This particular question is interesting because it proposes a lot of questions towards the human race. How far do we need to go to determine justice? What is fair and is there a textbook definition of how everyone should be treated despite their actions or past? The death penalty is a topic that reveals the morals of individuals. It shows what the human race believes is the limit of unforgivable evilness.  Having made many mistakes in my life, I understand the concept of forgiveness and mercy. No matter how terrible of an act I commit, my family will always love and support me. The death penalty goes against this by saying if a certain level of ruthless behavior of achieved, then the penalty of death should be warranted. This effects my values due to my religion and the way I was raised. I've always believed that no matter how evil someone is, it is not for mankind to determine if they deserve to die. Although I don't personally know anyone who was put on death row, I was good friends with someone who lost a family member in the Charleston shooting. There are some people who find joy in being evil and they can be seen as violent threats. However, showing mercy is what separates the kind hearted people from the evil. Revenge may be tempting but doing the hard thing is sometimes the best thing. I am qualified to write about this because I have researched both sides of the debate and the neutral standpoint. Instead of focusing on one single story, I have analyzed a collection of stories and picked a side that I felt was the most fair.

Mary Meehan claims that the death penalty riddled with many flaws that stir too much controversy. She says that there are occasional mistakes when innocent people are killed, racial and economic discrimination is present, and the application of it is too arbitrary. Meehan also gets into the morals of the death penalty saying everyone deserves to live, the penalty goes against many religions, and how doctors are involved in killing when they are supposed to be saving lives. This article has many values and interests because it touches on all aspects of why the death penalty should be abolished. It goes into economic and societal impact, human and moral impact, and the controversy and division of groups across the nation. Mary Meehan speaks on several people issues and controversial topics. America Magazine is not a popular as Time or CNN, and provides a small amount of doubt towards its credibility due to the structure of the website. It seems more like a blog where anyone can voice their opinion rather than needing to prove if they are worthy of speaking on the subject.

Tracy Dye gives a diverse list of reasons why the death penalty should be abolished. She says it is far too expensive for our economy and that punishment is too cruel. Dye also uses inspirational leader Ghandi to support her claim that this penalty displays moral hypocrisy.  One of the key points Dye expounds on is the morals of the death penalty. She believes that not only is it wrong for mankind to decide on criminal's life, but the way they are killing them is cruel and unusual. One reason Listland is a credible source is because it is not an entire website that is biased. If the website were called something like "Against the Death Penalty Foundation", then one could assume that the articles within the website could be desperate to get people to join their side, and bend the truth and facts used in their article. Tracy Dye however seems like she is not the best expert on the death penalty since she is a freelance writer who like humor.

This Article by Mark Berman is a secondary source because he simply writes what Pope Francis says about the death penalty. Berman talks about of Francis was against the death penalty because everyone deserves the right to live. Berman not only captures the speaker but the audience's applauses and reactions. This shows that there is large amount of support for these speakers who oppose the death penalty. This article also gave the nation's current stance on this issue claiming that while the majority of individuals support of the death penalty, the opposing group is growing. Some of the major values of this article is not what Pope Francis said, but how certain groups reacted to what he said. The church was opposed to him, showing that even the holy people believe there is a price to pay. The four Supreme Court justices were not emotionally moved by Pope Francis' speech, showing they may not care for abolishing the death penalty. Mark Berman simply covers the national news, so he does not typically write biased articles. The Washington Post is a very popular and credible news site so one can assume this article is credible as well.

This research question is arguable because not only could people disagree with abolishing the penalty, but they could argue against the reasons it should be abolished. For instance, some might say the punishments are cruel while others might have done research that go against that claim. People argue that the death penalty is too arbitrary because some murderers get put in common prison while others are put on death row. This has people wondering if some lives are valued over others. When people start speculating this theory, they often get into the race debate. The race debates affect me personally because I am a minority. I don't plan on doing anything that would get me the death penalty, but I am aware that there is a chance I won't be given the benefit of the doubt if I ever get in front of the judge. I personally don't think the court system is racist, but not every judge is the same so I am always cautious. My research question is too simplistic of a question but I like how it is open ended.

