In his essay, Continuing the Search for Kinder Executions, published in The New York Times2003, Mark Essig gradually reveals his opinions on the brutality of capital punishment. Even though prisoners may have committed acts that can be classified as wrong with the law, Essig believes that they should not endure any sufferance during capital punishment because it is inhumane. This action does not mean they will be able to get away with the crimes; they should just not be able to be brutally punished. While the author acknowledges logical arguments that favor capital punishment, he counters with carefully worded emotionally laded examples that oppose the practice of executing felons because he is against cruel punishments.
Right from the start, the author begins to reveal his judgment on capital punishment before he introduces his essay. This judgement is apparent in the title ‘Kinder Executions’. The author uses this not only in the title but also throughout the entire essay. The word kinder contradicts the common meaning of
…show more content…
Marshall and Essig come to an agreement when talking about the death penalty specifically. They both believe that it is unconstitutional, unfair, and ineffective. In Essig’s article, he uses examples of prisoners who sought to have a more painful death in order to highlight the hypocrisy of “painless execution.” For example John Byrd, who was a convicted murder in Ohio, specifically requested to be electrocuted rather than the needle itself. The legislature abolished electrocution and forced him to die by lethal injection. Another example is a prisoner named Earl Bramblett who declared: “ I am not going to lay down on a gurney and have them stick a needle in my arm and make it look like antiseptic execution”(Essig, 2003, p. 2). The author mentions both of these prisoners because he wants the reader to visualize the actual brutality of capital
Introduction: Throughout this discussion I will debate and analyse the ideas I have collected from my research. My discussion is separated under sub headings which will allow me to form a better understanding of how capital punishment is viewed which will help me in reaching a possible answer to my question. Firstly I am going to be discussing two very well known case studies.
In George Orwell’s essay, “A Hanging,” and Michael Lake’s article, “Michael Lake Describes What The Executioner Actually Faces,” a hardened truth about capital punishment is exposed through influence drawn from both authors’ firsthand encounters with government- supported execution. After witnessing the execution of Walter James Bolton, Lake describes leaving with a lingering, “sense of loss and corruption that [he has] never quite shed” (Lake. Paragraph 16). Lake’s use of this line as a conclusion to his article solidifies the article’s tone regarding the mental turmoil that capital execution can have on those involved. Likewise, Orwell describes a disturbed state of mind present even in the moments leading up to the execution, where the thought, “oh, kill him quickly, get it over, stop that abominable noise!” crossed his mind (Orwell.
...uasion by the use of varies cases to support his argument. He mostly employs techniques such as juxtaposition, rhetorical question, and pathos and logos to strengthen his argument. However, his lack of use of an array of techniques makes his essay come short. In addition, when he states that “these are just the tiresome facts” he disregards his whole argument before that sentence by making it seem like his argument is irrelevant. Moreover, he fails to mention to his readers that he is a lawyer and also does not mention his cases which would have given him an authoritative position far better than Mayor Koch to state his view on the subject of death penalty. However I do agree with in saying that justice does demand that we punish murderers but not by execution but rather by imprisonment in which their bad conscience would become their enemy and tormentor for life.
Throughout America’s history, capital punishment, or the death penalty, has been used to punish criminals for murder and other capital crimes. In the early 20th century, numerous people would gather for public executions. The media described these events gruesome and barbaric (“Infobase Learning”). People began to wonder if the capital punishment was really constitutional.
The one thing about this argument, though, if it were valid, it would not show that capital punishment is never proportionate and just, but only that it is very rarely so. The implication of this argument is not that we ought to do away with capital punishment altogether, nor that we ought to restrict it to those cases of murder where the murderer had warned the victim weeks or months in advance of what he was going to do, but we ought to reexamine the procedure of carrying out this kind of
The death penalty is our harshest punishment (3). It is irrevocable: it ends the existence of those punished, instead of temporarily imprisoning them. Further, although not intended to cause physical pain, execution is the only corporal punishment still applied to adults (4). These singular characteristics contribute to the perennial, impassioned controversy about capital punishment.
The death penalty debate in the United States is dominated by the fraudulent voice of the anti-death penalty movement. The culture of lies and deceit so dominates that movement that many of the falsehoods are now wrongly accepted as fact, by both advocates and opponents of capital punishment. (Sharp) Opponents of capital punishment are extremely outspoken and vehement in their arguments. The American Civil Liberties Union believes the death penalty violates the constitutional ban against cruel and unusual punishment. However, the death penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment, the authors of the United States Constitution’s Eighth Amendment related “cruel and unusual” punishment to methods used in ages past. The Eighth Amendment was created to outlaw such practices as bur...
Throughout the ages, death penalty has always been a controversial topic and triggered numerous insightful discussion. In Kroll’s Unquiet Death of Robert Harris, the writer employs pathos as an appeal throughout the whole article in order to convince the audiences that death penalty is “something indescribably ugly” and “nakedly barbaric”. While Mencken makes use of ethos and logos and builds his arguments in a more constructive and effective way to prove that death penalty is necessary and should exist in the social system.
With the opinion of multiple authors present, individuals are left to make their own decision concerning the rights of capital punishment. To begin with, Lydia Child is the author of Against Capital Punishment; Child has a negative view towards those associated in supporting capital punishment. With this in mind, Child believes human life is a sacred gift and should not be discriminated against. In addition, Walter Rodgers expresses his feeling throughout the article America’s New Drug of Choice: Revenge. Rodgers reminds citizens life is not all about vengeance. Also, Rodgers reminds people about the history of executing innocent people in our nation. The two previous authors show a few perspectives regarding capital punishment.
Harrison, Brigid C. “Death to Capital Punishment.” The New York Times, Late Edition. New York, New York: Dec. 2, 2007. Print.
Capote shows the effect of childhood on the killers and if the death penalty is fair. Capote gives the killers a voice to show their humanity by giving childhood accounts of their lives. He questions the justice of is the death penalty fair, and if inherent evil is a product of childhood or society. Is it nature or nurture? Capote gives a look into the minds of the killers and the nature vs. nurture theory.
Presently, a driving ethical debate in the United States is the decision to embrace or abolish the death penalty. This debate is notable because it impacts several different segments of society. Capital punishment can prove to be beneficial to our community because practicing the death penalty, both appropriately and efficiently, can produce advantageous results. Consider the amount of government money being hemorrhaged into the justice system; as well as, the poignant...
In the essay “The Penalty of Death,” by H.L. Mencken, he shares with us why he disagrees with the two most commonly heard arguments of capital punishment, Mencken also shares his views on the inhuman treatment of making prisoners wait for death. Though there are those with strong opposition to capital punishment, Mencken indicates it is a universally natural human impulse that give us katharsis. Menken argues that more inhumane than the capital punishment itself is the American way of putting it off so long. It is common today to dismiss the humane treatment of those who are facing capital punishment. The three most effective rhetorical strategies Mencken uses in “The Penalty of Death” are tone, description, and examples and illustrations.
When someone is legally convicted of a capital crime, it is possible for their punishment to be execution. The Death Penalty has been a controversial topic for many years. Some believe the act of punishing a criminal by execution is completely inhumane, while others believe it is a necessary practice needed to keep our society safe. In this annotated bibliography, there are six articles that each argue on whether or not the death penalty should be illegalized. Some authors argue that the death penalty should be illegal because it does not act as a deterrent, and it negatively effects the victim’s families. Other scholar’s state that the death penalty should stay legalized because there is an overcrowding in prisons and it saves innocent’s lives. Whether or not the death penalty should be
“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” is how the saying goes. Coined by the infamous Hammurabi’s Code around 1700 BC, this ancient expression has become the basis of a great political debate over the past several decades – the death penalty. While the conflict can be whittled down to a matter of morals, a more pragmatic approach shows defendable points that are far more evidence backed. Supporters of the death penalty advocate that it deters crime, provides closure, and is a just punishment for those who choose to take a human life. Those against the death penalty argue that execution is a betrayal of basic human rights, an ineffective crime deterrent, an economically wasteful option, and an outdated method. The debate has experienced varying levels of attention over the years, but has always kept in the eye of the public. While many still advocate for the continued use of capital punishment, the process is not the most cost effective, efficient, consistent, or up-to-date means of punishment that America could be using today.