It is considered that the death penalty law is the supreme and permanent oppression of human rights (“Death Penalty,” n. d. ). According to a non government organization (Amnesty International USA) death penalty abolition campaign is set to stop the rhythm of aggression made by damaged judiciary system together with racial and economical discrepancy filled with the shortcomings of human (“Death Penalty,” n. d. ). In the context of the United States Court System the debate over the issue of death penalty or capital punishment is clearly visible among the states’ judiciary branches.
Dated May 05, 2002, New York Times published a written report about the assembly of New York’s law makers. It was likewise reported that the purpose of the forum is to review the capital punishment law. The report tells about the proceedings and debate in the New York Court of Appeals. In a sense, the debate over the capital punishment or death penalty law is a depiction of two opposite sides that entails diverse standpoint about the discussions (Glaberson, 2002). Prior to the judges of New York’s Court of Appeals official seat to review death sentence policy, there are no recorded forums prior to that in a span of 18 years (Glaberson, 2002).
The discussions are filled with diverse ideology where different thoughts about the topic are prevalent in the forum (Glaberson, 2002). The discussion focuses of whether the application of Capital Punishment or death penalty law would work in New York courts (Glaberson, 2002). Hence, the debate centered in the argument if such criminal law is inhumane or in a reasonable ground of implementation (Glaberson, 2002). An the end of the article, there is no clear depiction of whether any of the two sides of the argument wins over the other (Glaberson, 2002).
From a personal point of view, the writer of the article does not state clearly his own argument about the topic. Hence, I must say I agree with the outcome of the writings as the article clearly depicts that such debate over capital punishment or death penalty law is a complex matter that is in need of thorough and constant legal deliberation. In such a way, the compromise about the issue will be achieved. One of the major question that is left unanswered in the article is the formal argument as to why death penalty must be applied or nulled. Nonetheless, I intend to answer this by taking both the grounds of both opposite sides.
More significantly, I would say that the writer had wrote the article in good faith without taking any sides as he both stated the contentions from both ends. Hence, I can see that the writer is up to present a fair information about the issue of death penalty as a criminal law. New Jersey Nears Repeal of Death Penalty This article was published on December 11, 2007 by New York Times (Peters, 2007). In a sense, the news article is the composition of collated data about the position of New Jersey on the verge of cancellation of death penalty law (Peters, 2007).
Given the fact that such debate over the abolition of death penalty had been a major issue in the history of United States judiciary system, the report utters that New Jersey court officials and legislators wished to serve as an inspiration to other states by officially nulling the said law (Peters, 2007). Moreover, the articles stated that for those who are on the side of capital punishment or death penalty law, it is to be noted that the New Jersey’s repeal would stand for a victory that has evaded the opposition that abound the contemporary history of death penalty (Peters, 2007).
Since the year 1976, there are a bunch of legislatures across the United States which have campaigned in favor of the abolition of the death penalty law. However, none of them has succeeded (Peters, 2007). Furthermore, the news tells the true story behind the debate of major stakeholders in the new bill that was passed in New Jersey (Peters, 2007). Given this notion, the composition of the news focuses in the argument of those who were on the side of the new bill while thoughts of opposition were left untouched (Peters, 2007).
The article ends up by quoting the standpoint of senate president Richard Codey, which leave a firm statement that such cancellation of death penalty law is necessary at the moment (Peters, 2007). In the end, there is absolute agreement that death penalty should be abolished and become a legal statute to formally institutionalize the said decision. Setting the moral argument aside, it is just timely that such be removed as the society matures and the death penalty does not fit into the picture.
The author was able to present the ideas in a fair and clear manner where all concerns are accommodated according to what the article could contain. Nonetheless, the two news articles above are substantially fair and equal in presenting their idea. both writers had showed ethical attitude as to how they tackle both critical topics. Essentially, both writers were able to disseminate information sensationalizing the issue.
Death Penalty. (n. d. ). Retrieved July 29, 2008, from http://www. amnestyusa. org/our- priorities/death-penalty/page.do? id=1011005&n1=3&n2=28 Glaberson W. (2002). For Death Penalty, a Day of Reckoning; Appeal of Revised Law Tests New York’s Highest Court. Retrieved July 29, 2008, from http://query. nytimes. com/gst/fullpage. html? res=9B0CE4DB1F31F936A35756C0A9649C8B63&scp=33&sq=issues+in+United +States+court+system&st=nyt Peters, J. (2007). New Jersey nears repeal of death penalty. Retrieved July 29, 2008, from http://www. nytimes. com/2007/12/11/nyregion/11death. html? scp=3&sq=issues+in +United+States+court+system&st=nyt.