http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/opinion/01barr.html
This article presents a very anti-death penalty stance following a specific trial that was going through the court system. The author, Bob Barr, was a former member of the House of Representatives and also served in the Northern District of Columbia as an attorney, and now works as an Op-Ed writer for the New York times. These credentials show he is clearly experienced and credible in the context of law, however since he was one of the very men involved in the case, he may have some bias. From his legal point of view he believes the ideals placed by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, a law he "helped write when [he] was in Congress.," are being abused by the Gerogia government. He believes simply reading the affidavitsis of Troy Davis' case is not enough and "only a hearing where witnesses are subject to cross-examination will put this case to rest." He is hoping to end this abuse of power to bring credibility back into the judiciary system.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Monday, October 10, 2011
Opposing Viewpoints #1 The Death Penalty
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/20/death.penalty/index.html
Bill Maers of CNN wrote this article on the inefficiancy of the death penalty economically. According to Maers, states are chosing to execute less and less people solely because of the economical stress it causes on the state. It costs about $130 million a year to keep the death penalty running, and is therefore very unrealistic for most states. He also states that it is an unpopular option, as only 1% of 500 police officers polled agreed with the action. A lot of states are ignoring the verdict given by the courts, possibly due to a moral conflict as Maers implies that the death peanlty is a morally wrong process. Really, he believes that states are intentionally slowing down the execution process and a death penalty is turning into a more expensive form of a "life without parole" because of the moral and economical concerns it imposes on those executing the process.
Bill Maers of CNN wrote this article on the inefficiancy of the death penalty economically. According to Maers, states are chosing to execute less and less people solely because of the economical stress it causes on the state. It costs about $130 million a year to keep the death penalty running, and is therefore very unrealistic for most states. He also states that it is an unpopular option, as only 1% of 500 police officers polled agreed with the action. A lot of states are ignoring the verdict given by the courts, possibly due to a moral conflict as Maers implies that the death peanlty is a morally wrong process. Really, he believes that states are intentionally slowing down the execution process and a death penalty is turning into a more expensive form of a "life without parole" because of the moral and economical concerns it imposes on those executing the process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)