Death Penalty

            Once convicted of a crime, people start to loose hope. This is especially true when statistically the odds are not in your favor. This could be due to race, geographical, or sex. For the case of David Keaton, this factor was race. Once released his brother says, “Growing up black in this state, you know, you really didn’t have a chance when it came to a crime. You know, they say that justice is blind, but justice really isn’t blind.” This shows how because of race, the specific race looses hope in the equality of the justice system. Race in a case, while is not supposed to be a factor, does impact a case decision in some instances.

            There is a statistic that 80% of people who have been executed was for the murder of a white victim. There were two studies conducted by the Death Penalty Information Center. These two studies concluded:

RACE OF DEFENDANTS EXECUTED IN THE U.S. SINCE 1976

BLACK: 393 (34.6%) 

HISPANIC: 78 (6.87%) 

WHITE: 643 (56.6%) 

OTHER: 22 (0.62%) 



Source: Death Penalty Information Center

RACE OF VICTIMS* SINCE 1976

 

BLACK: 239 (14.2%) 

HISPANIC: 82 (4.87%) 

WHITE: 1324 (78.67%) 

OTHER: 38 (1.96%)

           This shows while there might be more white victims, the number of white people executed does also exceed the number of black people executed, making the statistic sound more proportionate. This effect may cause people to misinterpret how skewed the results really are.  By no means am I saying there is no bias in race through the eyes of the blind justice system. Something to be said on why low-income people are more likely to be sentenced to death is these people may not be able to afford a proper attorney. Without proper representation the defendant may not have a chance of life without parole, instead of someone who has more money to afford a proper attorney.

Abortion

Looking at the two websites, NARAL-Pro-choice America and National Right to Life, I believe the website NARAL-Prochoice America is a better website. This is based on the layout of the website, because it is easier to get to the information. The information is laid out on the home screen of the website, making it very easy to access and see all the facts. The facts themselves, are much better on the website NARAL – Pro-choice because they use more court cases to support their argument. Their website is set up by describing the problem, the challenge, and the solution. This provides a lot of information on one page, whereas the other website uses pictures and very descriptive language. The NARAL-Pro-choice has influenced my decision because of how the information is set up. The information, being easy to follow, opened more doors to the information. The other website, did teach more about how procedures were performed. This had more of an emotional influence rather then a factual influence. The side currently seeming to win the debate is NARAL – Pro-choice. On their website they have a whole section devoted to success, with current events helping their fight for pro-choice. National Right to Life does not have a section similar to this leading the reader to believe their accomplishments are not as strong or they have not accomplished as much.

I am seventeen years old, and I agree a parent should have the right to know if their child is having this procedure performed. Any other surgical procedure requires the parents’ consent, so this should still abide by these rules. Parents should have the right to consent and should be notified until the child is eighteen years old, being that this legally makes their child an adult. There should be a requirement that the father is notified. The father is responsible for the baby as well, which is why the father should be notified. Whether the father should have a right to consent the procedure is a much more complicated process. I believe the father should be on board with the procedure, but should not be required to have sign off on the procedure. This is because the mother will be the one living with the child, while pregnant, but the father can continue their life, mostly unaffected.

Being pro-choice myself, I agree with Illinois position on abortion. The law “Illinois provides low-income women access to abortion,” is beneficial to woman who cannot financially perform the procedure. The fact this law is in place allows people to professionally get the procedure, who may not be allowed to get it otherwise unless they receive the money. There is one rule that should not exist and that is prohibiting some people from having insurance covering their procedure.  Removing this will help a mother cover the cost of the abortion, and not be financially in debt.