summer 2013! woot woooooooot!

this summer, as usual, I have a list of things I want to accomplish:

1) make monayyyy
2) save monayyyy
3) learn to skateboard (now THAT will be interesting!)
4) ride my bike every day
5) run outside (this is easier said than done--I DEFINITELY like running inside on a treadmill more for some reason!)
6) try out for American Idol with Emmie
7) get a tan
8) get a six pack
9) play some more tennis
10) hit the batting cages once a week AT LEAST (get it? get it? HIT the batting cages? ha so punny)


ummmmmm so yeah. I think that's it! for now at least  :)

Generational Differences in Death Penalty Views; a paper

Last year during my freshman English class, we were told to pick whatever topic we wanted, but we had to take a controversial topic and write a persuasive paper on it while also showcasing both/all sides of the controversy. I chose to write about the death penalty. As a pro-life Catholic, I am a firm believer in NOT using the death penalty. Yes, I've taken multiple classes on the criminal justice system and I know that imprisonment is super expensive. However, so is the death penalty--did you know a 1988 study by the Sacramento Bee said if California abolished the death penalty, the state could potentially save NINETY MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR!? Also, shouldn't the people who commit these crimes that apparently warrant the death penalty be forced to live with their actions? Here's the paper I wrote a year ago (I've updated the statistics, but that's all). My teacher (who has been infamous for NEVER giving away a single "A") gave me not only an "A", but an "A+"--needless to say, I was pretty darn happy, AND she told me in front of the whole class that mine was publish-worthy! Let me know what you think--whether you agree with me or not, I want to hear your perspective!   :)

Generational Differences in Death Penalty Views 

            It does not take a genius to figure out that generations think differently about a fair number of issues. Whether the debate is about tattoos and piercings or if it is about what can be considered as music, these generational views exist. If generations think differently about issues such as these, then surely they must have varying opinions about the death penalty.

             The death penalty is defined as the court-ordered imposition of a sentence of execution as punishment for a crime (Webster’s New World Law Dictionary). In simple terms, the death penalty is an order from the court to kill a bad guy. There are five different ways of executing the offender: lethal injection, electrocution, gas chamber, hanging, and firing squad. Lethal injections are just that—injections (typically a solution of barbiturate, paralytic, and potassium) that put the restrained person to sleep, then stop the breathing and the heart (Bonsor).

Electrocution is nearly always carried out by means of the electric chair. The criminal is strapped to a wooden chair, built specifically for this purpose, and electrodes are placed on the body. It is through these electrodes that electrical currents electrocute the person. The first rush of current through the body is intended to cause unconsciousness and make the person literally brain-dead, and the second current is supposed to damage to the vital organs (Swarthmore College).

Gas chamber executions are implemented by strapping the convicted person to a chair inside a sealed gas chamber. The executioner, who is outside of the chamber, “pulls a level dropping potassium cyanide tablets pellets into a vat of sulfuric acid, flooding the chamber with lethal hydrogen cyanide gas” (Head). Death by hanging is done the way it has been for years: the person stands on a trapdoor with a “hangman’s noose” rope, tied by the executioner, around his or her neck. The executioner then pulls a level, which opens the trapdoor, and the prisoner’s neck should break quickly (Head).

The final method of execution, death by firing squad, is just as horrific as the other four techniques. The convict is strapped into a chair with five gunmen pointing at his or her heart. Once all five gunmen shoot, it is essentially guaranteed that one of the bullets will have killed the victim. One interesting fact about this method is that one out of the five sharpshooters is equipped with a blank round, so there is a twenty-percent chance that each sharpshooter did not end up killing the convict (Head). None of these five methods sound too pleasant, do they?

In addition to the gruesome sound of these methods, the cost is incredibly high. New Jersey taxpayers have paid $253 million for the state’s death penalty since 1983, according to a 2009 report from New Jersey Policy Perspectives (Death Penalty Focus). It remains a fact that any and all of these methods are much more expensive than an alternative of life in prison without parole. According to the Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994, almost every homicide (there are approximately 16, 000 per year in the United States) is now death-eligible (Death Penalty Focus). Of the 343 federal executions (two of which were women) in 182 years, four of these executions in two years were proven wrongful. These numbers might not sound high, but at least to the families of those who were wrongfully executed, the loss is huge. Of the number of inmates who are currently on death row, 98.13% are male and 1.87% are female. 44.40% are white, 41.43% are black, 11.74% are Latino, 1.13% are Native American, 1.26% are Asian, and 0.03% are unknown or unreported (Death Penalty Focus).

When I was younger—and less informed on the topic of the death penalty—I would say that I thought the death penalty depended on the individual case. Now, as a fairly informed college student, I have researched and spent a decent amount of time studying the death penalty. At this point, I have no doubt that I am anti-death penalty. As an involved Catholic, I believe that all life is sacred. Even in the case of murderers or rapists, their lives should not be shortened. We are not the ones who get to choose when someone’s life ends. That is all up to God. We are not God (though some people may think they are). I believe that murderers and rapists should be heavily punished. I think that a better way to punish these criminals would be putting them in prison until they die without parole. That way, they have to live regretting whatever kind of crime they committed. Death seems like the easy way out.

            When I set about seeing if there were any generational differences in death penalty views, I knew that I would need to conduct a survey.  I created an anonymous questionnaire that was distributed both electronically and in print. This survey consisted of only four questions. The first question asked if the survey taker was male or female. This question did not pertain to the generational differences, but I thought that it still might be interesting to see if there were any trends by gender. The second question asked for the age of the survey taker. This question was formatted so that the taker could write or type in their age, rather than a range to pick from. The third question asked, “Would you consider yourself to be pro-death penalty or anti-death penalty?” and offered answer choices. The first option was, “I would consider myself to be pro-death penalty.” The second option was, “I would consider myself to be anti-death penalty.” The third option was, “I think it depends on the individual case.” I changed the look of the part of the answer that varied from option to option to make it easier for the person taking the survey. I included three options, rather than just two, because there are more than just pro- or anti-death penalty.

            My survey also included a fourth mandatory question. “Based on your answer to the question above, why would you say that? (ex: religious beliefs, etc).” I wanted to know why people held their views, not just what their views were. Their reasons intrigued me. I got everything from, “Life is precious in His name and our Creator,” to “Everyone has the right to life, but there are people who have abused this right by ending the life of more than one person. I don’t know, it’s a tough decision,” to “Family that works in the prison system,” to “Eye for an eye.” Some were eager to explain their views, but others didn’t have as many reasons for support (example: “because it is right”). I am not saying that this and other such answers are invalid because they are not. But I also expected that college students would at least have some reasons for their views (Hogan).

            Sixty-four people between the ages of fifteen and seventy-one years old took my survey. Those who completed the survey showed that many people are anti-death penalty. 14.29% of the sample said that they were pro-death penalty. 57.14% of those who completed the survey selected that they were anti-death penalty. 28.57% of those participants said that they thought that it depended on the individual case. The answers did not correlate with the ages of those who submitted the surveys, so this shows that generations as a whole do not feel differently about the death penalty.

            The results of the survey I conducted showed me my initial hypothesis was wrong: generations do not think differently about the death penalty. This result pleasantly astonished me because I thought that the younger generations would be more liberal and thereby be pro-death. I was happily surprised because as someone who is anti-death penalty, it is refreshing to know that there are people my age, older, and younger, who stand with me on this issue.

Works Cited

Bonsor, Kevin. "How Lethal Injection Works." How Stuff Works. Web. 3 Apr. 2012.

“Death Penalty Focus.” Death Penalty. Web. 17 Mar. 2012.

“Death Penalty Legal Definition.” Webster’s New World Law Dictionary. Hoboken:

Wiley, 2010. Death Penalty Legal definition. Web. 17 Mar. 2012.

"Electric Chair." Swarthmore College. Web. 03 Apr. 2012.

Head, Tom. "Gas Chamber Executions." About.com Civil Liberties. Web. 3 Apr. 2012.

Hogan, Abigail. “Death Penalty Survey.” Survey. 17 Mar. 2012.

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Mar. 1992), pp. 76-87.