Growing up in a Christian home with strict and typically unreasonable parents, my family taught me values, forgiveness, and of course, the ten commandments. I followed, for the most part, their rules and what they had to say, but in my teenage years I began to resent them, like most teenagers do, for grounding me. To me, they were out of line for the punishment in the first place, but what really got me is that they were taking away part of my life that I couldn't get back. If I truly did something wrong, I understood the punishment, but most times they ended up apologizing for the punishment in the first place, seeing how I had no reason to be punished in the first place. Now, imagine if I traded my parents for a jury, and the punishment wasn't just being taken out of my life to reflect on what I've done, like jail, if you will, but the punishment was if I could ever be able to go back to life, even breathing, again, and they were wrong? 

Being falsely convicted isn't only one reason this research question interests me and affects my values, there are countless reasons why this punishment is ethically questionable and should be illegal. The entire principle of it is not justice, it's vengeful retaliation, with the ones implementing the punishment becoming the criminals themselves. Reparations to kill are still murders, making the systems thats supposed to protect us into a system that's allowed to kill us. It goes against my values to kill anyone, for any reason, and since I am a citizen of these United States which allows a punishment literally as deadly as the death penalty, with extensive experience with punishment, I have credibility to write on this topic. Not only that, I have the right under the constitution not just to write on this with free speech, but also the right to life, as does every criminal of this country, outlined by the document that started this great nation.

Matthew Green, author for KQED Education, an informative organization providing television, radio, digital media and educational services for the people of Northern California, addresses this question in his article, " Is the Death Penalty an Appropriate Form of Punishment?" He opens with a story about an Oklahoman who was on death row and then sentenced to death, a procedure meant to be quick and painless, which went wrong which caused him a slow and painful death. He then includes the opponents of the death penalty's arguments that execution is never justifiable, as well as how the the death penalty is inefficient and financially wasteful due to the number of appeals and costs of keeping prisoners on death row. Addressing the supporters arguments for it as well, he points out that some believe it's the only way justice is truly served, it deters future crimes, and the most  violent criminals deserve this sentence. The article ends with informing the readers how the United States is the only nation among western democracies still with the death penalty, listing the thousands on death row currently and the thousands killed already. Leaning towards applying more information and resources against the death penalty, and being part of a credible government site which works to publicly inform Californians to make decisions, a slight liberal bias against the death penalty can be inferred about the author by the reader. However, the site includes more sources on the topic to provide a vast expansion of knowledge and information for its readers, encouraging it's readers to comment and to address this matter on social media. The application of these extra reliable sources along with options to tweet this article and debate their views on the topic, this site develops a credible and effective outlet to address all major values and interests that surfaces in the readers mind from reading this article.

Amnesty International, an activist group advocating for the rights of all individuals around the world, informs their audience in the article "Know the Facts About Capital Punishment," about their claim that capital punishment not only doesn't work, but is also discriminatory, being used majorly against the poor, minorities, and ethnic and religious community members. The major interests and values addressed are how this punishment is used unfairly and is ineffective, especially with the costs that are necessary for this penalty to be a piece of the judicial system, along with the depleting american support for it. Amnesty International is extremely well known throughout the country and the world, working to provide assistance for those being deprived of human rights. As well as advocating in human rights laws to reform, Amnesty International can be seen as a liberal bias, but their actions are truly just to improve life for all, including those accused of crime. They present trends, facts, and countless pieces of evidence to show their credibility and knowledge to effectively argue against the death penalty. 

        In his article, "The Death Penalty: Morally Defensible?", Casey Carmical supports the punishment of the death penalty by disproving claims against it's morality with logic. He calls slogans against the death penalty "word games", drawing an analogy on how killing in defense is not murder, and neither is killing for punishment. He then continues to list evidence from statistics for violence decreasing, as well as incorporating the Constitution to expose the punishment's validity. Casey Carmical is a well known author who created a blog and collection of essays on topics such as the existence of God, abortion, evolution, Christian living and current events, which expose his somewhat cynical and conservative bias. He is credible from his research and knowledge, and also because of his Christian values and interests in questioning morality in most of his works. Carmical is just one perspective, and even though he is specialized in such and credible on writing on this subject, his bias depletes his argument which is based more so on twisting logic rather on supplying concrete facts and figures.

Laws and justice play crucial roles in society, but when the preservation of those two entities go from forcing a person to trade their life for one in a cage to trading their life for payment of a crime, a line is crossed. The hands that decide a future of a criminal to protect the public lie in the hands of a jury, but the life of a person, no matter how awful their past of how horrific their crime, lie in the hands of God. This point can be argued back and forth, from supporters of the death penalty saying it is justified by their crime, and stops these crimes from continuing on. Opponents can counter with it's inability to ever be justified, especially with its costliness, racial relativity, and inefficiency overall. However, all the sources were similar in agreeing that the question of death and who gets to inflict it is a question that can be argued and viewed in countless different ways. The perspectives of the sources tighten my own beliefs on the matter further, allowing me to acknowledge how my research question may be revised to connect to more aspects of the death penalty than just to it's ethicality, expanding to include how this penalty effects social norms and outlooks on life and death and general. 

