Capital Punishment
Summary of the article
The article discussed about the view for and against death penalty. The writers provided basic information on the situation of death penalty in the United States. They cited that about two thousand convicts are awaiting their turns at the death chambers. According to the writers, those who favored death penalty argued that capital punishment bring about the greatest balance between good and evil. This group claimed that capital punishment benefits society as it is crime deterrents and it insured that a convicted criminal cannot anymore commit again a crime of murder. On the other hand, Andre and Vasquez (1988) stated that those against it claimed that it is a of wastes lives (par. 10). This group according to the authors, contend that death penalty harms the society by cheapening the value of life (par. 12). In the end, the writers leave the open for anyones judgment.
Evaluation of the quality of the information of the source
The quality of information is weak because it was obviously not a product of thorough research and analysis of the arguments for and against death penalty. The writers did not cite any appropriate sources allowing the paper to be merely a collection of the views for and against death penalty. It seemed that the authors simply intended to summarize both views for and against and let the readers form their own opinion on the issue of death penalty.
Bonner, R. Fessenden, F. (2000) With No Death Penalty Share Lower Homicide Rates HYPERLINK httpwww.nytimes.com20000922usabsence-executions-special-report-states-with-no-death-penalty-share-lower.html httpwww.nytimes.com20000922usabsence-executions-special-report-states-with-no-death-penalty-share-lower.html
Summary of the article
This article written by Bonner and Fessenden (2000) was against the death penalty with the authors asserting that ten of twelve states that have no death penalty have homicide rates below the national average (par. 2) reflected in the Federal Bureau of Investigation data. The authors proved that death penalty is not a solution to heinous crimes stating legal opinions and crimes statistics. The writers demonstrated their anti-capital punishment opinion by citing scores of statements from qualified individuals such as district attorneys, state prosecutors, and state governors who were all anti death penalty. The main points cited by Bonner and Fessenden were that, death penalty was in effective in solving heinous crimes and it is costly it is not crime deterrent but is a violent retribution on the crimes committed. Finally, the writers demonstrated that life imprisonment without parole is equally punitive as the death penalty.
Evaluation of the information of the source
The information contained in the article was obviously a product of careful research as the authors cited various competent sources to support their argument. However, closer analysis of the information reveals that all the information used by the writers were from the states that have no death penalty. In other words, the choices of the sources of information were biased because they are expected to say what they have stated in view of their anti death penalty stand.
Volpe, T. Capital Punishment Does Death Equal Justice
HYPERLINK httpwww.jmu.eduevisionarchivevolume2essaysvolpe.html httpwww.jmu.eduevisionarchivevolume2essaysvolpe.html
This article provides a very strong argument against death penalty. The author clearly and straightforwardly laid out his arguments citing the capital punishment had not done any better with those states that implement death penalty. He cited that death penalty is done in private and therefore it failed to convey its message to would be criminals. Volpe built his arguments around the possibility of executing innocent individuals and huge cost state killing of convicted criminals.
Evaluation of the information of the source
The quality of information provided by Volpe is a good one because they were obviously based on qualified sources. Though she was anti-death penalty, yet her sources of information are fair and credible and were based on actual cases. Indeed, she was more objective in her opinion though straightforward in her arguments as she is obviously aware of the pros and cons on the issue of capital punishment.
Does the Death Penalty Cost less than Life in Prison without Parole Death Penalty ProCon.org
HYPERLINK httpdeathpenalty.procon.orgviewanswers.aspquestionID001000 httpdeathpenalty.procon.orgviewanswers.aspquestionID001000
Article Summary
This article was a debate whether death penalty cost less than life in prison without parole. The article was neither for nor against, but it categorically admits that the trial in the hearing for death penalty is three to five times longer than life with out parole (LWOP). The article nullified the argument that death penalty hearing is 3 to 5 times more expensive than LWOP hearing citing GAO report that there were no clear studies attesting such claim.
Evaluation of the information of the source
Some of the information contained in the article was somehow reliable as they were based on independent government agency such as the Office of Legislative Research for the Connecticut General Assembly and the US Government Accountability Office (GAO). But on the individuals who shared their opinion, they were of course based on subjective information in support of their stand against death penalty.
Death Penalty Overview Ten Reasons Why Capital Punishment is Flawed Public Policy National coalition to abolish the death penalty
HYPERLINK httpwww.ncadp.orgindex.cfmcontent5 httpwww.ncadp.orgindex.cfmcontent5
Article summary
This article was an argument against death penalty. It cited ten points that established the basis for the abolition of capital punishment stating reasons such as costs amounting to hundred millions dollars, failed crime deterrent, wrongful execution of innocent individuals, and so on. The site presented the number of convicts in the death row of various states with Carolina topping the list with 667 followed by Florida with 397 convicts, and New Jersey having zero inmates in death row.
Evaluation of the information of the source
The Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. and the death penalty year end report. The information sources of information of this article were reports mostly published by government agencies dealing with the issue on death penalty such as the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the NAACP Legal stated is therefore factual and reliable. However, it was subjectively used to support anti- death penalty claim
Reasons Against Capital Punishment (Death Penalty) Buzzle.com
HYPERLINK httpwww.buzzle.comarticlesreasons-against-capital-punishment-death-penalty.html httpwww.buzzle.comarticlesreasons-against-capital-punishment-death-penalty.html
Summary of the article
The article contained information against the death penalty though the article recognized the debate going on. The writer cited the history of death penalty tracing its early use in the Hebrew Scriptures which were intended for those who indulged in practice of a different religion, in extra marital affairs, blasphemy and so forth. The article then discussed eight reasons against death penalty which include rights, possibility of error, unfair judgment and so forth.
Evaluation of the information of the source
The source of information for this paper is not clear although it cited some facts about the issue of death penalty, such as the different types of types of death penalty. The paper was obviously intended to shed light on the issue of death penalty on the types of audience whose level of understanding is low. The paper is therefore weak in terms of information source.
Nishan, K. Death Penalty An Issue for Debate
HYPERLINK httpwww.associatedcontent.comarticle1513906death_penalty_an_issue_for_debate.htmlcat17 httpwww.associatedcontent.comarticle1513906death_penalty_an_issue_for_debate.htmlcat17
Article summary
The article was about the issue of death penalty in India in which the writer stated the Indian penal code provides death penalty for criminal conspiracy. The author however cited that capital punishment is discretionary rather than mandatory (Nishan 2009, par. 1). Nishan stated that government adopted a position that death penalty is a crime deterrent but adds that statistic disproves this claim. Nevertheless, Nishan says death penalty does not violate the Indian Constitution. (p. 2, par. 4).
Evaluation of the information of the source
The information cited by the author was mostly from government actions as well as inputs from the development on the issue of death penalty since the Indian independence in 1946. The information however was factual and it provides a sound idea what to do with the issue rather than merely arguing for or against it, stating the need to target the root of a crime (par. 6).
Gill, K. Pros and Cons of the Death Penalty (Capital Punishment)
HYPERLINK httpuspolitics.about.comoddeathpenaltyideath_penalty.htm httpuspolitics.about.comoddeathpenaltyideath_penalty.htm
Article summary
This article traced the developments of the implementations of death penalty in the United States since 1976 decision of the Supreme Court to reinstate death penalty, the government has already executed 1, 136 convicts as of 2008. However, the author noted the changing public attitude to death penalty, especially in the context of whether death penalty is crime deterrent or not. According to the author, the answer is no
Evaluation of the information of the source
The information presented in this article was based on notes on the developments on the implementations of death penalty. Mostly of these notes were from survey results, court decisions, and constitutional provisions and from actual cases of executions of convicts. In other words, the information presented in this article are valid and with quality because they were derived from qualified sources. The article may not be scholarly, but it is good quality.
LiptaK, A. (2007) Does Death Penalty Save Lives A new Debate
HYPERLINK httpwww.nytimes.com20071118us18deter.htmlpagewanted1_r1 httpwww.nytimes.com20071118us18deter.htmlpagewanted1_r1
Summary of the Article
The article was obviously pro death penalty as the author was convinced that capital punishment save lives. Liptak build his argument on the findings of some studies that per inmate put to death, 3 to 18 murders are prevented (par. 2). Liptak cited various distinguished individuals who advocated death penalty as deterrent to heinous crime. However, Liptak cited that limited number of convicted criminal executed limits the impacts of death penalty on criminals.
Evaluation of the information of the source
Most of the sources used by the author are studies and opinions of various scholars who are authorities in the field of economics and law. These intellectuals found the death penalty helps deter crimes and therefore in favor of the death penalty. Given the quality of the sources of information, there is no doubt the paper offers quality information. The article though, is fair and informative.
The Death Penalty Morally Defensible Coseys Critical Thinking
HYPERLINK httpwww.hoshuha.comarticlesdeathpenalty.html httpwww.hoshuha.comarticlesdeathpenalty.html
Summary of the article
This article is an argument in favor of death penalty. The writer argued that death penalty is a lawful, non-malicious killing (par. 8). The writer of the article argued answering point by point all the arguments of anti-death penalty advocates, claiming that death sentence is an easy go away of murder requiring only few seconds in contrast to the minutes, or hours and even days of excruciating pain of their victims.
Evaluation of the information of the source
The article was intended to answer the arguments posed by the anti-death penalty advocate against the execution of convicted criminals. Thus, it can be expected that most of the sources were the arguments posed against death penalty. Since the paper was a response to the challenge of the anti-death penalty, it could hardly be judge as quality or excellent paper. However, it is indeed a quality response paper.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment