Any last suggestions?

I have other multimedia (pictures), but I won't put them on the blogger post. Are there any other mistakes? And is the ending okay? Thanks guys!

Expository (Not one beginning sentence...)

Well, I'll figure out the intro later. Here is most of the body. Please tell me if it's too long and if there are any slow, boring parts. And there's weird bolded part- it's just a note to myself. Oh, I think there might be spelling errors. I'm too tired to check right now...Thanks amigas!

Firstborns- these individuals are the reasons why our world continues to rotate on its axis. Scholarly perfectionists, firstborns are essentially the leaders of our society who are both nurturing and assertive. Whether they pamper or “govern” others, firstborns seek order and structure in their surroundings. Going to the movies? The first born would take care of holding those tickets. What about grocery shopping? They would be the ones who double- and even triple-check that shopping list. Organization, essentially, is their life!

Because they serve as “guinea pigs” for novice parents, firstborns receive spotlight attention throughout their early childhood. In order to “test” parenting methods, brand new moms and dads would thrust a variety of behaviors upon the first born.  Parents would either be “overprotective, anxious, tentative, and inconsistent,” or “strict [and] disciplined” with their first born; at times, they could be both! (Leman) As a result, firstborns receive a great amount of pressure from their families. From babysitting younger siblings to completing daily responsibilities, firstborns juggle the stress of being number one!

However, the “number one” position has its benefits. Since they are told to “act their age” and “set an example” for their younger siblings, firstborns develop natural leadership qualities. They tend to be critical and dislike surprises, but firstborns are logical and generally smarter than their younger siblings. In the following video, Dr. Martin discusses the correlation between firstborns and their IQ.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVkDnuCTfIc&feature=related

Aside from their academic strengths, firstborns are avid readers and possess an interest for computers or technology. They enjoy activities that involve perseverance, and they take these activities very seriously. Because of their perfectionism, leadership qualities, and intelligence, firstborns compose the majority of engineers, vice presidents, and CEOs. In fact, “over fifty percent of U.S. presidents have been firstborns,” such as Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush. (Leman) Firstborns are usually the “earth shakers” of society; firstborns Oprah Winfrey and Winston Churchill, for instance, inspired changes in the world.

Parallel to a firstborn’s characteristics are those of an only child. Firstborns and only children share the same behaviors, habits, and career paths. However, an only child is a category higher than a first born: he or she is a “super first born.”

An only child is an extreme perfectionist who can’t bear to disappoint or fail. He or she is thorough and deliberate, cautious, self-confident, and self-motivated. Only children are list-makers who set high self expectations, often leading to self-created pressure. Unlike the other birth orders, only children develop non-competitiveness due to the absence of other siblings. Because they do not experience sibling rivalry and/or competition, only children tend to be self-centered. Their parents’ undivided attention serves as their Achilles’ heel. This “center of the universe” treatment influences only children to be critical and quick-tempered if things are not run or planned their way. Without siblings in their childhood background, only children tend to have a lower social interest for people their age. They are more comfortable befriending older people; becoming “little adults” at an early age influences only children to associate with others their senior. President Franklin Roosevelt and Condoleezza Rice are among the group of only children.         

 Following the firstborns and the only children are the middle born children. Because of his or her position in the family, the middle born often looks above to the older sibling in the birth order. In most cases, the middle born’s characteristics branch off from the older sibling’s behaviors. In order to compete for their parents’ attention, middle borns would behave in an opposite manner to their elder siblings to receive any form of spotlight. The characteristics of the middle born are, in a sense, contradictory.

 A middle born can be shy and impatient, but they may also be outgoing, sociable, and laid-back. In certain circumstances, the middle born is very competitive, and they rebel and express aggressive behavior. In other situations, the middle born is easy-going and plays the mediator in conflicts.

Why is the middle born so complex?

 Because parents tend to overlook the middle born among their other children, the middle born feels left out and alone. In their families, the middle borns don’t receive their “fair share” of attention; as a result, they are hidden within their siblings’ shadows.  Even though they may be shy in their family, middle borns would seek as many friends as possible to account for the social attention lost at home. The middle born, in fact, is skilled in developing long-lasting relationships. Since they are stuck between older and younger siblings, middle borns learn to negotiate and compromise. Their diplomacy develops from learning to recognize the different sides of a scenario. In addition to their peacemaking skills, middle borns tend to be independent and loyal.

    A middle born has a tendency to be rebellious, for they feel as if families or groups do not accept them. Because parents may have treated them unfairly, middle borns develop the characteristics of a maverick, even displaying bitter behavior. They could be “bullheaded, stubborn, [and] unwilling to cooperate.” (Leman) When they require assistance, middle borns are too embarrassed to admit that they, in fact, need a helping hand.

Although they may be frustratingly stubborn, middle children are willing to showcase their vigor and tenacity. If they cannot match the academic level of the first born, “middle children often turn to jobs with high physical risks, or to athletics, areas in which they can excel.” Middle children dominate occupations such as fighter pilots, football players, and motorcycle racers. Because of their interpersonal skills, middle children, such as Ted Kennedy and Donald Trump, “often accept positions of employment that deal with people.” In fact, a recent survey revealed that sixty-eight percent of personnel managers in the United States were middle children. (Moore) As middle children set out into their career fields and beyond, they become the more balanced individuals of the birth order. By applying their “give-and-take” experiences to the real world, middle children become the more stable individuals of society.

The last, but certainly not least, of the birth order is the cub: the baby of the family. Known for being manipulative yet affectionate, the lastborn is often the clown of the family who both charms and provokes other family members. Lastborns enjoy engaging others, and if possible, wouldn’t mind stealing the spotlight, even at the cost of their embarrassment.

But why do lastborns, who often receive “babying” treatment from their parents, still desire the limelight, even if they do receive it at home?

When lastborns are brought home, they are immediately introduced to their sibling’s, or siblings’, shadow. Whether this shadow is a mile long or a hundred miles long, “lastborns instinctively know and understand that their knowledge and ability carry far less weight than that of their older brothers and sisters.” (Leman 171) Parents, who may be exhausted at the “lastborn stage,” tend to “react with less spontaneous joy at the accomplishments of the last born.” (Leman 171) Parents may unconsciously compare their lastborn to other siblings: Why can’t this little kid catch up with his siblings? It didn’t take his older sister this long to understand it!

In other circumstances, family members may underestimate a lastborn’s abilities. They may think that the baby of the family cannot accomplish certain tasks. As a result, lastborns grow up with an “I’ll show you!” attitude. A lastborn’s other behaviors, at times, come across as undisciplined and spoiled. Lastborns may appear to be self-centered with a temper and ego, and, yes, they can be absentmindedly gullible.

However, lastborns generally grow to be likable and easily relatable. Their energetic and humorous perspectives of situations make them the lovable clowns whom the world finds so entertaining. In many situations, lastborns rely on their wits rather than their intellect to complete a task; negotiation and sales come naturally to them as well. These traits carry on into their future careers. In general, lastborns, such as Eddie Murphy, Ellen DeGeneres, and Jim Carrey, “often pursue artistic, musical, and creative ventures.” (Morrow)

Expository (Still no beginning....)

Ah, I still need to think of a beginning... any ideas? Please let me know if this draft is choppy. Also, do you guys know how many multimedia elements we need to include in the paper?

Firstborns- these individuals are the reasons why our world continues to rotate on its axis. Scholarly perfectionists, firstborns are essentially the leaders of our society who are both nurturing and assertive. Whether they pamper or “govern” others, firstborns seek order and structure in their surroundings. Going to the movies? The first born would take care of holding those tickets. What about grocery shopping? They would be the ones who double- and even triple-check that shopping list. Organization, essentially, is their life!

Because they serve as “guinea pigs” for novice parents, firstborns receive spotlight attention throughout their early childhood. In order to “test” parenting methods, brand new moms and dads would thrust a variety of behaviors upon the first born.  Parents would either be “overprotective, anxious, tentative, and inconsistent,” or “strict [and] disciplined” with their first born; at times, they could be both! (Leman) As a result, firstborns receive a great amount of pressure from their families. From babysitting younger siblings to completing daily responsibilities, firstborns juggle the stress of being number one!

However, the “number one” position has its benefits. Since they are told to “act their age” and “set an example” for their younger siblings, firstborns develop natural leadership qualities. They tend to be critical and dislike surprises, but firstborns are logical and generally smarter than their younger siblings. In the following video, Dr. Martin discusses the correlation between firstborns and their IQ.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVkDnuCTfIc&feature=related

Aside from their academic strengths, firstborns are avid readers and possess an interest for computers or technology. They enjoy activities that involve perseverance, and they take these activities very seriously. Because of their perfectionism, leadership qualities, and intelligence, firstborns compose the majority of engineers, vice presidents, and CEOs. In fact, “over fifty percent of U.S. presidents have been firstborns,” such as Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush. (Leman) Firstborns are usually the “earth shakers” of society; firstborns Oprah Winfrey and Winston Churchill, for instance, inspired changes in the world.

Parallel to a firstborn’s characteristics are those of an only child. Firstborns and only children share the same behaviors, habits, and career paths. However, an only child is a category higher than a first born: he or she is a “super first born.”

An only child is an extreme perfectionist who can’t bear to disappoint or fail. He or she is thorough and deliberate, cautious, self-confident, and self-motivated. Only children are list-makers who set high self expectations, often leading to self-created pressure. Unlike the other birth orders, only children develop non-competitiveness due to the absence of other siblings. Because they do not experience sibling rivalry and/or competition, only children tend to be self-centered. Their parents’ undivided attention serves as their Achilles’ heel. This “center of the universe” treatment influences only children to be critical and quick-tempered if things are not run or planned their way. Without siblings in their childhood background, only children tend to have a lower social interest for people their age. They are more comfortable befriending older people; becoming “little adults” at an early age influences only children to associate with others their senior. President Franklin Roosevelt and Condoleezza Rice are among the group of only children.         

 Following the firstborns and the only children are the middle born children. Because of his or her position in the family, the middle born often looks above to the older sibling in the birth order. In most cases, the middle born’s characteristics branch off from the older sibling’s behaviors. In order to compete for their parents’ attention, middle borns would behave in an opposite manner to their elder siblings to receive any form of spotlight. The characteristics of the middle born are, in a sense, contradictory.

 A middle born can be shy and impatient, but they may also be outgoing, sociable, and laid-back. In certain circumstances, the middle born is very competitive, and they rebel and express aggressive behavior. In other situations, the middle born is easy-going and plays the mediator in conflicts.

Why is the middle born so complex?

 Because parents tend to overlook the middle born among their other children, the middle born feels left out and alone. In their families, the middle borns don’t receive their "fair share" of attention; as a result, they are hidden within their siblings' shadows.  Even though they may be shy in their family, middle borns would seek as many friends as possible to account for the social attention lost at home. The middle born, in fact, is skilled in developing long-lasting relationships. Since they are stuck between older and younger siblings, middle borns learn to negotiate and compromise. Their diplomacy develops from learning to recognize the different sides of a scenario. In addition to their peacemaking skills, middle borns tend to be independent and loyal.

    A middle born has a tendency to be rebellious, for they feel as if families or groups do not accept them. Because parents may have treated them unfairly, middle borns develop the characteristics of a maverick, even displaying bitter behavior. They could be “bullheaded, stubborn, [and] unwilling to cooperate.” (Leman) When they require assistance, middle borns are too embarrassed to admit that they, in fact, need a helping hand.

Although they may be frustratingly stubborn, middle children are willing to showcase their vigor and tenacity. If they cannot match the academic level of the first born, “middle children often turn to jobs with high physical risks, or to athletics, areas in which they can excel.” Middle children dominate occupations such as fighter pilots, football players, and motorcycle racers. Because of their interpersonal skills, middle children, such as Ted Kennedy and Donald Trump, “often accept positions of employment that deal with people.” In fact, a recent survey revealed that sixty-eight percent of personnel managers in the United States were middle children. (Moore)

Expository (Without Beginning)

I can't think of a good introduction for the essay right now, so here is the first born segment of the paper. Do the ideas flow? Also, for the multimedia part, does the essay transition well into the video? Oh, disregard the bolded part- that's just a note to myself. Thanks!

Firstborns- these individuals are the reasons why our world continues to rotate on its axis. Scholarly perfectionists, firstborns are essentially the leaders of our society who are both nurturing and assertive. Whether they pamper or “govern” others, firstborns seek order and structure in their surroundings. Going to the movies? The first born would take care of holding those tickets. What about grocery shopping? They would be the ones who double- and even triple-check that shopping list. Organization, essentially, is their life!

Because they serve as “guinea pigs” for novice parents, firstborns receive spotlight attention throughout their early childhood. In order to “test” parenting methods, brand new moms and dads would thrust a variety of behaviors upon the first born.  Parents would either be “overprotective, anxious, tentative, and inconsistent,” or “strict [and] disciplined” with their first born; at times, they could be both! (Leman) As a result, firstborns receive a great amount of pressure from their families. From babysitting younger siblings to completing daily responsibilities, firstborns juggle the stress of being number one!

However, the “number one” position has its benefits. Since they are told to “act their age” and “set an example” for their younger siblings, firstborns develop natural leadership qualities. They tend to be critical and dislike surprises, but firstborns are logical and generally smarter than their younger siblings. In the following video, Dr. Martin discusses the correlation between firstborns and their IQ.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVkDnuCTfIc&feature=related

Aside from their academic strengths, firstborns are avid readers and possess an interest for computers or technology. They enjoy activities that involve perseverance, and they take these activities very seriously. Because of their perfectionism, leadership qualities, and intelligence, firstborns compose the majority of engineers, vice presidents, and CEOs. In fact, “over fifty percent of U.S. presidents have been firstborns,” such as Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush. (Leman) Firstborns are usually the “earth shakers” of society; firstborns Oprah Winfrey and Winston Churchill, for instance, inspired changes in the world.

I don't think I will ever talk about the death penalty again...

Please let me know ASAP what weaknesses there are in the piece. Thank you guys so much! (Sorry about the weird formating. The "Tab" for paragraphs doesn't quite show up once I copy and paste the essay onto blogger)

Open Eyes

To have one’s name on that list is a nightmare in itself. This list- a never-ending file- paralyzes a man once the pounding gavel inscribes his name onto the page.

When Fate examines this list, it approaches each name like a ghost; those etchings on the page cower before the ominous shadow that lingers above their heads. These souls pray and beg for Fate to pass over their name.

But deaf to their desperate pleas, Fate crosses off each item one by one, preying upon the remaining victims as they wince in rhythm to the scaring of the parchment.

The death penalty has existed in every form of government ever since a people developed into a civilization. For hundreds of years, society, regardless of culture, has used the death penalty as the “ultimate punishment.” Any individual on the death row dreads the idea of experiencing this sentence; it is a nightmare that pries open their soul.

Over the years, society has adopted this horrendous form of punishment as a part of their judicial systems. In most judicial settings, the death penalty brings forth a closure to any debatable case. It is a sentence that, regardless of the scenario, fulfills the satisfying punishment: death.  In a criminal investigation, the death penalty provides a sense of peace for the victim and his family; this sentence would forever silence the convicted criminal, and life would be at harmony once more.  

But what if a court thrust such a conviction towards the wrong man?

When a judicial system investigates a criminal case, it seeks to locate every ounce of truth that could uncover the facts within this mystery. In modern-day courts, these truths are unearthed through the use of technology. Criminal investigations utilize technology as a key to unlocking pieces of evidence. Evidence- whether large or small- is used as a force to influence the sentence that precedes the pounding gavel. Because technology has become a part of the judicial process, courts rely upon the evidence produced by current mechanisms to construct their decisions. The technology that produces evidence has the power to sentence a man even to the harshest of punishments; it is with these pieces of evidence that deliver a man- whether innocent or guilty- to the death row.

However, how reliable are the technologies used in a criminal investigation?

In 1983, Kenneth “Kenny” Waters “was convicted [of a] 1980 murder…in his hometown of Ayer, Massachusetts.” (Perez) His conviction was based on witness testimonies “and on the blood type found at the crime scene.” (Perez) The Massachusetts State found Waters guilty, and they sentenced him to life in prison.

However, Betty Anne Waters, Waters’ younger sister, fought for her brother’s innocence. As her brother’s attorney, Betty Anne searched for and located blood sample evidence from her brother’s trial. In the late 1980s, DNA testing was introduced as a breakthrough in criminal investigation. Since this new innovation proved effective, Betty Anne persuaded the court to DNA test the samples of blood evidence against samples from her brother.

The result: the samples did not match.

Because of this small piece of evidence, Kenny Waters was exonerated and later released in 2001. (Perez)

If Massachusetts had allowed the death penalty, the court would have executed Kenny Waters long before it acquired the technology to uncover this life-saving information. He would have died in vain if technology had not produced a breakthrough innovation. But in many other criminal investigation cases, there is no “if.” Hundreds of courts throughout the United States have executed convicted suspects. But when science developed new technology, courts realized that, after reinvestigating these cases, they had sentenced the wrong man to death.

Although contemporary society has developed the most advanced technologies, courts, even in modern times, have made these similar blunders. Over the last century in the U.S., at least fifty executions were proven to be false convictions. (Turow) The judicial system may even continue to make these horrid mistakes in the future. When a court investigates a criminal case, it cannot depend upon even the most trust-worthy technologies to produce the “definite” evidence of the case.  Modern technology is highly advanced, but it is an art that continues to develop day by day; science may always uncover a breakthrough that could alter the methods of criminal investigation. In situations involving the death penalty, a single piece of unfound evidence could save a life. Nevertheless, the technology used to uncover this evidence may lie just a few years away.     

If a court wished to sentence a man to death, they could easily do so with the power of evidence. However, the reasons for a death sentence stretch far beyond the physical proof; it is the purpose of the death penalty that drives forth the sentence.

When the death penalty was established in the United States in the 1600s, the idea behind this sentence was for society to punish a convicted suspect for his or her actions. (Green) However, the true purpose of the death sentence expands far beyond this single idea. The death penalty is not only a punishment for the convicted criminal, but it is also a warning to others of the dire consequences for criminal actions. Yet, this warning has presented no effectiveness.

In the United States, the death penalty created a minute decrease in murder rates among the nationwide population. However, it did not influence a significant deterrence in the overall homicide rates in the U.S. In fact, when compared to states without the death penalty, “the majority of death penalty states [presented] murder rates higher than non-death penalty states.” (“Deterrence…”)

If statistics show that the death penalty falls short of its purpose, then why does the judicial system continue to allow such a horrendous punishment? What does this reflect about the U.S. judicial system?

In the judicial system, the death penalty reveals a contradictory mentality of the purpose of a court. By inflicting a death sentence upon an individual, a court no longer represents a civilized system. Instead it resembles a barbaric, ravenous government: “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.”

The death penalty is an extremely violent sentence, both physically and mentally. In the United States, and even around the world, convicted individuals may be executed through lethal injection, electrocution, lethal gas, hanging, and even firing squad. (“Methods of…”) It is an irreversible penalty that shreds apart any individual’s sanity and soul. Whenever a court sentences a man to such a penalty, it is responding to a case with greater violence and terror. To commit a crime is horrifying enough. But to create greater pain as a solution is unimaginable: justice lies not within this form of sentence; instead, it is hatred and revenge.

Whenever a court sentences a man to death, it does not only inflict searing agony upon an individual; it boils an entire family alongside of this human being as well.  A single execution does not silence just one soul. Instead, it slashes apart hearts who mourn for a loved one, and it engulfs their world with an unsettling shadow.

For thirteen years, a father fought for his son’s innocence. His twenty-one year-old son, Chiang Kuo-ching, was convicted of murder in 1997. Later that year, the Taiwanese military firing squad executed Chiang, who was an air force baseman.

In his last letter to his father, Chiang insisted that he was an innocent man; his father took those words to heart. Thirteen years following the execution, Chiang’s father pursued in the fight towards clearing his son’s name. After years of persistence, the Taiwanese court reinvestigated the case in 2011. Within only a few weeks of examination, military investigators retrieved the truth: Chiang was innocent.

But his father never heard this revelation.

He had died the year before in 2010, stating with his last breath that his son was an innocent man. (“Officials…”)

Chiang Kuo-ching’s father will never be able to hear the reassuring words: “Your son is innocent.” Like this father, thousands of other individuals may never receive that comforting statement. They may never know that their loved one died in vain, and they will never sleep another night with peace and comfort.

Even if an apology is offered to these wounded human beings, it is not the apology they want in return. What they wish for is the loved one whom the death penalty snatched away from their pleading hands, disappearing into the abyss with that one, lonely soul.

If Fate had crossed off and executed the wrong name, those remaining victims could only weep with misery.    

Even if they rush to awake him from an eternal slumber, their hopeless cries would fade away as mere, ghostly whispers. Their tears of desperation would only collapse upon his numb cheeks like beads of steel, and their anxious hands would warm not a pigment of his cold flesh.

And even if they tried, this name would just stare into the distance with those empty, open eyes, seeking for that moment in which he could, alas, rest in peace.   

Is this better?

There are some weird marks in the paper, but those are reminders that I'm going to look over later. It is still choppy, but please inform me of any "weird" places. Thanks!
P.S. Do I need another sentence where the * is?

     To have one’s name on that list is a nightmare in itself. This list- a never-ending file- paralyzes a man once the pounding gavel inscribes his name onto the page.

     When Fate examines this list, it approaches each name like a ghost; those etchings on the page cower before the ominous shadow that lingers above their heads. These souls pray and beg for Fate to pass over their name.

    But deaf to their desperate pleas, Fate crosses off each item one by one, preying upon the remaining victims as they wince in rhythm to the scaring of the parchment.

     The death penalty has existed in every form of government ever since a people developed into a civilization. For hundreds of years, society, regardless of culture, has used the death penalty as the “ultimate punishment.” Any individual on the death row dreads the idea of experiencing this sentence; it is a nightmare that pries open their soul.

     Over the years, society has adopted this horrendous form of punishment as a part of their judicial systems. In most judicial settings, the death penalty brings forth a closure to any debatable case. It is a sentence that, regardless of the scenario, fulfills the satisfying punishment: death.  In a criminal investigation, the death penalty provides a sense of peace for the victim and his family; this sentence would forever silence the convicted criminal, and life would be at harmony once more.  

     But what if a court thrust such a conviction towards the wrong man?

When a judicial system investigates a criminal case, it seeks to locate every ounce of truth that could uncover the facts within a mystery. In modern-day courts, these truths are unearthed through the use of technology. Criminal investigations utilize technology as a key to unlocking pieces of evidence. Evidence- whether large or small- is used as a force to influence the sentence that precedes the pounding gavel. Because technology has become a part of the judicial process, courts rely upon the evidence produced by current mechanisms to construct their decisions. The technology that produces evidence has the power to sentence a man even to the harshest punishments; it is with these pieces of evidence that deliver a man- whether innocent or guilty- to the death row.

     However, how reliable are these technologies that society considers modern?

      In 1983, Kenneth “Kenny” Waters “was convicted [of a] 1980 murder…in his hometown of Ayer, Massachusetts.” (Perez) His conviction was based on witness testimonies “and on the blood type found at the crime scene.” (Perez) The Massachusetts State found Waters guilty, and they sentenced him to life in prison.

     However, Betty Anne Waters, Waters’ younger sister, fought for her brother’s innocence. As her brother’s attorney, Betty Anne searched for and located blood sample evidence from her brother’s trial. In the late 1980s, DNA testing was introduced as a breakthrough in criminal investigation. Since this new innovation proved effective, Betty Anne persuaded the court to DNA test the samples of blood evidence against samples from her brother.

     The result: the samples did not match.

     Because of this small piece of evidence, Kenny Waters was exonerated and later released in 2001. (Perez)

     If Massachusetts had held the death penalty, the court would have executed Kenny Waters long before it acquired the technology to correctly examine the case. He would have died in vain if technology had not produced a breakthrough innovation. But in many other criminal investigation cases, there is no “if.” Hundreds of courts throughout the United States executed convicted suspects. But when science developed new technology, courts realized that, after reinvestigating these cases, they had sentenced the wrong man to death.

     Although contemporary society has developed the most advanced technologies, courts have made these similar blunders even in modern times. (Turow) The judicial system may even continue to make these horrid mistakes in the future. When a court investigates a criminal case, they cannot entirely rely upon even the most trust-worthy technologies to produce the “definite” evidence of the case.  Modern technology is highly advanced, but it is an art that continues to develop day by day; science may always uncover a breakthrough that could alter the methods of criminal investigation.  * In situations involving the death penalty, there is always a single piece of evidence that could save a life. However, the technology used to uncover this confirmation may be miles away.     

FC Draft 3

It's a little blurry, but are there slow parts in the piece (I have a feeling that there are quite a few....)?

To have one’s name on that list is a nightmare in itself. This list- a never-ending file- paralyzes a man once the pounding gavel inscribes his name onto the page.

When Fate examines this list, it approaches each name like a ghost; those etchings on the page cower before the ominous shadow that lingers above their heads. These souls pray and beg for Fate to pass over their name.

But deaf to their desperate pleas, Fate crosses off each item one by one, preying upon the remaining victims as they wince in rhythm to the scaring of the parchment.

The death penalty has existed in every form of government ever since a people developed into a civilization. For hundreds of years, society, regardless of culture, has used the death penalty as the “ultimate punishment.” Any individual on the death row dreads the idea of experiencing this sentence; it is a nightmare that pries open their soul.

Over the years, society has adopted this horrendous form of punishment as a part of their judicial systems. In most judicial settings, the death penalty brings forth a closure to any debatable case. It is a sentence that, regardless of the scenario, fulfills the satisfying punishment: death.  In a criminal investigation, the death penalty provides a sense of peace for the victim and his family; the convicted criminal would be forever silenced, and life could carry on with comfort and relief.

But what if such a conviction was thrust towards the wrong man?

 In 1983, Kenneth “Kenny” Waters “was convicted [of a] 1980 murder of a neighbor…in his hometown of Ayer, Massachusetts.” (Perez) His conviction was based on the testimonies “of two former girlfriends who said [that] Waters confessed to the murder and on the blood type found at the crime scene.” (Perez) Because Massachusetts did not have the death penalty, Waters was sentenced to life in prison.

However, Betty Anne Waters, Waters’ younger sister, fought for her brother’s innocence. After attending law school to become her brother’s attorney, Betty Anne searched for and located blood sample evidence from her brother’s trial. In the late 1980s, DNA testing became a major component of criminal investigation. Since this new innovation proved effective, Betty Anne persuaded the court to DNA test the samples of blood evidence against samples from her brother.

The result: the samples did not match.

Because of this small piece of evidence, Kenny Waters was exonerated and later released in 2001 after eighteen years in prison. (Perez)

Waters was one of many individuals who were saved through the innovation of DNA testing. Because of developing technology, Waters was able to walk out of that prison as a free man. As technology has grown over the years, it has enabled judicial systems to avoid false judgments, such as those made in the Waters Case. New technical knowledge has allowed courts to expand upon their understanding of debatable issues. As a result, courts are now capable of finding those missing pieces to complete those unsolved, mysterious puzzles.

Although society has developed and improved technology, judicial settings cannot rely upon these present innovations alone; there is a possibility that any case- whether of the past or present- continues to lack a vital piece of the puzzle.

Because technology has become a part of the judicial process, courts rely upon the evidence produced by current mechanisms- and upon these mechanisms alone- to construct a decision. However, the technology used to gather these pieces of evidence may always be a step behind in producing the truth of any case.

When Waters was convicted of murder, criminal investigation had not yet developed the method of DNA testing. But in the following years, technology developed to the extent in which science saved his life and released hundreds of others from imprisonment and the death penalty. Yes, technology is highly advanced, but it is an art that continues to develop day by day; each new minute of discovery provides an entire decade with breakthrough innovations. There is always a single piece of evidence that could save a life, but the technology used to uncover this confirmation may be miles away.