Lincoln Caplan's article heavily relied on the death penalty report commissioned by the American Law Institute from Steiker & Steiker in 2008. The report highlighted the inconsistency in the application of the death penalty, influencing the Institute's stance. Despite being well-researched and credible, the article had a few weaknesses, including its length and the potential bias of the commissioned report. Furthermore, the use of both whole numbers and percentages for statistics could be confusing for readers.

Next is the Supreme Court ruling called Gregg v. Georgia (1976). Troy Gregg wanted the Court to declare the death penalty unconstitutional, but they upheld an earlier ruling from 1972. The 1972 ruling stated that execution methods violated the Eighth Amendment. However, in 1976, the Court felt Georgia's methods were not cruel or unusual. Gregg's case wasn't helped by "aggravating circumstances." Overall, the article was straightforward and informative, without any weaknesses.

The New York Times article followed by summarized key death penalty cases heard by the Supreme Court, including those from North Carolina, Louisiana, and Gregg v. Georgia (The New York Times, 1976). Although lengthy, it highlighted the lack of consistency in these cases, emphasizing concerns about the validity of the death penalty. This aligns with the Death Throes article, which explored inconsistent rulings and confused juries as significant issues.

The final item is a memo from the European Commission (2011) emphasizing its worldwide opposition to the death penalty. The memo highlights the countries that have abolished it and those known to carry it out, including the United States, China, Iran, North Korea, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia. The EU aims to ban the death penalty based on human rights concerns and the need for fair trials. However, the memo's emphasis on the EU's spending and attempts to engage with third-world countries and civil society may come across as grandstanding.

The New York Times presented a more substantial argument based on the four articles. Despite its length, the article backed its claims with case studies, highlighting the inconsistencies in death penalty cases. By using evidence, the writers enabled readers to form their conclusions rather than relying solely on personal opinions about the negative aspects of the death penalty.

1. Any of these barriers or had trouble concluding based on them?

2. What were they and why?

3. How did you overcome those barriers in thinking about the articles critically?