Summary: The state now has reason to belive that they executed an innocent man. Cameron Willingham was convicted and given the death penalty for killing his 3 children in a house fire. Cameron had eventually got tired of them saying he was guilty and wanted to avoid the death penalty so he said he did it when in reality he was innocent. After a couple of years Texas Forensic Science Commission reveived a report saying that Willingham was convicted on the basis of unsound testimony.
Central Argument: The state convicted and killed an innocent man.
Two Assertions: state killed an innocent man. Convicted on unsound testimony.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Monday, December 5, 2011
Source #4
This article is about a man named Troy Davis. It states that because of the data presented in the June 2010 hearing, it was clear that the federal district court would rule against Davis. People involved in the jury felt like the anti death penalty group were "fed a bunch of nonsense" by their leadership and they belived it. This article is basically an argument about wheather or not Davis is guily.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Food Inc. (Extra Credit)
.
Central Argument :
Large corporations are now controlling our food system. These corporations make there farmers abuse the animals and use genetic engineering to speed up the growing process for these animals. The government says they are for us and protecting us but they are allowing these corporations "poision" us.
Assertions :
- A few companies are now running our entire food system.
- In 1978 The FDA performed 50,000 inspections in 2006 there were only around 10,000.
- The companies argue why wait 3 months for a animal to mature when you can do it in 1 1/2 months
- When the food companies have a problem they look for high-tech substitutions that will allow the system to survive but never fix it.
Central Argument :
Large corporations are now controlling our food system. These corporations make there farmers abuse the animals and use genetic engineering to speed up the growing process for these animals. The government says they are for us and protecting us but they are allowing these corporations "poision" us.
Assertions :
- A few companies are now running our entire food system.
- In 1978 The FDA performed 50,000 inspections in 2006 there were only around 10,000.
- The companies argue why wait 3 months for a animal to mature when you can do it in 1 1/2 months
- When the food companies have a problem they look for high-tech substitutions that will allow the system to survive but never fix it.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Source #2 " To murder victims' families, executing killers is justice "
Link : http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bal-md.kane05feb05,0,6557087.column
1. Fred A. Romano and his family had to deal with the murder of there beloved family member, Dawn Garvin. Dawn's killer was facing the death penalty for killer her and 2 others. The family did not want revenge they just wanted justice but attorneys argued that putting him in jail for life was justice. Then the family argued that if law makers changed the life sentence later he could be freed so there was no justice in it.
2. The author does not make a clear main statement , he just puts up both arguments and states both sides reasoning.
3. " My problem with it is that 10 years from now some other idiot will come along and say life without parole is too harsh , Then they'll pass a bill granting them parole and then we'll have a bunch of murderers walking the streets. "
" Revenge would be going out and killing one of [the murderer's] family members , The death penalty isn't revenge. It's the law. "
1. Fred A. Romano and his family had to deal with the murder of there beloved family member, Dawn Garvin. Dawn's killer was facing the death penalty for killer her and 2 others. The family did not want revenge they just wanted justice but attorneys argued that putting him in jail for life was justice. Then the family argued that if law makers changed the life sentence later he could be freed so there was no justice in it.
2. The author does not make a clear main statement , he just puts up both arguments and states both sides reasoning.
3. " My problem with it is that 10 years from now some other idiot will come along and say life without parole is too harsh , Then they'll pass a bill granting them parole and then we'll have a bunch of murderers walking the streets. "
" Revenge would be going out and killing one of [the murderer's] family members , The death penalty isn't revenge. It's the law. "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)