Within my focus on the Death Penalty, power truly embodies the whole representation system, in that it dictates who is heard, and who isn’t. In this case, it’s the great, powerful voices of well established groups, wherever in the world they may be, who, in fact, get the most coverage in the media, are recognized the most by governmental figures, and who are mainly brought up in death penalty battle discussions. Whereas, it’s those first hand experiencers, with perspectives that embody the bulk of my claim, whose accounts either go unheard for their obscurity/specificity, or really just can’t gain enough ground individually in order to make a significant impact.
As well as that, the influence of power on voice also tempts ignorance-ignorance from those groups who choose only to hear the first thing that reaches their ears-the opinion from the more powerful voices. And when the first thing that reaches their ears is the same old argument from battling pro/anti groups, that in itself disregards the more important, smaller opinions, it leaves governments (especially in the US) to forget what they no longer regard as important (the same old battle).
This is evident even within Singapore’s system-which is often shut down by abolitionist groups-causing for a reluctance from other governments to adopt the same system despite it being one that could pose as the solving serum to systematic key flaws. Power can, and will play a massive role in the changes to come for the Death Penalty.
This one is a little more of a given, for the fact that it is the Values/Beliefs of the varying groups that dictate their perspective and background-and play a role in adding to the great diversity that embodies the death debate. Though seemingly simple on the outside, values/beliefs really incorporate more than just someone’s opinion. In fact, it’s the whole essence of values/beliefs that determine WHERE the side in which those values/beliefs are being portrayed is coming from.
And the element of an opinion’s source is just about as important as the opinion itself, because of the way in which that background can change the whole meaning of what the side portrays. With that in mind, it can even tie into the power that I spoke of earlier, in that some values/beliefs hold more of it than others, and oftentimes that depends of where those values/beliefs came from, or how those values/beliefs influenced their portrayer.
Finally, as briefly stated earlier, these values/beliefs really act as the true embodiment of my whole project. It is their implications, along with the power in which those implications are portrayed, that dictate the place of the voice within the grand scheme of the entire argument, and categorize that voice in relation to my claim and where it stands in relation to MY values/beliefs as well. Tied with power they even dictate change and conflict, and play a vital role in creating the great base for the argument surrounding the death penalty, and how it will be tailored in the future.
To really sum up my project and it’s base structure as a whole, you must understand the various macro-concepts that go along with the implication of what I’m saying. In order to give you that understanding, I’m going to put together a cohesive paragraph that sort of sums up the whole thing:
The grand death penalty argument is one that is so broad that the only true way to understand it is to categorize it into voices, each portraying different values/beliefs. There is an unbelievable variety of such voices but oftentimes it’s the ones that have behind them enough power to be heard who rise to the top and play a big influence on the death penalty as a whole. Unfortunately, to me, the ideology portrayed by the more powerful groups in fact contains the wrong focus when it comes to what needs to be changed within the death penalty. The reasoning and argument of these groups is too broad in the sense that they focus on elements too often rehashed in the common conflict between them and that of the equally powerful groups. Their references to lack of efficiency, cost, etc. don’t at all embody the true struggle of those caught up in a flawed system that is so inconsistent and riddled with problems that it should really take on the bulk of the attention if the other elements even want to be considered.
To me, the focus should be on justice within the system and its ability to effectively support those who are entangled within it, and efficiently carry out what it needs to. In fact, my opinion on the justice of the death penalty in general will remain out of the picture until what I believe are the more pressing systematic flaws are addressed. Unfortunately, however, the groups who gain the most representation are those who are over-broad, and therefore, in the commonality of their ignorant arguments, have begun to be ignored by governments who are hearing the same old things. I would even consider some of the government officials ignorant in their leadership due to them not having enough of a drive to recognize said flaws through deeper digging (well-represented in Singapore’s less flawed but still mainly disregarded system).