Death Penalty In The United States Many Americans identify issues with the death penalty and the ethical responsibility of American jurors. Individuals who oppose the death penalty often argue that Americans have a responsibility to be merciful and often suggest that death penalty supporters have a thirst for vengeance. Some arguments use bold approaches that intend to guilt their audiences and suggest that America should not have the control to choose whether an individual lives or dies. Death penalty policies have flaws that need to be amended to ensure that justice is assured to each individual at its mercy. In 1972 the Supreme Court opposed the death penalty, only to reinstate it in the 1976 (govspot.com). Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, the Supreme Court has tried to make clear that it is to be applied carefully and evenhandedly. America has for centuries prided on the fact that citizens are allowed to make and execute laws lobbied for the popular consensus. If upstanding citizens are to be asked to participate in Jury’s, which are burdened with the decision of ordering another human being to death, it is imperative that evidence presented is valid and credible. Unfortunately, cases of incompetent defense, suppression of evidence, local prejudice and other affronts to justice continue to surface. In all capital cases, jurors are required to first convict the defendant, then assess separate aggravating factors presented by the state that favor a death sentence such as the manner of murder, the motive, and details about the victim. Jurors must also examine mitigating factors such as mental or physical abuse, where the burden of proof lies with the guilty party to show he or she is worthy of a lesser sentence. Consequently supporting why accurate evidence is paramount. The American Bar Association (ABA) requested a nationwide