Ayla Mulvey - Round Table reporter

It is common knowledge that senior year is the most exciting, but stressful time of a teenager’s life. High school students have been working hard for three long years trying to get good grades in hopes of applying, and being accepted, to their dream school.

Some students after they graduate take a break for a year, especially those who graduate early. There are mixed feeling on taking a year off of school after graduating; some people think that it helps and some don’t.

With taking a leave from school, students can forget important facts and pieces of information that they had already learned. Some people take a “gap year” because they are tired of school or maybe they want to add a meaningful activity to their college application.

There can be downfalls to taking a “gap year”. The student may end up deciding not to even bother furthering their education; it could be harder for the student when they finally do decide to apply to get letters of recommendation from a teacher or guidance counselor.  Sometimes the teacher or guidance counselor may not remember the student very well to make a good recommendation letter for them.

When senior year starts many students start it off well, but then many students get senioritis, which is where the student stops caring and doesn’t do any of their school work or homework because they are just ready to be done with school. Some students start senioritis as early as the first term of school, which is not good news for their grades or college applications.

Getting senioritis can result in the student’s grades dropping. Many students think that after their junior year they don’t need to worry about their grades for college, but that’s not true. A person’s grades senior year are just as important as their junior year’s grades.

Some causes of senioritis are boredom, parental apathy, the fear of change from high school to college and the excitement of graduating.

There are ways to stop senioritis. A few ways in which a teenager can resist the urge of senioritis is to set expectations throughout the course of their senior year.

Expectations a student sets for themselves can be anything. Something simple, like, what grades the he or she would like to get during their senior year, or something as specific as meeting all the requirements to apply to their top choice college.

Also by thinking about the future and what benefits the student will be getting out of maintaining their grade can help keep the senior motivated during the school year. In addition, setting small goals throughout the year may help to make sure the student stays focused on what needs to be done. Any little thing that can be done to help stop senioritis will help during senior year.

Even though many students get senioritis their senior year,it is avoidable. All seniors want to make sure they stay on top of their grades during their senior year so it doesn’t affect them getting into college.

Ben Lewis - Round Table reporter

The NTSB (National Traffic and Safety Board) are recommending a ban on all cell phone use while in the car, which is an overzealous response that should not include the likes of Bluetooth and other hands free devices.

Texting and talking on the phone, while driving, should be banned because it distracts the driver from the road, and slows down reaction time. As for Bluetooth and other hands free devices, it doesn’t distract the driver anymore then switching a radio station would.

Maryland, along with other states, have banned texting but only “Three states–Connecticut, New Jersey and New York–plus the District of Columbia implemented total bans on driving while using a phone, threatening violators with fines or jail time. Brazil, Germany, Great Britain and Japan, for example, all have nationwide bans on cell phone driving,” according to research done by Issues and Controversies.

Even though some states are starting to ban phones completely, people are still doing it. “According to a September 21, 2010 report, 250,000 American motorists are texting and driving, at any given moment,” reports the PBS NewsHour.

If the U.S. really wants to stop cell phone use then they must follow suit of countries like Brazil, Germany, Great Britain and Japan, and ban cell phone use nationwide. Having higher consequences for breaking these laws such as a large fine or even jail time can result in less cell phone use in the car.

The main reason texting and or talking on the road is so dangerous is because it slows reaction time and distracts the driver from the road. Many accidents occur from distracted drivers, and many people lose their lives each year, to just send one more text.

One of the main reasons the NTSB proposed the ban was after a horrific crash on “Aug. 5, 2010, in Gray Summit, Mo., in which the driver of a pickup truck sent 11 text messages in the 11 minutes prior to the accident that killed him and injured a number of passengers on two school buses,” according to an article done by eWeek.

If someone really needs to send a text or call someone simply pull over to the side of the road and do it. Or use hands free devices such as Bluetooth and Siri.
People are starting to research and develop ways to disable the smart phone while in the car. “The most straightforward way to ensure that the person driving is not using their cell phone is to disable the smart phone while the car is moving,” according to eWeek.

No software has been fully developed yet, but the system would start once the phone detects it’s over a certain speed “The software runs in the background of a smart phone and comes to life when it detects that the device is moving faster than a preset velocity, typically five mph,” according to eWeek.

This system could prove to eliminate the whole problem, but no software has been developed yet and much research still has to be done before it is actually put into use.

In the end, texting and talking on the phone could get you seriously injured or killed. So remember, to stay alive don’t text and drive.

Ana Billotti - Round Table opinion editor

Sometimes in life people have to do things that they dislike rather than things that they love. This can be doing anything from working, to homework, going to school, or even attending meetings that the person is utterly uninterested in.

Life can’t be all fun and games there are times when people need to buckle down and get what needs to be done, done. Sure, it is probably more fun to go hang out with friends or get on Facebook for a couple of hours in the evening but what does a person actually get out of that in the end? A few hours of enjoyment?

It is not always the most enjoyable activity but sometimes working is the best option for a high school student. A person might not want to get a part time job while in high school but that job will not only be providing them with their own income but it can also provide a strong sense of individualism.

A student that learns the value of having a job at an early age will have a better chance of having a more successful future. They will understand that a job not only provides a source of income but also a necessary sense of responsibility.

Responsibilities such as working, doing homework  or even babysitting a family member may not always be able to be classified as a thing a person loves to do, but these current responsibilities help build a person’s character.

When a person does something they like to do they get a sense of satisfaction out of it and it can actually benefit a person’s health; hanging out with friends has been proven to lengthen your life expectancy, Facebook can fuel a person’s self-esteem, according to a study by Cornell University, and watching TV can reduce stress levels.

Balancing life can be difficult, but a person cannot disregard things they dislike to do, but need to do, in favor of doing something they enjoy. Students especially need to remember that school and work come first; being responsible now will result in being better prepared for the future.

This doesn’t mean that students should be serious all the time. They need to relax, and this can be by getting on Facebook, hanging out with friends, or watching TV can all provide that and have been proven to be beneficial but just remember balance is the key to a well-rounded and happy person.

Blair Donald - Round Table broadcast producer

The debate over the time that school should start for high school students is one that seems to appear periodically without ever accomplishing anything. The argument is that high school students statistically need more sleep than younger students, so why does high school at 7:30 a.m. when the primary and elementary schools start at 9:00 a.m.?

The opposite side of the debate is that high school students have activities to attend after school, so if school starts early and ends early, the students who play sports, are members of the drama department or work, have time to go to those things and get their homework done.

However, students who play sports willingly choose to play them, and those who don’t are still forced to get up early and go to school. Additionally, if a student is in a lot of extracurricular activities as well as AP courses, sometimes the workload on top of their activities is too much and students are forced to get by on very few hours of sleep- speaking from experience here.

If younger children don’t need as much sleep, don’t have a huge workload, and aren’t in as many extra activities, it doesn’t make sense that they start school so much later than high school students. They are usually up earlier than teenagers are anyway, so it would probably lessen a lot of complaining.

Another effect this can have is students, because of lack of sleep (and probably motivation), will fall asleep during class. If students are sleeping and missing information, they may not even know how to do the homework that they are staying up so late to get done.

Some have argued that students that do get their homework and sports practices finished at a reasonable hour, rather than going straight to bed, will stay up late messing around on the internet, watching television, or talking to their friends.

However, it’s not messing around so much as winding down after a busy day. All work and no play makes Johnny a dull boy, and students aren’t going to devote all the time they have to being responsible and getting work done. In a perfect world, perhaps, but in our imperfect universe we must leave time for humans to be human.

Students with and without packed schedules would benefit from getting more time to sleep in the morning. Some students aren’t ready to eat breakfast at 6:45 a.m. or don’t have time to eat, and so will skip the most important meal of the day. If breakfast gets neglected, a student could be unhealthy because their metabolism hasn’t been kick started and hunger during the school day can be quite distracting.

Frederick County Public Schools has a new superintendent, so maybe next year the time school starts will be changed. Results everywhere have shown the reversal of schedules in the school system to be beneficial, so a change in policy is probably inevitable. Hopefully FCPS will catch up with the times and high school students will be able to sleep a little longer.

Ayla Mulvey - Round Table reporter

“You’ve got to find what you love. And that is as true for your work as it is for your lovers. Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do.” - Steve Jobs

Most people don’t know what they want to be when they get older. It’s a difficult decision to make, and not something that can be decided overnight. There are many careers out there, but because of the economy, not all places are hiring, which can limit a person’s career options.

It’s difficult to decide what to do as a career, but there is help available. There are quizzes online that help people decide what they want to be, but they don’t always work. Also, by observing a person’s own likes, dislikes and interests, he or she can try and figure out what he or she would most like to do in the future.

Another good way to help people decide what they want to be is to make a two-column chart. One column is for writing what a person’s skills and interests are and the other is for writing careers that relate to those skills and interests. It may not seem like that would help, but writing down interests and skills might open up more job possibilities then what was originally thought of.

On the other hand, some people know from a young age what they want to be when they get older; this doesn’t mean that they can’t change their minds during the course of their lives. Some people are set on being one thing from the moment they decide it, but this could limit their future job opportunities if they do not open themselves up to other career possibilities.

For instance, one person might have wanted to be a school teacher for the longest time, but after some experience with teaching, that person might decide that it’s not really the best choice.

Also, there are many other job occupations within a specific career field. Someone who wants to be a teacher has the options of majoring in elementary education, special education, counselor education, early childhood education and secondary education. A person would have to decide which one of those paths to take.

People want to pick a career that they will enjoy for the rest of their lives, except that can be hard to do. Not all places are hiring right now because of the poor economy, so some people aren’t getting the jobs they maybe hoped for or wanted.  However, with any job they get, they should be happy if they are earning money and able to get by.

Overall, the best way for people to enjoy a job is to know their likes and dislikes, gather information about themselves, their values, objectives, needs and so on. A person’s own interests and values will end up helping decide what future career to pursue more than anything else will.

Blair Donald - Round Table broadcast producer

Celebrities used to be classy. They were role models, people to look up to and be impressed by. They were talented and beautiful, and everyone wanted to be a celebrity and get some of that fame and glory. Marilyn Monroe, Audrey Hepburn, James Dean, all were famous and were so because they were talented.

Now, however, talent is unnecessary to be famous. Sex tapes and naked photos, drug abuse and scandals are enough to make a person notorious at least. People are willing to do anything to get their 15 minutes of fame. A family in Fort Collins, Colorado made the police chase a balloon thought to have their child in it (the child was hiding in the attic and the parents were aware) trying to get themselves a reality show. Vanessa Hudgens had nude pictures leaked online. Kim Kardashian made a sex tape that earned her fame as well as $5 million. Paris Hilton is famous for basically being rich and stupid, plus she has a sex tape too.

Jersey Shore’s celebrities are the most intelligent out of all of them. The stars aren’t book smart, but they certainly have figured out a way to make easy money. All they have to do is party and act like idiots and they make millions off their reality show.

Some celebrities today do have talent, but they aren’t the ones we pay the most attention to. Johnny Depp, Angelina Jolie, Emma Watson, and William Shatner are all famous for their talent and the movies they have made, not the scandals and trouble they have gotten into.

We pay far too much attention to people who aren’t really working. We are paying people to party, and they are far richer than people who have actual jobs and have to work to earn much smaller salaries.

What many people don’t realize is that these pseudo-celebrities wouldn’t exist if we stopped paying attention to them. If we stopped buying the magazines and listening to the gossip about people who are total strangers, they would stop getting paid and might actually have to contribute to society.

But perhaps they do serve a purpose. These people aren’t role models; they are examples of what not to do. The stars of the MTV series “16 and Pregnant” aren’t what little girls aspire to be when they get older, but they are warnings against making uneducated decisions.

Fake celebrities make too much money and have far outlasted their undeserved 15 minutes of fame, but if somewhere a little girl is watching Jersey Shore and thinking to herself, “I have to study or I’ll turn into an Oompa-Loompa!”, maybe it’s worth it.

Ana Billotti - Round Table editor

On Nov. 21, Emma Sullivan, a senior at Shawnee Mission East High School in Kansas tweeted, “Just made mean comments at gov brownback and told him he sucked, in person #heblowsalot.” Thus, Sullivan unknowingly sparked a firestorm about freedom of speech and social media networks.

Sullivan was attending a Youth in Government Program in Topeka, Kansas where Governor Sam Brownback was speaking at when she sent her tweet.

Brownback’s office monitors social media networks for postings that include the governor’s name and when they saw Sullivan’s tweet contacted the youth program coordinator who then contacted Sullivan’s principal.

Sullivan was called into her principal’s office and told that she needed to write an apology to Brownback. But in a strange turn of events, Brownback is now finding himself the one to issue an apology.

“My staff overreacted to this tweet, and for that I apologize. Freedom of speech is among our most treasured freedoms,” said Brownback in a statement released Nov. 28.

Sullivan, who’s followers on Twitter went from 62 to over 15,000 people, has been using the social media site to continue to bring awareness to the topic; tweeting, “I’ve decided not to write the letter but I hope this opens the door for average citizens to voice their opinion & to be heard! #goingstrong.”

This public example of freedom of speech is a great tool to teach others about the protection of their First Amendment rights. In a day and age where anything and everything can be posted for the public to view and comment on, it is important to teach not only teenagers and children, but adults as well about freedom of speech and the use of technology, when it is combined.

Sullivan’s tweet, regardless of how harsh it may sound, is protected under the First Amendment.

Under the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Freedom of speech does not just protect a person when they say something to a person’s face. It means that, like Sullivan, they can tweet an opinion, or post a status and as long as their actions don’t put others in danger their freedom of speech is protected.

Freedom of speech has always come under fire, from freedom of speech in films (Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson; 1952) to preventing a school district from disciplining a high school student for giving a lewd speech at a school assembly (Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser; 1986).

Freedom of speech is granted to every citizen in the United States but as society becomes more involved with online social media, freedom of speech is sure to be targeted more frequently.

Sullivan is well within her First Amendment rights and, although she may receive some dislike for what she said, she is protected and allowed to voice her own opinion.

High school students across America should take note about freedom of speech and the use of the internet because it is easier today then it was twenty years ago to get in serious trouble for comments posted online.

Caitlin Ortiz, a college student, got in trouble with her softball coach, in June, after posting a picture of herself and lyrics from Big Sean and Chris Brown’s song, “My Last.” She reportedly lost her scholarship and was kicked off the softball team at her school.

Sullivan, just like Ortiz, is doing the right thing by taking a stand and making a point. Sullivan didn’t do anything wrong, but tweeted her own opinion and yet she got in trouble for it.

Taking a stand and promoting the protection of First Amendment rights is important and it takes strong individuals to do that.

Twitter on Dec. 15 will be holding an event called “Free to Tweet”. They invite students ages 14 to 22 to tweet their support for the First Amendment with the hash tag #freetotweet. This will enter them in a competition to win a $5000 scholarship.                                                                                                         

However, anyone is welcome to tweet and show their gratitude for the first amendment rights and Twitter is already getting big name celebrities to join in, such as, Ke$ha, Blake Shelton and Brad Paisley.

The First Amendment needs to be protected because it is essential to the freedom of every citizen in the country. If it comes to making an individual’s story public to help bring awareness to a cause than that may just need to happen.

As Sullivan tweeted, “”First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” –Gandhi.”

Ayla Mulvey - Round Table reporter

 We all have those busy days where we feel like we don’t accomplish anything on our “To Do” lists. We end up getting stressed out, feeling like nothing is going right, and it results in a horrible day. Sometimes there’s just not enough time in the day to get everything done,  other times it is a lack of time management that results in not much being accomplished.

 There is no doubt that people lead busy lives. Teenagers go to school for six hours a daythen, if they have a job, they go to work for several hours, get home late and still have homework to do. Some people can’t help that; they need money to support themselves and pay for their education. In these cases, a person just needs to pace themselves and prioritize what needs to get done.

 Managing time can be difficult, especially when a person has to decide between doing something like school work or hanging out with friends for a couple hours. Most people would choose to hang out with their friends and just do their homework later, but often times they end up not even touching their homework and, as a result, their grades start to slip.

 For time management to work well, people need to prioritize what needs to get done. A person should get into the habit of getting what needs to be done first, done first, and at least making an effort to start tasks that don’t necessarily need to get done right away but need to get done, nonetheless.

 A person also needs to use any free time wisely. Many teenagers spend hours on Facebook or Twitter when they go home. That is not using the couple hours of free time that they get each day wisely. Instead of getting on Facebook or Twitter, get homework finished or do any chores that need done, then get on Facebook or Twitter.

 Another good way to make time management work well is to write and complete a “To Do” list. Write down a few items that need to be done and as they get done check them off. Also, start using a daily/weekly planner where appointments, classes or meetings can be written down, that way, nothing will be missed.

 Some people naturally have good time management and some need to work on it. Whether or not a person has good time management, everyone is capable of acquiring it. And when push comes to shove, they probably will achieve at least some ability to manage their time to their advantage.

As of October 2010, there were over 3,000 inmates onAmerica’s death row. While most states, as well as most Americans, support capital  punishment, the policy’s shortcomings severely outweigh its merits.

An institution with such broad disparities in its application, one-tenth of its intended victims’ eventual exoneration, and the financially preferable alternative of lifelong incarceration has no place in a modern, civilized society. Aside from providing temporary comfort to grieving families, the majority of the death penalty’s beneficial aspects are negligible at best, and fallacious at worst.

The first and most obvious flaw of the death penalty lies in is its irreversibility and finality. While time lost serving a prison sentence cannot be regained, the remainder of the sentence need not be served once an inmate’s innocence has been proven.

Execution, on the other hand, leaves no room for error on the part of the justice system. Though most rulings will, undoubtedly, be correct, the chance of an incorrect ruling is great enough to endanger innocent lives. Misleading evidence, falsified testimonies, or even a particularly ineffective defense attorney could mean the difference between life and death for a defendant.

Perhaps even worse than the loss of life is the defacement of a blameless person’s legacy, as was the case for Johnny Garrett: a 17-year-old wrongfully convicted of the rape and murder of a nun, Sister Tadea Benz. Garrett may have been proved innocent thanks to the modern application of DNA typing, but not before the death and embarrassment of Garrett and his entire family.

While the inclusion of DNA evidence was instrumental in the posthumous exoneration of others like Garrett, it cannot be used as a cure-all for the problems in the legal system.

Obviously, DNA testing can only be used when DNA can still be found at the crime scene: a requirement often unable to be fulfilled. It is also a costly expense whenever it can be used. Using DNA typing may decrease the chance of error, but it is neither a definitive nor affordable solution to the discrepancies so prevalent in the allocation of capital punishment.

In addition to factual misrepresentations, verdicts are also subject to the preconceived notions and personal biases of the jurors. The distribution of the death penalty among races, for example, is skewed heavily towards blacks. Over 40 percent of death row inmates are African-American, yet only 13 percent of American citizens are African Americans.

A 2003 study done by theUniversity ofMaryland found the death penalty to have been more commonly sought in cases involving both a white victim and a black offender.

Though blacks are statistically more likely to commit murders than whites, this data shows the choice of punishment for murder to have been consistently more severe when used against African-Americans than with whites.

The Supreme Court even acknowledged the disproportionate use of the death penalty in McCleskey v. Kemp (1987), yet refused to declare it “cruel or unusual” under the Eighth Amendment because the court believed inconsistencies to be inevitable in the justice system.

This would only be acceptable if the statistics presented could be seen as incidental; they were not. The study, published by David C. Baldus of theUniversityofIowa, found that those accused of murdering whites were 4.3 times more likely to receive the death penalty than those who had killed blacks. To call such incongruity “inconclusive” or “incidental” is foolish.

Baldus’s study may have been conducted over 20 years ago, but the racist sentiments observed in it can still be found in modernAmerica. Duane Buck, a black man previously scheduled for lethal injection in September 2011, recently had his execution date reaffirmed by the Supreme Court.

This is in spite of a psychologist Walter Quijano’s allegation that Buck’s race “increases the future dangerousness for various complicated reasons” during the hearing. Whether or not this statement affected the jury’s decision cannot be known, but the judge’s permittance of such vague and unfounded testimony suggests that he found Quijano’s statement to be within the bounds of reality: a dangerous mindset for the man who would eventually sentence Buck to death.

With the decline of both state and federal budgets, politicians are desperate to make cuts in any area able to afford them. While the decision as to whether or not convicted murderers deserve execution should certainly be based on justice rather than economic value, the monetary advantages of abolishing the death penalty are surprisingly concrete, and should not be ignored.

Attempting to put an accused killer on death row, for example, sends the defense into a raging fit of desperation, costing the state time and money just to get a conviction.

In combination with expensive lethal chemicals, DNA testing, and the obstructions placed by a legal system largely uninterested in actually carrying out the death penalty, the whole concept seems ineffective even when technically in place.

California, for example, has an average wait of 20 years before an inmate is executed and spends $90 thousand more per year on those sentenced to death than those who are not. Even the most ardent proponents of the death penalty must admit these to be inexcusable wastes of taxpayer dollars.

The strongest case for the death penalty is its alleged role as a deterrent of crime; however, almost every study available on the subject suggests the contrary. NorthwesternUniversitySchoolof Law’s Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology showed that 88 percent of the criminologists surveyed did not find the death penalty to be a significant deterrent of homicide.

Statistics collected by the Federal Bureau of Investigation show that, as of September 2000, 10 out of 12 states without capital punishment had homicide rates lower than the national average.

Life in prison is no less a deterrent of crime than execution, as it should be equally as threatening, when taking into account the poor state of many U.S. prisons. One who would prefer the company of other murderers, thieves, and rapists in squalid, unsanitary conditions to death is not in full comprehension of how long a life-sentence is.

Another illogical argument for the death penalty is the idea that it provides closure for the victim’s family. While this is likely true in many cases, the murderer, regardless of how evil he or she may be, cannot be sacrificed for the temporary satisfaction of a family. The accused is equally as likely to have a family as the victim, causing the mere relocation of the misery rather than the destruction of it.

The death penalty has clearly outlived its use in American society. It is morally, logically, and even economically inferior when compared to a lifelong sentence. Allowing capital punishment to remain in place simultaneously allows for the interference of human emotions and errors in the legal process, two possibilities which cannot be permitted when discussing the potential execution of a fellow human being.

The walls are splattered with blood and the carpet is soaked scarlet. A cold, dead body lies on the floor, so mangled it is barley recognizable. The murderer replays the vicious attack in his twisted mind: her life in his hands, the screaming, the scratching, the futile pleading…he loved every second of it and craves the power once again. However, he cannot evade his ultimate fate and is quickly apprehended by police forces. He is tried and convicted of murder and rape. He is discharged after 10 years due to good behavior, despite receiving a 25-year sentence. He smiles with excitement as he is released onto the streets, already envisioning his next kill.

There have been approximately 16,000 homicides each year in the United States over the past decade, yet only 1,234 inmates have been subjected to the death penalty since 1977. This goes to show that the system has become too lenient with inmates in regard to their sentences.

Some states, such asMichigan and West Virginia, have completely abolished the death penalty, clearly overlooking the resulting implication: taxpayers’ hard-earned money is paying for the food, clothes, education and jobs of murderers and rapists in prison.

It costs $3,794,837.69 per year to support inmates in jail, an average of $41,865.63 per inmate. If all of the criminals on death row were executed on time, it would save the state approximately $1.88 million per year, money that could be spent on more beneficial things, such as providing schools with new books.

Not only should the death penalty be reintroduced to the states in which it was repealed, but it should be implemented more often.

Of course, not everyone agrees.

Some people believe that the death penalty allows criminals to take the easy way out. If inmates were locked up for the rest of their lives, then they would be forced to reflect on their crimes and would presumably become laden with the burden of their guilt, a punishment far worse than the death penalty. Yet prison is not always as terrible people think it is.

The inmates who behave receive special rewards such as a television in their room, arts and crafts, getting their hair stylized, gym access, going outside and an overall free living consisting of food, drinks and snacks.

The purpose of being incarcerated is the punishment of not having access to these amenities. If criminals were to have access to all of those perks, why not just place them under house arrest?

Inmates also have the opportunity to obtain a free college education. It hardly seems fair that murderers and rapists should get educated for free while hard-working, law-abiding citizens do not.

The idea that these inmates will have time to “think” and “reflect” on their actions is unrealistic; how could they have time to do that when they are busy socializing with other inmates? The level of interaction allowed at prisons and jails has gone too far.

Another concern about the death penalty is the question of who should receive it. It’s simple, really; all murderers should receive the death penalty. Rapists who are found guilty of having committed one or more rape (repeat offenders) should also receive it.

Perhaps one of the biggest controversies surrounding the death penalty involves the possibility that a person is wrongly convicted, but with today’s DNA technology the chances of that occurring are extremely slim. If there was enough evidence to convict a person, then that person should have to pay the punishment.

The people who commit these vile crimes took the lives of someone’s daughter or mother or father…someone who was very important to someone else. Who are they to take an innocent life?

Which raises the question: Who is the court to decide that the murderer’s life should be taken away? Once again, the answer is not complicated; if someone takes a life, they should have to pay with their own.

The person who was murdered did not know what was happening; it obviously wasn’t a choice. The murderer knew exactly what he or she was doing and should have to suffer the consequences.

Some say that murder, including “state murder,” is never humane, but the way in which the murderer receives the death penalty is usually far more humane than the way in which the victim’s life was taken.

The death penalty used to be carried out through an electric chair, a firing squad or gas chambers, but now inmates fall asleep as they receive a painless shot (lethal injection) that slowly stops the heart’s beating.

They are luckier than their victims. They are not getting cut up into multiple pieces, stuffed into a trash bag and tossed into the ocean.

The only people who should be exempt from the death penalty are those with previously known mental disorders that are the direct cause of the murder. Instead of the death penalty, those people should be admitted to a mental health facility for permanent care.

Imagine a future in which people don’t have to worry about checking a database to see if a rapist lives nearby and a child can walk to school without fearing their criminal neighbor.

That’s the future many dream of and it’s one that can only be achieved if the death penalty is not only reintroduced to the states in which it was repealed, but implemented more often.