Response to Catherine

I think a flaw in this question is in the use of the word fear. I do not think society should want to make people fear the law, but should instead teach people why the law is important so they make the choice to obey it. I think this is a good question that is largely asking whether people can change or if the old dog cannot be taught any new tricks. I do think people are capable of change, even if they have done something worthy of time spent in prison. A major problem becomes whether change is truly an option to many former prisoners. Having been in prison greatly reduces the chances of getting hired and many people who try to change are likely to return to crime because they were unable to succeed otherwise. I do not mean that people coming out of jail have no opportunities, but they are greatly reduced and it is likely incredibly frustrating to attempt to change one’s life in front of so many obstacles. Many prisoners are also poor and underprivileged so would have had trouble securing profitable work in the first place. If prisoners are expected to be reformed then they need the opportunity to do so when they return to the work place. Tulane University has a program that helps prisoners when they leave prison to re-integrate and find work in society. According to a study listed on their webpage, “During the first year, the time when most inmates return to crime, the program intervention maintains an 89.3% success rate, with only one in ten program graduates returning to crime.” This study shows that people can and will change when they are given the chance and can stop breaking the law even at an older age, although I do not know the ages of the prisoners they are certainly legal adults. This site is linked here: http://www.projectreturn.com/index.php?name=organization_history

This example may be more of an exception then a rule though. The text The Philosophy and Practice of Corrections by Marilyn D. McShane looked at prison studies and their abilities to rehabilitate. She found that “only 20 (45%) of the 44 controlled studies were effective. Twenty effective programs in 21 years indicates that effective programs are truly exceptional.”

That book can be found on google books here: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DAqMFoiTcR8C&oi=fnd&pg=PA45&dq=prison+rehabilitation+programs&ots=KXBczs75lb&sig=MsBhqYCX7LmxGocZjV8zk6Un54s#v=onepage&q=prison%20rehabilitation%20programs&f=false

What should be the goal of prisons (reform, punishment)?

CEOs

                When CEO’s utilize the advantages of their position to increase their level of pay they are undermining the very business that provided them with their already very lucrative position. In cases where CEOs are sitting in on their own compensation committees, they have an opportunity to prove their own ethical foundation by doing what is best for the company and other employees rather than thinking simply of themselves. This is especially true if the company is in a position where they need to consider layoffs. Of course, it would make more sense not to necessitate a decision like this and to keep CEOs out of discussions of their pay, but when it happens people should be aware of and consider the ethical implications. Ethics in business, especially in the higher echelons, may seem like an ideal that is not reachable in reality but there are certainly cases of ethically responsible CEO’s. An example is Jim Sturgess who is CEO of Costco. His pay is particularly surprising, “But the most remarkable thing about Sinegal is his salary -- $350,000 a year, a fraction of the millions most large corporate CEOs make.” This is a corporation that does very well but does not pay its CEO and exorbitant amount and pays its employees well. It is a case showing that ethics and big business do not have to be incompatible. The article this quote is taken from is linked below:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Business/story?id=1362779

Response to Cameron on Procrastination

Procrastination is rarely a good thing, but I think it can have some positive outcomes if looked at in a certain way. Procrastination is a warning sign that someone does not like what they are supposed to be doing. If a person is procrastinating on an activity that they used to enjoy, then they can use their wanting to procrastinate as a reason to look into what has been bothering them about that activity. For example, if a friend wants to spend a day with me and I keep putting it off then there is something about this friend that is bothering me. Now that my procrastination over spending time with them has let me know that something is bothering me I can figure out what it is. If it is something simple like they talk about their boyfriend so much that I feel frustrated then I can talk to them about that and resolve the issue. My pushing off spending time let me know that something was wrong. Constant procrastination in a lot of different things could be a sign that you are unhappy where you are and it is time to either figure out what originally inspired you and try to reestablish that or to move on and find something new.  
Should procrastination be viewed as a negative quality in a person, as a sign that they may need some lifestyle changes or neither?