Critical race theory places institutions, workplaces, and even stores in a tight situation where they wonder who to address or hire first when the choice is between a black person or a white person. If the institution addresses or employs the black person, the white person will claim discrimination because the CEO rejected him based on his race, regardless of his values and character. On the other hand, if the institution addresses or hires the white person, the black person would claim that the boss is a racist. 

As you can see, both the white person and the black person would feel that the system discriminates against them because critical race theory takes the merit system notion out of the equation. 

Let me show how critical race theory leads us to find issues where they are supposed to be none. 

The five police officers who killed Tyre Nichols were all blacks. In less than 30 days, they were fired, judged, and sentenced. Critical race theory proponents advanced that the justice system handled the situation so quickly because the officers were blacks. If they were whites, the process would have taken more than six months as it was for Michael Brown and George Floyd.  

The killing of Tyre Nichols proves that not only white officers kill black people or that police officers whether they are black or white simply kill people whether they are blacks or whites. On that note, I wonder if the killings black people by white police officers is police brutality or police racism. I wonder how the black lives matter movement would have reacted if the police officers who killed Tyre Nichols were whites. And yet, they reacted negatively because the justice system worked too fast for these five black officers. 

Critical race theory promotes a damn if you do, damn if you don’t logic. It bullies blacks to think that white people are exploiters and white people to believe that they are losing benefits because of affirmative action and diversity inclusion. Either way, when either race does not get what they deserve, they are victims of racism. 

Critical race theory enforces racism, infects people’ minds, and drives them further apart. It is a double-edged sword that makes both black and white people feel guilty and uneasy about their background.  

In summary, in this series, I examine how race shapes society and social interactions. I suggest that racism is deeply embedded in our culture and that it is pervasive in everyday life. I argue that critical race theory drives a wedge between different racial communities and promotes anti-realism and separatism. I conclude by stating that critical race theory leads to feelings of guilt and mistrust between the two races. My advice is that it is important for people of all races to understand the implications of this theory and be open to discussing it.

What is your position about critical race theory? Please share your opinions with me.

There is an instance when the freedom of speech does not protect you when you say something that is false and harmful to others. I am not referring to statements about sexism, homophobia, racism, or the holocaust. Depending on your position in the community, you may be canceled and ultimately boycotted for such statements whether they are true or false. Instead, I am talking about communicating to a third party false statements about a person.

This series discusses defamation and how certain statements may damage the reputation of the ones against whom they are made. More importantly, this series explains the four main elements that may exist for someone to be guilty or be the victim of defamation. Without further ado, let’s begin. 

Defamation is a declaration that may damage or tarnish the good name of someone. The laws identify two types of defamation; libel, which is a writing false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation and slander, which is an oral false and damaging statement about someone.

Let’s use this scenario as an example. 

Ms. Rose posted a picture of Mr. Richard selling electronic goods and products on the back of his van. The caption reads “Stealing and Reselling Company’s Properties.” Another worker reposted and tagged the Human Resources department on the post. The HR department fired Mr Richard and called the police to escort him out of the building. 

Mr. Richard decided to take the issue to court because, according to him, Ms. Rose made the declaration with the intent to damage his good name, and in fact, that declaration did cause him prejudice. However, he claimed that Rose’s statement about him was false. 

Mr. Richard’s lawyers brought a defamation lawsuit against Ms. Rose. The court established beyond any reasonable doubt that Rose made the declaration with the intent to cause harm and prejudice to Mr. Richard and Ms. Rose’s declaration caused injury and bias to Mr. Richard. Richard’s lawyers showed receipts of everything he was selling on the back of his van, and the company offered a report concluding no property loss. Moreover, the court established that Ms. Rose lied about Mr. Richard. 

In this instance, Ms. Rose would be found guilty of defamation, while Mr. Richard would be a victim of defamation in the form of libel. It is defamation in the form of libel because, although Ms. Rose published the declaration with the malicious intent to cause harm and in fact, succeeded; her declaration was false. Conversely, if her declaration were true, there would have been no defamation and Mr. Richard would have deserved his punishment and his fall from grace.  

In general, for defamation to exist, the declaration must be published either in writing or orally, false, indeed be harmful, and be unprivileged.

Let me use another example so I can tell you more about privileged declarations. 

Daniel testified in court and under oath that Tony killed his wife. Daniel’s intent was to convince the judge and the jury that Tony deserved to be in prison. In fact, the court found Tony guilty. Later on, an appeal court reversed the decision because new evidence showed that Tony was not responsible for his wife’s murder. Do you think that Tony can sue Daniel for defamation knowing that all the elements for defamation such as slandering, malicious intent, false, and harm exist. 

Not all false declarations defiling someone’s image are defamation. Individuals are protected against false declarations made in courts or during judicial proceedings against someone. This is called privileged. 

Let me use another scenario that shows that certain people have less protection from defamation than others

Ellis published that candidate Ted made homophobic statements and as result, the LGBT-Q community boycotted him. Although Ellis’s statement was false and caused Ted the election, do you think Ellis would be found guilty of defamation? 

Statements harmful to public figures such as politicians, artists, influencers, or other celebrities are not considered defamation. The public has a right to criticize famous people and the government. However, if they were to sue an individual, they would have to show that they were defamed with actual malice or the person who defamed them made the false statement knowing it was false, or with reckless disregard for the truth. 

Therefore, talking crap about Ariel Henry, Kanye West, Donald Trump, or Vladimir Putin. is not considered defamation.

In summary, defamation is tarnishing, discrediting, or smearing someone’s good standing in the community or in the workplace through the publication of false information.. In some states, it is a crime whereas in others, it is civil wrongdoing. 

Thank you for listening and remember to like, subscribe, share and comment.

Have you ever wondered how and from whom the United States government borrows money or how it pays back that money? 

When you need to borrow money, you go to the bank or call a friend to borrow that money from them. This is not the way the government does it. 
 
This series is about the national debt and the debt ceiling. It explains how the U.S. government borrows and spends money and how the national debt and the debt ceiling may impact the government public policy agenda. Without further ado, let’s begin. 

Congress has the power of the purse. This means that Congress gives money to the Government to fund public programs. The Government can only spend money that Congress appropriates. When the Government spends more than it was given, the money it overspends becomes a national debt. To cover its excessive spending or to pay down the national debt, Congress allows the Government to borrow money. 

Congress imposes a limit on how much the Government can borrow. This action is called the debt limit or debt ceiling, which only Congress can increase or lower to avoid catastrophic economic consequences. Disastrous economic consequences may result in government shutdowns due to a lack of funds, leading to furloughed government employees and the closing of national parks and other government facilities.

Now, let’s see how the Government pays down the national debt, increases its debt ceiling, and how and from whom it borrows money. 

While the national debt is money the Government already spent in previous fiscal years, the debt ceiling is money congress authorizes the Government during the current fiscal year. Once the Government realizes its projected financial expenditures are lower than the amount of money Congress will give it or that it still does not have money to pay for past-year commitments, the Government, through the U.S. Treasury, requests that Congress increase its borrowing power or the country’s debt ceiling.
 
Suppose that Congress agrees to increase the government spending limit. The country increases the debt limit by borrowing money. However, it doesn’t go to the bank and apply for a loan. Instead, it issues debt. Confusing; is it not? Yes, the Government creates debts to sell. Issuing debts, in this case, means the Government will sell what it owns at a lower price than they are worth. 

Just imagine you owing creditors and not having the money to pay them. You end up selling your lands, cars, and clothes to get money to pay them. The Government does the same thing, except that whatever they sell, they have to repurchase them. 

What does the Government sell, and who purchases them? 

Any American or any foreigner, for that matter, can lend money to the U.S. government. 

The Government sells Treasury marketable securities and non-marketable securities. Marketable securities can be transferred from one person to another or from one person to a federal agency. They are Treasury bills, notes, bonds, and Treasury inflation-protected securities. These securities are considered liquid because they mature quickly and are easily converted into cash. Marketable securities carry a higher risk than non-marketable securities. Non-marketable securities are not bought or sold on markets and are more difficult to obtain. The Government sells them to other federal government agencies, individuals, businesses, state and local governments, and people, businesses, and governments from other countries. 

In a much simpler term, People like you and I buy assets from the Government, and over time, the Government purchases the assets back from us with interests. 

Congress will tell the Government how much of and which assets to sell to the public. After the Government receives the money from the sales, Congress will tell them how to spend it.  

In summary, the United States government borrows money to pay for public programs and to cover excessive spending. Congress has the authority to allocate funds to the Government, and when these funds are not enough to cover the Government’s expenses, the Government is allowed to borrow money. The Government borrows money from various sources, such as the public, foreign governments, and private lenders. This money is used to pay the Government’s obligations to the people, pay its bills, and provide funds for future investments. The national debt is an important issue affecting the United States economy and must be managed to avoid severe economic consequences.

The facilities in which individuals who violate state and federal laws serve their time depends on the length of their sentence, the degree of the infractions they committed, or the types of convictions they received. This series talks about the American prison system, and most importantly, it establishes the differences between jail and prison and which one of these two criminals go to for misdemeanor or felony conviction.
But before I dive into the differences between jail and prison, allow me to explain to you the two degrees of convictions that land criminals in jail or prison. The two degrees of conviction are misdemeanor and felony. For a misdemeanor conviction, the perpetrator receives a short-term sentence and goes to jail. In contrast, for a felony, the perpetrator receives a long-term sentence and goes to prison. 
A misdemeanor is typically a crime punishable by less than 12 months in jail or a crime where the punishment is community service, probation, fines. Vandalism, trespassing, disorderly conduct or crimes whose monetary penalty is no more $4,000 is a misdemeanor. 
A felony is a high-seriousness crime with a potential punishment of over a year of incarceration. However, in certain felony cases, the defendant may receive a sentence of under a year of incarceration. For felonies, the penalties range from two years to life imprisonment without parole or death penalty.
Now that I have explained to you what misdemeanor and felony are and their consequences, let me explain to you what jail and prison are. 
So what is jail?
Jail is for short-term detention for low level or less serious crimes. Local law enforcement and local governments, such as police departments and county sheriffs, have jurisdiction over the jail system. Each police department has a jail, not only to incarcerate criminals who committed misdemeanors but also to hold individuals who are awaiting trial or individuals who are waiting to be transferred to regular prisons. 
When a police officer arrests an individual for whatever reason, the officer takes him first to jail for processing. Once that individual goes to trial, and the judge convicts him, if the judge sentences him for a misdemeanor, he will return to the police department or county jail. However, if the judge condemns him of a felony, whether it is for less than a year, the sheriff’s deputy will transport him to prison. 
So, what is prison?  
When you hear someone goes to prison, know that that person becomes the state of federal property because the state government or the Federal Bureau of Prisons runs the prison system. Prisons incarcerate for long term individuals convicted of more serious crimes, such as murders, sexual assault, drug related crimes. Prisons range from low security to maximum security. 
In summary, punishments for misdemeanors range from community service to incarceration and fines up to $4,000. Felonies carry up to life imprisonment or death penalty and up to $375.000 in fines. The American prison system is divided into jails and prisons. Those committing misdemeanors are confined to jail for a short period of time with a sentence of less than 12 months. Local police departments and county sheriffs administer jails. On the other hand, individuals convicted of felonies go to prison for longer periods with sentences of more than a year. A state or the federal government administers the prison system. 
Before I let you go, let me ask you a question. When a person is sentenced to 18 months of incarceration and another is on death row, in which type of facility do you think they will serve their sentence? Text your answer to 618-823-8701.

The United States government establishes different levels of agencies to enforce laws, conduct investigations, deter crimes, and arrest individuals accused of violating state or federal laws. The power of these agencies depends on their proximity to their citizens. Although their jurisdiction differs, they work together toward public safety and promote law and order throughout their operations. 

This series presents the critical differences between a sheriff and a police officer and their role in ensuring public safety. Without further ado, let’s begin. 

Sheriffs are elected officials with authority to maintain the peace and enforce the law across their respective counties. Also called local or county sheriffs; sheriffs are assisted in their duties by deputy sheriffs. Deputy sheriffs have the same roles as police officers, except that the police officers only investigate or make arrests in their assigned city. The authority to arrest across the county or within city limits is called jurisdiction. Sheriffs and police officers exist to avoid jurisdiction overlap or to prevent a city X police officer from enforcing the law in city Y. For example, a sheriff of a county comprising Orlando, Boston, Philadelphia, Montgomery, Atlanta, and San Antonio can enforce the law or arrest any citizen within that county. In contrast, an Orlando police officer does not have the authority to enforce the law in San Antonio or in any other city of that county, for that matter. 

Let’s consider the following scenario. Say there is a high-speed chase involving police officers from a local department that then leads into another part of the county. At this point, the police officers will either disengage or ask the sheriff’s department to take over because police officers’ jurisdiction or power to chase resides within the boundaries of the city of their local police department or the city to which they are assigned. Continuing to chase outside of their city limits would have been jurisdiction overreach. 

All American states have sheriffs except Alaska, Connecticut, and Hawaii, Connecticut has a State Marshal System, and Hawaii has only Deputy Sheriffs. In Louisiana, a county is called a parish, and in Alaska, it is a borough. All cities of the State of New York have sheriffs, except New York City, which uniquely has five boroughs. 

So I leave nothing off the table; let me give you a quick definition of a county. 

A county aggregates a specific state’s cities, towns, or rural populations. A county is a state’s territorial, political, and administrative division providing certain local government services to specific residents. A county comprises districts, which are types of political divisions that the local government manages. In a future episode, I will tell you what districts are and their role in state politics. Forty-one states elect their county sheriffs for a four-year term, two elect them for two years, one elects them for three years, and another elects them for six years. 

As a recap, Sheriffs and police officers are responsible for ensuring public safety and upholding law and order. Sheriffs are elected officials and have jurisdiction to enforce the law across their respective counties. Police officers are not elected officials, but rather, they are assigned to a specific city and are only responsible for making arrests and conducting investigations in that city. While sheriffs and police officers have overlapping duties, the scope of their jurisdiction differs. 

Sheriff departments are mainly responsible for managing county-level law enforcement activities, and police officers work crimes and enforce laws within the city limits. Ultimately, sheriffs and police officers play an essential role in protecting the safety and well-being of citizens.

I don’t think that such a question ever crosses your mind. The answer to the cost of the death penalty for your state will blow your mind. 

Listen to the full podcast on www.azazel.info and learn about the insane price tag per inmate that comes out of your state budget every year. Check it out and let me know what you think. 

The death penalty is a controversial topic with many people arguing for and against it. There is no clear consensus on whether or not it deters crime or if it is more expensive than simply keeping criminals in prison for life. However, what is clear is that American taxpayers contribute toward the welfare, education, and life of inmates – including those on death row.

This series does not discuss whether the death penalty is immoral, legal, or unconstitutional or whether it is effective in deterring crime. Instead, it argues on the economics of capital punishment. It pleads for a reform of the death penalty system that would close down the death row, which would allow federal and state governments to repurpose death penalty funds to other social programs.

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is the authority of a state or a federal government to legally execute an inmate instead of investing resources toward keeping them alive. 

Many experts debate the cost of the death penalty. Many argue that the price tag to kill a criminal is irrelevant because it is justice well-served and the society is better off with them dead than being incarcerated, even for life without parole. Others advance that killing an inmate is so costly that the government should instead keep them locked up, for it will be a better use of taxpayer monies. 

Either way, you put it, or whatever side you support, taxpayer monies fund the American prison system. This means you, as an American, invest in the welfare, education, life, or death of an inmate. 

A report by the DPIC in 2021 showed that, at the federal level, the average cost to kill an inmate is $1.7 million. The report disclosed that taxpayers picked up a nearly two million dollar price tag for each federal execution. That price tag is about nine times the cost of keeping that same inmate behind bars for the rest of his life. The cost of capital punishment is so high because of legal, pre-trial, jury selection, trial, incarceration, and appeal fees that accompany an execution. Moreover, further research showed that defending a trial in a federal death case is a dog and pony show where defendants with less money had a 44% chance of receiving a death sentence. In contrast, defendants with more money had only a 19% chance of being sentenced to death. In a much simpler term, defendants with low representation costs were more than twice as likely to receive a death sentence.

The death penalty costs vary from state to state, but on average it is about $3.8 million per execution. That is about four times the cost of keeping someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. The state of California has the most increased cost of the death penalty. According to a different DICP report released that same year, the California death penalty system costs taxpayers more than $150 million a year. It costs the state another $100,000 per year to house one inmate on death row and another $68 million yearly to provide them private cells and extra security guards; perks that inmates in the general prison population or inmates who will not be executed do not receive. 

To know how it costs your state to legally kill an inmate, visit the link attached in the notes of this podcast. 

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs

I am suggesting the closing of the death row because it costs taxpayers too much money. Death penalty executions are four times more expensive than keeping prisoners locked up, even at maximum security. I recommend repurposing these funds toward infrastructure buildup, economic growth, and social development projects. 

Studies consistently show that the death penalty is more expensive than imprisonment without parole. Capital cases come with large costs. They  are a burden on state and federal budgets. Taxpayer monies that could have been appropriated to build highways and fund the police have been instead programmed to fund death row executions.

To protect national security and sensitive information, the United States government conducts Peeping Tom operations on foreign governments and their citizens as well as on American citizens. 

In this series, I present the agencies of the United States that collect and analyze intelligence to determine whether they may disrupt the country’s law and order. Using comprehensive scenarios, I drill down on the different roles and responsibilities of the CIA and the FBI. Without further ado, let’s begin. 

Officially since 1947, The United States has been strategically spying and investigating foreign nations and their citizens and American citizens to evaluate beforehand domestic and foreign threats to U.S. national or homeland security. 

In 1947, the United States government enacted the National Security Act to establish the Intelligence Community. The Intelligence Community conducts cyber intelligence, counterterrorism, counterproliferation, and counterintelligence operations to deter threats posed by state and non-state actors challenging U.S. national security and interests worldwide. 

The Intelligence Community utilizes strategic and anticipatory intelligence to support current operations. It comprises several branches, but the two most popular are the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI). The CIA has no law enforcement function, whereas the FBI does. This means that CIA agents do not arrest citizens whereas FBI agents do. The CIA collects and analyzes information from foreign nations while the FBI investigates the actions of American citizens in the United States. After September 2001, the government extended the FBI jurisdiction to authorize its agents to conduct covert operations and assist foreign governments in investigations of which the United States or American citizens may be a party. For both the CIA and the FBI to get involved, the intelligence to be collected must be vital to the formation of U.S. policy, particularly in areas that impact the security of the nation.

Let me explain to you more straightforwardly. The CIA has jurisdiction outside the United States, whereas the FBI has jurisdiction inside the United States. Therefore, the CIA does not spy on American citizens, and the FBI does not spy on foreign nations and their citizens even if they are operating in the United States unless the actions they committed or are about to commit violate the American constitution or federal laws. 

Let’s go over these following examples to drive the point home. 

Say that the United States learns that Iran is planning to conduct an attack on the U.S embassy in Jerusalem. The CIA would deploy covert operations either in Iran or Israel to collect and analyze intelligence to establish their authenticity and accuracy. If they are, the CIA would apply random anti-terrorism measures to protect the embassy, or ultimately, counterterrorism actions to deter the attack. 

Let’s take another example. Let’s say that the United States learns that a group of Afghan migrants living in California is laundering money to ISIS or Boko Haram. That falls directly under the jurisdiction of the FBI, who at that point, will adopt measures to investigate the Afghan migrants. 

Let’s see this example: The United States learns that the Russian government is sending three citizens to the United States to infiltrate and disrupt American airport operations. The CIA would do anything necessary to prevent these citizens from entering the United States. However, if the CIA fails to prevent the Russian citizens from enter the United States, guess who has the authority to investigate them: Good job, it is the FBI. 

Now, let me tell you about the extended mission of the FBI. To make you understand, I will examine two situations. 

For the first example, let’s consider Joe, who committed a crime in New York and fled to Texas. After you listen to this example, you will make sense of the posters you see almost everyday on TV “FBI most wanted.” In theory, homicides are investigated by state police departments, but because Joe crossed state lines, the New-York police state department no longer has jurisdiction. Therefore, the FBI will take over the investigations because Joe is no longer in the state he commîted his crime. 

For the second example. Let’s consider Mona who owns and operates a business with branches in New-York, Wisconsin, and North Dakota but the headquarters is in Pennsylvania. Suppose the Branch Manager in Wisconsin was assassinated, and rumors were that Mona could be behind the assassination. In that instance, Wisconsin’s State police department may initiate the investigation for finding and discovery. However, the Pennsylvania State Police Department would not have the authority to investigate Mona. The FBI would have such power and a federal court will hear and resolve the case. Practically, the FBI and federal courts have jurisdiction over infractions that involve citizens living in two states or more or citizens who had crossed state lines. 

To recap, the National Security Act of 1947 established the Intelligence Community to conduct intelligence operations to deter threats to US national security on foreign nations and citizens living in the US. The CIA and FBI are both members of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The CIA is prohibited from collecting intelligence regarding “U.S. Persons,” The National Security Act defines “US Persons” as U.S. citizens, resident aliens, legal immigrants, and U.S. corporations, regardless of where they are located. The FBI also has an extended jurisdiction meaning it investigates interstate violations even when such infractions do not directly pose any threat to the country’s national or homeland security.