This essay analyzes the opinion editorial “No on Prop 62, Yes on Prop 66,” which was published on OsideNews.com. Proposition 62 aims to repeal death penalty and replace it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole, while proposition 66 is designed to shorten the amount of time that legal challenges to death sentences take to a maximum of five years. In her statement, Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert declares her stance on death penalty in an attempt to convince the readers to veto Proposition 62 and support the Proposition 66. She argues that death penalty should not be abolished because criminals such as child rapists and murderers have not been punished for the heinous crimes that they committed years ago. She also adds that the state is unwisely spending the taxpayer’s money catering to offenders.
Schubert’s expertise on the subjects is her strongest support for her claim. She made a good point emphasizing the downside effect of the proposition 62. She states “Prop. 62, which allows the worst of the worst killers to be supported for life by California taxpayers – feeding, housing, clothing, …show more content…
For instance, in her opinion editorial she claims that “there are no innocent people on California’s death row…. by never limiting claims of actual innocence.” This is a faulty statement because she made a false assertion that that every person in line for death row are guilty of the crimes they’re charged with, and failed to provide a supporting evidence for this claim. Even if a court ruled that a person is guilty, it does not guarantee that they are. There are those who are believed to be wrongfully executed. In fact, a study reveals that 1 out of 25 people sentenced to death were innocent. It’s hard to determine whether a convicted person is guilty or innocent because not all evidences presented to the courts are free from
Schubert’s expertise on the subjects is her strongest support for her claim. She made a good point emphasizing the downside effect of the proposition 62. She states “Prop. 62, which allows the worst of the worst killers to be supported for life by California taxpayers – feeding, housing, clothing, …show more content…
For instance, in her opinion editorial she claims that “there are no innocent people on California’s death row…. by never limiting claims of actual innocence.” This is a faulty statement because she made a false assertion that that every person in line for death row are guilty of the crimes they’re charged with, and failed to provide a supporting evidence for this claim. Even if a court ruled that a person is guilty, it does not guarantee that they are. There are those who are believed to be wrongfully executed. In fact, a study reveals that 1 out of 25 people sentenced to death were innocent. It’s hard to determine whether a convicted person is guilty or innocent because not all evidences presented to the courts are free from