Journal 12

Illegal Immigration

http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints&prodId=OVIC&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=&documentId=GALE|EJ3010535218&mode=view

I think this can be a great topic to write about because it is so open ended. There are many different views on how to deal with the problem and so many questions to ask; should we send the illegal immigrants back to Mexico? Let them come in? Arrest them? How do keep illegal immigrants out (a giant wall?) How much money should the government spend? Should we try and stop illegal immigrants even though they have a large impact on our economy? And what should we do with illegal immigrants already set up in the country? There are so many different things to look at since there are so many different aspects and disagreements within the topic.

Net Neutrality

http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-101

Net neutrality is the principle that no internet user is restricted from viewing internet sites or using internet communication by an internet service provider or by the government. I think this is a good topic because the internet is something that is a pretty big part of all of our lives and a fairly new topic. If net neutrally is restricted, it may completely change how people use the internet and not make the internet a “free market” anymore.

Journal 11

Original:

Life in prison is seen as the alternative to the death penalty. It is used for crimes less than murder, such as drug charges or other violent offenses, in addition to murder cases. While it is believed that the death penalty is less expensive than putting someone in prison for life, it is not actually true. The death penalty costs state governments hundreds of millions of dollars more than life imprisonment. For death penalty verdicts, millions extra are spent on an expensive second trial, new witnesses, jury selections, and the actual execution process. Eliminating the 15 to 20 year appeals process would decrease costs, but that increases the chances of innocent people being executed, plus most of the costs of a death penalty case come from the trial and pre-trial. Compared to keeping a criminal in prison for life, putting them on death row is much more expensive.

Revised:

Life imprisonment is seen as the best alternative to the death penalty. People who commit murder or other serious crimes less severe than murder, such as major drug crimes or other violent offenses, can be sentenced to life in prison. Many proponents of the death penalty believe that keeping criminals in jail for life is more expensive than executing them, but the opposite is actually true. A death penalty costs state governments hundreds of millions of dollars more than life imprisonment sentence. For death penalty verdicts, millions extra are spent on an expensive second trial, new witnesses, jury selections, and the actual execution process. In Florida, keeping inmates on death row costs taxpayers $51 million a year more than holding them for life without parole. In California, death row costs taxpayers $114 million a year in addition to the cost of imprisoning criminals for life and each execution that has occurs ends up costing on average about $250 million per case (“High Cost of Death Row”.) Eliminating the 15 to 20 year appeals process would decrease the cost of the death penalty, but that increases the chances of innocent people being wrongfully executed. Also, most of the costs of a death penalty case come from the trial and pre-trial. Even if the costs of capital punishment were able to be reduced greatly, the death penalty would still end up costing millions more than imprisoning someone for life.

Journal 10

“High Cost of Death Row.” Editorial. The New York Times. 28 September 2009. A22.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/opinion/28mon3.html?_r=1

In this article the author says that in addition to other reasons, the death penalty should be abolished because of the great costs on state governments which already have depleted budgets. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on death penalty verdicts, which include an expensive second trial, new witnesses and, jury selections. Prisons that hold death row inmates also cost more because of extra security and maintenance costs. Eliminating the 15 to 20 year appeals process would decrease costs, but that increases the chances of innocent people being executed, plus most of the costs of a death penalty case come from the trial and pre-trial. Compared to keeping a criminal in prison for life, putting them on death row is much more expensive. For example, keeping inmates on death row in Florida costs taxpayers $51 million a year more than holding them for life without parole. In California, death row costs taxpayers $114 million a year in addition to the cost of imprisoning criminals for life. Also in California, a state that is having great economic trouble, 13 people have been executed since 1976. Even though this may seem like a small number compared to other states, each execution process ended up costing on average about $250 million per case. This money can be better spent on other things, such as police officers and improving prisons. Some states that have the death penalty have recently attempted to replace it with life without parole, but only one state, New Mexico, has succeeded.

This article is constructed by giving many economic reasons for why the death penalty should be abolished, such as how the process costs states a lot of money for each case. The author uses many specific examples, such as how death penalty cases cost Florida $51 million per year, North Carolina $2.16 million per case, Maryland $186 million for five cases, and California $250 million per case.

I think it is a convincing argument because the author states his opinion and then backs it up with a lot specific facts and numbers that support his argument. By showing how much extra money the death penalty costs states by using specific amounts, it is much easier to visualize why the death penalty is so expensive. It is also very hard for someone who supports the death penalty to counter and say that it is economical since the author clearly states how much more the death penalty costs compared to keeping someone in prison for life.

From this article, I can say in my thesis statement that I don’t support the death penalty because it costs states a lot of extra money compared to sentencing someone to life in prison and that money can be used on many other better things. Some of the information I may want to quote are the specific amounts of money that the death penalty costs in certain states and the number of people those states executed. I also may want to cite some of the information about states that have attempted to or succeed in abolishing the death penalty.