Those against the death penalty believe this act to be depraved and non-productive, supporters of capital punishment have found this to be cost effective and a morally correct deterrent of future murders.  The executions of these defendants for monstrous murders is the only acceptable form of punishment.  Amendment VIII states that: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."  Opponents believe that taking another person's life, "by government or an individual, is by definition cruel and unusual" (Sullivan).  But, in the United States, people have started to question when punishment becomes cruel or unusual.  In order to learn more about my topic and answer my research question, I started reading online news articles and peer-reviewed sources from my Universities library database.  I tried to find sources that were more informative, instead of argumentative to learn versus hearing a bias.  Pointing out flaws in the justice system has weighed against capital punishment.  What people have not been clearly exposed to is the results of studies conducted over the last couple years arguing whether the death penalty actually stops murder.  The research said yes.

For my first source, I pulled an online article from The New York Times titled "Death Penalty Foes Split Over Taking Issue to Supreme Court."  The central claim of this source was the divide between keeping the death penalty and doing away with it being "partly generational."  Evidence showed that veterans have been going to court in favor of the progressive strategy that has been in action for hundreds of years.  Younger activists are trying to end capital punishment nationwide right away.  The major interest of this article was finding the divide between the people for and against the death penalty was generational and the younger generation wanted to do away with it.  Governors and courts have proposed a temporary halt, and the number of death sentences and executions continues to drop (Liptak).  Both sides have looked to history for help, but have drawn different conclusions.  The author, Adam Liptak, is an American journalist, lawyer and instructor in law and journalism.  He is the Supreme Court correspondent for The New York Times.  I believe this source is extremely credible because it was published in The New York Times and the author has a background in law, as well as journalism.  

My second source also came from The New York Times and was titled "New Jersey's Death Penalty: Fair or Fake?"  The central claim of this article was the state of New Jersey overturning every death sentence appealed to their court system.  Some prosecutors and lawyers have praised the court for narrowing the definition of crimes and circumstances that would require a death sentence.  When the law was made, it included certain terms describing the types of crimes that defendants could be subject to the death penalty.  This allowed individual interpretation by prosecutors.  My biggest interest about this article is how the death penalty is handled differently from state to state  --  mainly with individual interpretation of the crimes committed.  All around, I think there needs to be more of a standard way of interpretation across the United States of terms and criteria to sentence the defendant.  I believe this source is credible because it was again, published in The New York Times and the author, Joseph Sullivan, was a former New Jersey bureau chief for The New York Times and a political reporter.  

My last source came from CBS News titled "Death Penalty Deters Murders, Studies Say."  Anti-death penalty parties have come to the surface more than ever before in the last couple years.  Pointing out flaws in the justice system has weighed against capital punishment.  What people have not been clearly exposed to is the results of studies conducted over the last couple years arguing whether the death penalty actually stops murder.  New Jersey's commission on the death penalty dismissed the research on deterrence as "inconclusive," but I would use this source to spread this information to a wider audience to prove that science did really draw a conclusion.  The death penalty is used as the ultimate warning for criminals and a lot of them are much less inclined to commit any and all crimes.  I believe this source is credible because it was published to CBS News and the author, Sean Alfano, was an associate producer for CBS News.

This research question is easily arguable because it is such a controversial topic.  I could start by researching the positives and negatives of capital punishment, and then move on to argue my opinion of the subject.  I have already found in my sources that people who are for and against the death penalty are partly generational.  Also, that people of the United States are mostly being pointing out the flaws in the justice system and that has weighed against capital punishment.  What people have not been clearly exposed to is the results of studies conducted arguing whether the death penalty actually stops murder.  The different perspectives effect my own because even though I am pro-death penalty, I agree with statements from people who are against it.  While opinions from the opposing side and interesting, factual evidence from my side make my argument to why we need to keep capital punishment a lot easier.

