The Death Penalty Makes Killers Of Us All

     More than half of the states in our country employ a devastating cruelty known as the death penalty.  Most of them have adopted the method of lethal injection, but other methods, such as electrocution, are certainly not unheard of.  The death penalty has been around for quite some time, and it has certainly given rise to numerous disputes and arguments over whether or not this law is just and legitimate or unconstitutional and illicit.  Many substantial arguments are made concerning the success and importance of the death penalty, but they all fall short in proving that the death penalty produces more good than harm because this unforgiving act only succeeds in making killers of us all.

     An argument that is commonly found in the pro-death penalty community is the one that suggests the death penalty deters future criminals from carrying out horrendous crimes.  However, the belief that deterrence justifies the execution of offenders is only feasible if the death penalty actually succeeds in preventing crimes.  In actuality, the overwhelming conclusions of studies show that the death penalty is no more of a deterrence than is life in prison.  Most people who commit crimes and murders do not expect to be caught, nor do they thoroughly weight the different consequences.  Criminals act impulsively and hastily, and if they intent to commit crimes, they will not be discouraged by the death penalty more than life of imprisonment.  In addition, there is no conclusive proof that the threat of the death penalty provides a stronger deterrent than life imprisonment.  Moreover, more states have sentences of life in prison without parole, and if this sentence is given to a prisoner, our society can rest assured that these criminals will not be released, thus ensuring our safety without the use of the death penalty. 

     Retribution is another word for revenge, and when a life is taken, retribution seems to be the only opportunity in which to restore the justice imbalance that was disturbed by the murderer and his violent acts.  To some people, the execution of a murderer ensures that he will not be allowed to take more lives, and although the life of the victim can never be restored, it helps to bring justice to the victim’s family, as well as brings closure to the killer’s crimes.  Sometimes, when a person has been victimized, their first instinct may be to inflict the same pain upon the person responsible for said crimes.  While this may be a reasonable emotion, it is not the response of a mature society, nor should it be a judicial foundation on which our country is based.  The belief that taking a life for a life is the only way to achieve justice is not a sufficient excuse for employing the death penalty.  As a country, we should strive for and demonstrate an absolute respect for life, even the life of a killer.  Furthermore, by sanctioning the term “pay-back” to be justified by the death penalty only encourages our motives of revenge and does not provide justice in any form; it only further builds the chain of cruelty and ultimately ends in yet another killing. 

     The cruelty known as the death penalty is simply vengeance, and vengeance should have no place in our country’s justice system.  Allowing an execution to take place does not right a wrong; it only causes more pain in the end and places us on the same moral level of murderers.  In summary, the notion of a life for a life is an unequal punishment and is one that our country should never support.  The death penalty and all that it entails is simply an attempt to ascribe a horrendous act a less terrifying title.  But no matter the name of this method of execution, it remains to signify one thing: an unspeakable murder is to take place at the hands of our government. 

The Endless Abortion Debate

     In a blog post on Redstate, author Breeanne Howe writes about the candidate’s arguments on abortion during the first Vice Presidential debate.  More specifically, she notes the common religion of Catholicism that both candidates share, and how their faith affected their views on this particular subject. 

     In this post, I believe the author is reaching out mostly to the pro-life community in an attempt to reassure them of their belief, and as if to remind them that abortion is wrong and that any life is worth saving.  While she doesn’t direct hard-hitting facts toward the community of pro-abortionalists, I do believe she speaks to them though emotion-triggering arguments of the cruelty that abortion implies.

     As for Howe’s credibility, she is well informed on the subject, and includes reason and science to support her argument; however, it is very clear her opinion is not completely unbiased, but with a subject such as abortion, no person can eloquently base their belief on facts and reason when a child’s life is at stake. 

     Breeanne Howe argues that life is created at conception, and no matter how you look at it, an unborn child is still a child.  At the beginning of her post, she mentions that both Joe Biden and Paul Ryan share similar beliefs concerning their faith and abortion.  However, Ryan is the only one who is actively proclaiming his views, while Biden simply insists he does not wish to impose his belief on other that may not hold the same position.  Isn’t that the entire point of this debate?  To present your views in a way that causes other to see your judgment and join you in your beliefs?  I strongly agree with Howe when she notes that the Vice President’s statement on not wishing to impose his beliefs on other is a weak excuse with which most everyone in the pro-life community is familiar. 

     In addition, when Howe introduces the fact that while Ryan is defending the issues of life, he was obligated to demonstrate unity with Governor Romney’s beliefs (despite the fact that he believes different), and I share his belief in that there should be no exceptions for abortion aside from the life of the mother.  It is in fact Romney who believes exceptions should exists for incest and rape, but just as Howe mentions, these exceptions are just as cruel as an abortion.  The most prevalent point in which I agree with Howe is when she states that the life of a child, and the events that come before life in the womb, should have absolutely no impact on the value of that life.  While this may sound cliché, it is my belief: no matter how dismal or overwhelming a predicament, the blame of that event should never be attributed to an unborn child. 

     In closing, Breeanne Howe gracefully portrays the burden unborn child have had to pay because of the abortion laws in place today, but she also provides hope in the fact that this dark time could pass if Romney wins the elections.  I believe having Romney as President would aid our country in recovering from the suffering the current administration caused.  Like Howe, I believe unborn children desperately need a voice to help prove that all life is precious and valuable, and that punishing the son for the sins of the father is never the answer, nor a principle on which our nation should be based. 

The Effects of ObamaCare

In this article on FoxNews, Dr. Marc Siegel brings to light an issue with Barack Obama's health care law that has evidently gone unseen. Although I believe Obama's intentions are pure, and he obviously means well, this article highlights an argument that should have been brought to attention long ago.

The author's intended audience is a wide one, I believe. While his main objective is to raise awareness of the fact that he and his fellow colleges are struggling to handle the health care expansions, he is also speaking to the patients that ObamaCare has brought forth. He is conveying, through the viewpoints of the doctors in question and conclusive facts, what is taking place on the other side of ObamaCare. I believe he is trying to truly reach out to the patients and demonstrate to them that if the number of doctors plummets, along with their passion of caring for patients, they are not the only ones who will suffer.

Dr. Siegel's credibility is very trustworthy, in my opinion. As a doctor, he is the perfect advocate for this issue. His insight into the mind of these struggling physicians is carefully shown throughout his article, as well as his overt passion to resolve the issue at hand. In addition, he adds studies that support his argument, and does not rely on his and his colleges perceptions alone.

His main claim is pointing out the problems with ObamaCare that greatly impact not the patients, but the physicians caring for them. He demonstrates the doctor's struggles to meet the demand of the extra patients brought on by Obama's health care. He claims that all over the country, doctors are overburdened, underpaid, and ultimately ill-equip to handle the surpluss of paperwork and patients.

Toward the middle of the article, Dr. Siegel provides studies and surveys that reveal the growing exhaustion and frustration of the doctors. To illustrate, he includes surveys from numerous associations that have all consistently shown that doctors are not at all happy with the direction of medicine (some even said they would retire early, if that were possible) and that it is also greatly impacting how they practice.

Dr. Siegel's argument is a reasonable one, and I feel it should not be taken lightly. He is not making excuses for himself or the other physicians, nor is he focusing extensively on the welfare of only the doctors. Instead, he keeps in mind the patients by first keeping in mind the prosperity of their physicians. After all, where are the patients left if the number of doctors abates?

In closing, I agree profusely with Dr. Siegel on this subject. I wonder now how we did not think of how this would directly affect professionals in the medical field. Did no one think to consult these physicians when these health care laws were being made? Though it may have seem like the right choice at the time, ObamaCare has apparently greatly affected the doctors of our country, and it seems as though no one has taken notice. Undoubtedly, the federal government should not have placed the heavy burden of ObamaCare on the shoulders of doctors whose resources, passion, and fortitude are dwindling.