In the New York Times editorial "Compassion Deficit" the editor discusses how local governments have responded to the increase in the homeless in different areas around the country. The first example the editor mentions informs the readers about the ordeal in Brooksville, Pennsylvania where a minister fought through the court system to have a shelter reopened after local officials closed it down for “zoning violations.” Reverend Jack Wisor was awarded $100,000 to reopen the shelter. This is one example of how government officials and the community are threatened by the homeless; feeling as if they are all criminals when in fact “in the past year, an average of 10 percent of homeless individuals seeking shelter lost homes to foreclosure,” according to an article on End Homelessness, "From Homeowner to Homeless Shelter" Shannon Moriarty.
With the new laws and arrests that are made against the homeless only adds to their financial burdens with legal fees. The closures of shelters prevent the homeless from the opportunity to prepare themselves mentally and physically to seek employment getting food, hygiene, and shelter. Local governments are creating obstacles for the homeless in their attempt getting the help they need to get back on track. It only takes a little help and encouragement to point someone in the right direction, granted they may not be in the same position as they were previously but any little bit helps.
The editor mentions the local governments in Daytona Beach, Florida whom are empathetic with the homeless. The community is coming together by helping the homeless get on their feet and helping clean up the city. I feel that’s how the entire country needs to take on the situation, as Americans we are suppose to be “United” coming together as one, and helping out the ones in need. There is a variety of reasons homelessness exist but the negative downturn of the economy is the main reason why there is a large increase. As the editor states, “it’s far more than a local shame…”

Morals vs. Politics

In the New York Times editorial "High Cost of Death Row" the editor points out that the death penalty is more expensive than an inmate sentenced to life without parole. Not only does the editor state his position of the death penalty being morally wrong he also catches the attention of those that are concerned more about politics versus beliefs. He mentions different states and the millions of dollars that are used towards an execution, and then stating that those funds would be more effective applied to other programs. The editor also refers to information obtained from "Death Penalty Information Center, a research organization that opposes capital punishment," and how some legislators are giving the allocated funds for capital punishment. As Americans we follow the Constitution to make sure the inmate is given a fair due process. The process of capital punishment consumes more funds with the pre-trial, trial, and appeals than with an inmate sentenced to life without parole.
The death penalty is a severe action taken by the state to determine the prisoner's justice. Executing the criminal is a long process thatis expensive for the state along with time consuming. I can understand how some feel 'an eye for an eye" and others feel that we should not decide when someone is put to death. I am in agreement with the editor that the funds that are used to execute a criminal are better used elsewhere; somewhere that will be beneficial for the state. We devote time and money to violent inmates to determine their fate. The inmate committed the violent acts and I believe executing someone should not be an option. Justice for the criminal would have them isolated in solitary confinement for the rest of their life without parole. Yes tax payers would still be spending money on the term the criminal is incarcerated, but not as extreme as the amount for executing them.