 I articulated a research question looking at a few aspects of the death penalty. I want to ask if the laws that dictate the death penalty are effective, and if the methods used exact it are effective and humane. I also want to address this matter because I'm curious as to whether or not punishing people in this way helps keep crime rates down and reduce recidivism. In order to answer my research question, I will look at different statistics, such as crime rates in states/countries that implement the death penalty versus ones that don't, victims/families of victims who faced the death penalty, and public support. My general thesis is that the death penalty is not an effective or humane form of punishment and should be abolished.

The death penalty is something that I personally find interesting and am curious about. I have no personal experience regarding the death penalty, since no one I know has been subject to it, but I believe I'm qualified to write about this topic for a few reasons. For example, my initial interest in the law was sparked because my mom and older sister are both lawyers. I'm currently taking a criminal justice so I can further explore it, and one day I may go into a career with law just like my family. Also, I know that the death penalty goes against many people's personal beliefs and is a topic that receives a lot of attention. Many aspects of the death penalty are considered immoral and wrong, and while a lot of states have outlawed it there are a handful that have not. I'm curious as to why those decisions were made for one side versus the other and how killing another person is illegal but the death penalty which is basically same thing is allowed. All of these aspects together are what intrigue me and led me to write about the death penalty.

My first source "Is There a Biblical Basis for Capital Punishment" claims that the law wrongly uses the bible to support the death penalty, and that according to the bible the death penalty is not moral. This source is credible because the author, Anne B. Gardiner, was an English professor at John Jay College of the City University of New York and was published in a journal called the New Oxford Review. She uses major evidence throughout her article to support her claim by analyzing quotes from an Archbishop, bible verses, and an article with an opposing viewpoint titled "The Biblical Truth About America's Death Penalty". She also compares and contrasts court cases from ancient times to modern times in which the death penalty was used. A major value or interest at stake in this article is public opinion. She's very interested in the opinion of people who advocate for the death penalty and wants to sway their view. Another major value or interest at stake is religion because Gardiner's religious views are made clear, but lending her own personal beliefs leads to bias. This article can also be bias because the journal in which it was published, the New Oxford Review, is a magazine of Roman Catholic cultural and theological commentary. In whole, Gardiner has good points for how the death penalty is immoral. 

My second source, "The Changing Nature of the Death Penalty", makes the major claim that Americans' view on the death penalty is gradually changing and society is moving towards eventual abolition of capital punishment. This source is credible because the authors, Michael L. Radelet and Marian J. Borg, worked in the sociology department at the University of Florida and had this article published in an annual review of sociology, which shows knowledge of the subject. Major evidence provided in the article is statistics. There are polls about support for the death penalty from different time periods in various states. When comparing the results, there's a clear decline in support over time, so clearly public opinion is a value that's at stake. Also throughout the article, they focus on what it is that accounts for these patterns of change of support; they are interested in why the arguments for the death penalty change over time. The article may be biased because it's clear that the authors are against the death penalty, which could be why they are writing that public support is turning against it. Overall, this source serves as a good example for how public support for the death penalty in America is changing, and my next source talks about this claim in a wider retrospect.  

Lastly, I found a new source called "Why Do Countries Choose the Death Penalty?". The major claim made by this source is that the attitude regarding the death penalty has become increasingly critical over the past few decades, not just in America, but in many other countries too. The author, Carsten Anckar, is a professor of political science at a University in Finland and published this article very recently in the Brown Journal of World Affairs, which gives him credibility to write about this topic. The evidence this article uses to support the claim are studies that were conducted by researches to show death penalty usage at different points in time in different countries  --  we are even provided with tables of the results. These tables are provided to show us individual countries' values. Some countries believe highly in the effectiveness and use of the death penalty, while some do not, which shows that major values and interests that are at stake in this article are countries' beliefs and values, because the article talks about the relationship between this and the power of nations. This article is useful because it provides a global perspective on the attitudes of death penalty.

The death penalty's general purpose is to help keep crime rates down. Since my research question addresses whether or not punishing people in this way helps to keep crime rates down and reduce recidivism, it is arguable since people can argue that it doesn't achieve that. It also asks about the laws that dictate the death penalty and if they are effective, and if the methods used exact it are effective and humane. People can argue this point by saying the death penalty is a viable form of punishment. Since my thesis is that the death penalty is not an effective or humane form of punishment and should be abolished, I have found a few agreements within my sources that support it. For example, my previous two sources from Radelet and Borg and Anckar both claim that support for the death penalty has been decreasing over the past few years. This not only supports my thesis but shows relation between my sources since they have similar kairos. My first source from Gardiner addressed the death penalty in a different context by talking about the how the laws of enforcing the death penalty relate to the issue of religion. Although context slightly differed between my sources, they did not have disagreements or opposing viewpoints between each other. This relationship between my sources is important because if they can come to a point of stasis or agreement, then it's possible that the problem can be resolved or a conclusion can be reached. These perspectives and ideas shared in my sources affect my own because more elements come into play. I learned more about the death penalty in a biblical, social, and global sense. These aspects make me rethink my research question because I would like to pair down my research question and be able to fit all of these ideas into my project. 

