The argument of whether or not the death penalty should be abolished in the United States is a controversial and widely discussed issue. There are currently nineteen states that have abolished this form of punishment. While some believe it can be useful in deterring crime in society, others believe it is a cruel form of punishment. The use of the death penalty in the United States is an important issue that affects nearly every member of society, especially criminal justice officials and the American public. While the deterrent effect of the punishment is significant, it is important to remember that there will always be crime and disorder, and there are other punishments that are more effective than the death penalty. Overall, the use of the death penalty is expensive, unjust, and cruel. The Research Exigence that will be discussed in this paper is: How does the death penalty serve as an ineffective form of punishment in the United States, and why should this punishment be abolished? My solution to this problem would be to determine which punishments are just as effective, but less permanent than the death penalty.  

 I am interested in this issue because I am considering choosing criminal justice for my major, and many issues within the criminal justice system are interesting. Overall, the Research Exigence does not necessarily change my point of view about the issue, however it is always interesting to explore new ways of thinking and consider how others may view the same issue in a different perspective. While I do not have a lot of experience regarding this issue, I plan on including research from both sides of the topic to show differing opinions on the topic. I also plan on making sure to include several sources so that I have enough information and evidence to support the exigence. I chose the topic because it is an issue that I find relevant to our society today, and is not a topic that many people our age discuss. 

The article, "It's Time to Abolish the Death Penalty" by Sean McElwee explains that the death penalty is ineffective because it is racially biased, and sentences innocent people. McElwee supports this through a study which found that "if the victim is white, the defendant is 11 times more likely to receive the death penalty than if the victim is black" (McElwee). The author also explains the frequency of wrongful convictions by explaining that in Alabama, "there has been one exoneration for every five executions" (McElwee). Finally, McElwee discusses that the death penalty does not align with the motives of the criminal justice system, and mentions that the purpose of the death penalty is more closely linked to issues such as institutionalized revenge, emotional closure, racial violence, and monetary costs. The author of this article values other forms of punishment, as he believes the death penalty is unnecessary. McElwee is a researcher and writer for the Huffington Post and his work has been featured in The Rolling Stone and The Atlantic. Since he is a researcher, he understands the importance of finding evidence to support his claims, which increases his credibility as a writer. However, in this article, the author does not form a counter-argument, which shows his bias towards the issue. Also, he does not have a lot of experience within the criminal justice system. 

The second source, "Does Death Penalty Save Lives? A New Debate" by Adam Liptak mentions that the death penalty has a strong deterrent effect on society. Liptak supports this claim by describing several studies. For example, studies have found that "for each inmate put to death, 3 to 18 murders are prevented" (Liptak). The studies also show how the murder rate has changed over time. The author recognizes that the studies have been subject to criticism because economists and legal scholars sometimes disagree about how accurate the data is. The author is a lawyer who graduated from Yale University, and continues to study differences between the United States legal system and the legal system of other countries. The fact that he is a lawyer now improves his credibility because it shows his knowledge on the subject, as well as his experience with criminals. There is not a lot of bias surrounding the article, however since the author is a lawyer, his experience with his clients might contribute to his opinion of the death penalty.

 In the article, "With death penalty, let punishment truly fit the crime" by Robert Blecker, the author explains that the use of lethal injection should be abolished because it is unconstitutional. Blecker explains that "lethal injection conflates punishment with medicine," and it doesn't make sense to use medicine in a way to harm others, when it has provided so many great advancements in society (Blecker). Blecker is a graduate of Harvard, and has a lot of experience with the criminal justice system. The author has spent thirteen years interviewing convicted killers, and twenty-five years observing the death penalty and life in prison. However, this experience could contribute to some bias. Blecker may be more sympathetic to those in jail and prison, and less likely to support the death penalty, as he has met with criminals first hand, and heard their struggles.   

The Research Exigence is arguable because there are several examples which prove that the death penalty is an ineffective form of punishment. As shown in the sources, the death penalty sentences innocent people, and is unjust. It is an issue that can be solved because it has many sources and information on the topic, and has many different views on the issue. The first and third articles are similar in that both agree that the death penalty is unjust, and should be abolished. The second article is an opposing source, which explains why the death penalty is useful in society. This source is important because it shows a different view that some may have about the death penalty. I found the second article interesting, because it goes against my own opinions regarding the death penalty. It was interesting to read about why some people support the punishment, and I think the deterrent effect is a strong argument. In order to address the issue more thoroughly, it might be beneficial to narrow the exigence to only one question, so that the paper is more organized. 

