College Republican viewI am in favor of the death penalty. It is immoral for individuals who inflict eternal suffering on innocent lives to be given food, heat and shelter under the tax-payers' expenses.  While opponents of the death penalty may argue it is more cruel to keep them in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives, there are risks to account for. There have been instances when murderers escape prison and proceed to take more innocent lives.  Richard Matt and David Sweat, both convicted murderers, managed to escape a maximum-security prison in 2015. While they did not murder anybody when they escaped, the chance they would murder someone was existent.Many who oppose the death penalty cite the costliness of it compared to life in prison without parole. A Duke University study from 1993 found the cost of executing someone in North Carolina is 2.16 million dollars more than putting that same person to prison for life. It is important, however, to investigate what makes it costly and cut corners when necessary. Mass shooters and other murderers of similar degrees who are convicted should not be allowed to appeal their death sentence when there is concrete evidence they committed these atrocities. Omitting the appeals process will cut on costs and time.One of the main duties of the United States government is to protect the innocent and to serve justice to those who do wrong. Sentencing someone to death who took others’ lives is only just, no matter the costs. The death penalty is an appropriate punishment because it gives the victims of these crimes a form of closure, knowing the perpetrator is no longer capable of harming them or anybody else.

College DemocratAccording to the Federal Election Commission, foreign nationals are prohibited from “making any contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or making any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement in connection with any federal, state or local election in the United States… Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to an FEC enforcement action, criminal prosecution, or both.”The reason this section is so significant is because of the news that President Trump attempted to solicit information on Joe Biden and his son from Ukraine. According to Bloomberg, in 2015-2016, there was international pressure from the EU and domestically in Ukraine to remove then Prosecutor General of Ukraine Viktor Shokin. The Obama administration threatened to withhold about $1 billion in loan guarantees to pressure Ukraine to remove Shokin. The reason there was pressure to remove him was because he was known to be corrupt and to not be acting in good faith in his investigations.This is important because Hunter Biden was working for a company Shokin was investigating for corruption at the time of his dismissal. A whistleblower recently reported that President Trump contacted Ukraine’s President, Volodymyr Zelensky, looking for them to reopen that investigation. If Ukraine failed to comply, they would not receive military aid. This goes back to the FEC’s rules on foreign nationals. If you read it again, it states that foreign nationals may not contribute money or any “other thing of value." While it does not state what would be considered a thing of value, many have concluded that it can include information.The act of attempting to solicit information from a foreign government is problematic as it only makes sense they would want something in return. This could lead to even more corruption.Regardless of what one may think about the Biden incident, the fact that the Trump administration asked Zelensky to work with his personal attorney and the Attorney General to get information on his political opponent is unethical, corrupt and arguably, against the law.