Alisha+Vargas



Question 1. Michael Addison was with one of his friends one night who had been his accomplice for several previous crimes; when he killed a cop and recieved the first New Hampshire death dentence in 49 years. Michael was trying to avoid going to jail due to the crimes he did the previous week, so he shot officer Michael Briggs. The prosecutors were definitely trying to sentence Michael to life without parole and possibly the death penalty. They claimed that the shooting was no accident but it was unplanned. Due to all the crimes he's done in the past he already faces many years in jail so it wouldn't really matter to him if he's in there for life. They wanted him to be sentenced the death penalty. Although, he did not, he was only sentenced life without parole. The supreme court felt that having a jury decide on someone's life-or-death is unconstitutional.

Question 2. - I believe the author's perspective on the death penalty, is that it's unfair. Like the article said, they haven't executed anyone since 1939 and they haven't sentenced anyone to the death penalty since 1959; so why should they start now?

Question 3. - I do agree with the author, because it just seems like a wrong thing to do. They haven't done anything to anyone involving the death penalty in over 40 years now, why should they suddenly want to repeat history? That's just not right.

Question 4. - (Supporting evidence from article) "Legal experts note that New Hampshire's death penalty law, unlike laws in states such as Texas, has not been tested extensively in court." So it's basically illegal. Or like the article says "unconstitutional".

Question 5. - If someone is interested in this information they can go to eagletribune.com

Question 6. - I know that the source where I found this article at is reliable because it has a 'Contact Us' section stating many different ways to contact Eagle Tribune and they are a well known newspaper.

Alisha Vargas

sexii_aleesha@yahoo.com

Arelis Vargas

(978) 685-6975