Post 2: Guilty vs. Innocent

         Believe it or not, there are a good handful of people in this country who have been convicted and sentenced to death row when they should’ve have. In cases like the Larry Griffin case, found “guilty” of killing drug dealer Quintin Moss, he was sentenced to death row when he damned well shouldn’t have been (Herbert). This puts our judicial system to shame. Let’s define the word justice according to dictionary.com, justice means the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness. The judicial system accusing the wrong person of a crime, makes them wrong, not right.

         Like any other working field, there will be flaws. It is what it is. There’s not much that can be changed to prevent flaws in this sentence for the future. But the judicial system needs to stop accusing people just to get the case over with and announce they’ve reached “justice”. Maybe another reason why this happens is because it’s an honest mistake. This could be another reason why some are against death row. But again, there will be faults in every field America runs.

         It truly is a shame that this happens within our judicial system. It only causes problems later when it’s too late after he’s already been executed. It involves compensation to the convicted’s family, going back to the suspect list, etc. Why not do it right to begin with to really serve justice the first time and save the work later? I may never understand.

Herbert, Bob. "Convicted, Executed, Not Guilty." NY Times. (2005): n. page. Web. 27 Oct. 2012. .

Post 1: Morality

The death penalty is a legal process where a criminal is put to death by the state as punishment for the crime. This always seems to be up for debate because many people think it is immoral to perform this while others think it’s fair. This action is dated back to when America was only the 13 original colonies. Today, some states allow it while others do not. It is this very issue that ignites the controversy between whether doing such an action is acceptable or if it is condemned. Morality is thus the major debate in this political action.

From one side, specifically News Times, there is nothing wrong with the death penalty. Aaron Atwood, who wrote this article for them, defends this judicial action by talking about how people use the Commandment “Thou shalt not kill” as part of their defense on why the death penalty shouldn’t exist. But in reality, it is clear that the Commandment should’ve said ‘murder’ instead of kill. Kill is along the lines of killing prey for food, killing in self-defense, etc. Some people look down upon the death penalty because they think it’s just flat out wrong to kill people, like two wrongs making a right. But others, like myself, look at it as fair. When people murder others, isn’t it only fair that they should die too? It’s necessary.

With the morality of this issue, it can swing both ways; it’s a very strong liberal vs. conservative argument. This punishment dates back a very, very long time ago to the 5^th century BC in Europe (Death Penalty Information Center) and since we could call this country America. I, personally, tend to have conservative views so I believe “why should things change?” We’ve been handling crimes and punishment this way for a while, there’s no reason why it should change.

"End the Death Penalty Now!." Michigan State University. N.p.. Web. 27 Oct 2012. .

"Introduction to Death Penalty." Death Penalty Information Center. N.p.. Web. 27 Oct 2012.