Death Penalty in the US: Yay or Nay?

 The topic of death penalty in America has always been a heated topic; whether or not to have it. In the US now, 37 states have the death penalty, while the other 13 and the District of Columbia do not.(Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin) There are also currently five different methods of execution: Lethal Injection, Electrocution, Lethal Gas, Firing Squad, and Hanging. The death penalty, or capital punishment, is the sentence of death upon a person by judicial process as punishment for committing a capital offense, which include murder, rape, armed robbery and drug trafficking.


The supporters of capital punishment seem to argue that the death penalty should be kept in order to prevent any danger of re-offending and as a means of retribution, " eye for an eye" lets say. The victim who suffered cannot be brought back to life by no means. They say that the criminal should pay with their life and it evens out the situation. By executing the criminal, it also gives closure to the victim's families who have suffered so much. Prisoner parole or escapes can give criminals another chance to kill. It would be a terrible thing if the prisoner was set free and the same thing happened again. This can be avoided simply by executing the prisoner.




"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Mahatma Gandhi


Death Penalty Information Center

There are those that believe that there should not be capital punishment in America. They ground their reasoning on several factors, one of which they say is that there is in fact no evidence of a deterrent effect. "The Daily Titan" says that "According to a survey conducted in 2009 of the former and present presidents of the country’s academic criminological societies, 88 percent of these experts disagreed with the notion that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder."* Inmates on death row go through a long and arduous process lasting a number of years, if not decades after the crime had been committed. This process is way too long and and costly. The same article states "The 2010 FBI Uniform Crime Report showed that the South had the highest murder rate, while it accounts for over 80 percent of executions. All the while the Northeast, which has less than 1 percent of all executions, tied with the West for the lowest murder rate."* These figures are frightening. Why do the non death penalty states have lower crime rates? Could it be true that capital punishment truly does not deter the murder?  Community policing and new technologies that focus on high crime areas, are alternative methods that are proactive instead of reactive like the death penalty.  It costs more to kill death row inmates than to have them serve life without parole. Instead of spending millions of dollars on one execution, it is more useful to take that money and put it to better use by hiring more police officers. It seems right to just have the death penalty abolished.

FACTS
*The 2010 FBI Uniform Crime Report showed that the South had the highest murder rate, while it accounts for over 80 percent of executions. All the while the Northeast, which has less than 1 percent of all executions, tied with the West for the lowest murder rate.
*California has more inmates on death row than any other state - 721
* China leads the world in executions - with thousands killed in 2010, according to Amnesty International.

SOURCES 
*The Daily Titan
*Death Penalty Debate
*The Guardian
*Balanced Politics

Energy Crisis in America

 

The United States today is facing a major energy crisis. The country has been dependent on foreign oil for a long time. If the US does not find a solution to this problem soon, the country will face serious problems. Other than oil, the US also uses coal and natural gas, which are other types of fossil fuels. The fact of the matter is that although these resources are available now, will they always be there? The clear answer is no. The natural resources of the earth are finite, and so the US should look into getting energy from a different source. The solution for this is for the US to turn to "green" energy.



Some believe that investing in green is too expensive and is not worth it, and that the actual solution is a thing called "fracking". Fracking, also formally knows as "hydraulic fracturing", is the process of drilling down and creating tiny explosions to shatter and crack hard shale rocks to release the gas inside. It is said that with fracking the US would have plenty of energy to last for quite a period of time, and it would bring a boom to the economy. Although this is true, fracking does bring its consequences. The main problem seems to be water contamination. The residents that live near fracking sites are at risk of having their water contaminated by dangerous chemicals, and that can bring the people serious health problems. A statistic from the PA DEP states that "with 2100 wells being drilled, they had handed out over 500 fine notices for unsafe circumstances at well sites."* If that is the case, many of these operations are not even safe. Another source states that fracking could have even caused the earthquake in the east coast this past summer;"When sites are subjected to fracking, waste salt water is injected back into the earth once fractures are created; in some cases, as many as 3 million gallons of the waste can be put into the earth in each well."** Now ask yourself: how safe really is fracking?



Green energy is not only not dangerous, but it is a source of energy that in the long run will last a lot longer than fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are limited and will not be on earth forever. The US should look into investing in solar panels, wind turbines, etc. According to "The Guardian, "Subsidies to renewable energy, such as wind power, can help correct the distortions in the energy market and allow the world to climb the learning curve for renewable forms of energy. This brings major expansion of production and reduction in unit costs, which benefit everyone economically, including US consumers, while also saving the planet."*** Countries around the world are already turning to green energy, each at a different pace than others. If the US really starts dashing out an effort to bring green forms of energy, then other countries will "follow the leader" and less fossil fuels will eventually be consumed. That will also help the environment, because these energy sources do not emit any harmful gases or toxins to the air. The road to a greener America may seem too distant , but it will eventually save us from this crisis and will prove more efficient and safer than fracking and other methods of getting energy.

FACTS
* A statistic from the PA DEP states that "with 2100 wells being drilled, they had handed out over 500 fine notices for unsafe circumstances at well sites."
*  "When sites are subjected to fracking, waste salt water is injected back into the earth once fractures are created; in some cases, as many as 3 million gallons of the waste can be put into the earth in each well."
*The World Bank's 2010 world development report reckons that fossil fuel subsidies amount to at least $300bn per year.

SOURCES
* http://www.pressconnects.com/article/20101026/VIEWPOINTS02/10260355/How-Dangerous-Fracking-
** http://rt.com/usa/news/fracking-earthquake-virginia-dc-817-061/
*** http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jan/06/china-renewableenergy