The worst thing that could happen to anyone is to have their life taken away from them. If you die by someone else’s cause, then the murderer deserves to be killed as well. It brings justice and relief to the grieving family of the victim. No one has the right or power to take away the life an innocent human being. Capitol punishment is something that has been in this world since the beginning of humanity. While it has been eliminated in many nations, the United States has followed the constitution and left it up to the states to decide for themselves. Currently, thirty-three states maintain an enforceable death penalty legislation. I support the death penalty, unfortunately the current system used to enforce capitol punishment across the …show more content…
Ultimately, the system needs to be fixed, not eliminated. Edward Koch shows effective evidence as to why the United States should have the death penalty in Death and Justice: How capital Punishment Affirms Life. His claim is “life is indeed precious, and I believe the death penalty helps to affirm this fact” (Koch 483). Those who are convicted of murder, having their own life taken before their very own eyes, shows the criminal the reality of what they have done. Koch asks the question, “Did their newfound reverence for life stem from the realization …show more content…
Bruck makes use of a distinct advantage that Koch did not have readily available: it is a response to one article and can therefore attack the arguments and examples that were used in the other article. Bruck examines a number of cases he believes illustrate the redundancy of the death sentence. Bruck does make a commendable point with the execution of Joseph Carol Shaw. He states “ His crime, propelled by mental illness and PCP, was one of terrible brutality” (Bruck 490). In this type of situation capitol punishment should not used because the person was not in their right mind. Instead we should get them help to make them sane again. Another statement that people cannot argue with is “Ernest Knighton was picked out to die the way a fisherman takes a cricket out of a bait jar (Bruck 492). Generally speaking about the death penalty, there should be a common ground. There needs to be rules put in place that make sure that everyone who commits a certain crime should either get the death penalty or not. It needs to be more constant. Bruck describes the story of Roosevelt Green who was executed in Georgia although he and his accomplice stated that he knew nothing about the murder his accomplice committed. Understandably, his execution would be inexcusably awful if he was truly innocent.
In the essay “Death and Justice”, Ed Koch, the former mayor of New York City, presents an argument defending the use of capital punishment in heinous murder cases. In advancing his viewpoint on the subject matter, Koch addresses the arguments made by those who oppose the death penalty. This novel approach to making an argument not only engages the reader more in the piece, but also immediately illustrates his balanced understanding of both sides of the argument. Rather than simply presenting a biased or one-sided argument regarding his opinion, Koch explores a full range of issues surrounding the incendiary issue and displays both balance and erudition in expression his opinion on the issue of capital punishment.
The death penalty, a subject that is often the cause of major controversy, has become an integral part of the southern justice system in recent years. The supporters and opponents of this issue have heatedly debated each other about whether or not the death penalty should be allowed. They back their arguments with moral, logical, and ethical appeals, as seen in the essays by Ed Koch and David Bruck. Although both authors are on opposite sides of the issue, they use the same ideas to back up their argument, while ignoring others that they don’t have evidence for. Koch and Bruck’s use of moral, logical, and ethical persuasion enhance both of their arguments and place a certain importance on the issue of the death penalty, making the readers come to the realization that it is more than just life and death, or right and wrong; there are so many implications that make the issue much more 3-dimensional. In dealing with politics and controversial issues such as capital punishment.
Bruck begins his essay by refuting all of Koch arguments and then goes onto stating his reasons. Then he uses transitional sentences, “Those of us…the difference between the death penalty in theory, and what happens when you actually try to use it,” to transition into arguing about varies cases to back his reasons. Furthermore, he indicates that mental illness is a factor when a person commits a crime. He makes a reference to the Middle Ages when he states that “Since the Middle Ages….prohibited the execution of anyone who is mentally ill to understand what is about to happen to him and why.” He makes this reference to illustrate that the laws of the middle ages in dealing with person who is mentally ill is far better than our laws of now even though the Medieval time was a barbaric age. Bruck then transitions into asserting that the execution of innocents could and would occur. He supports his reason by mentioning Roosevelt Green wrongful ex...
Edward I. Koch uses his essay “The Death Penalty: Can It Ever Be Justified?” to defend capital punishment. He believes that justice for murderous crimes is essential for the success of the nation. The possibility of error is of no concern to Koch and if would-be murderers can be deterred from committing these heinous crimes, he feels the value of human life will be boosted and murder rates will consequently plummet (475-479). Koch makes a valiant effort to express these views, yet research contradicts his claims and a real look at his idea of justice must be considered in order to create a fair nation for all.
Murder, a common occurrence in American society, is thought of as a horrible, reprehensible atrocity. Why then, is it thought of differently when the state government arranges and executes a human being, the very definition of premeditated murder? Capital punishment has been reviewed and studied for many years, exposing several inequities and weaknesses, showing the need for the death penalty to be abolished.
In this paper I will argue for the moral permissibility of the death penalty and I am fairly confident that when the case for capital punishment is made properly, its appeal to logic and morality is compelling. The practice of the death penalty is no longer as wide-spread as it used to be throughout the world; in fact, though the death penalty was nearly universal in past societies, only 71 countries world-wide still officially permit the death penalty (www.infoplease.com); the U.S. being among them. Since colonial times, executions have taken place in America, making them a part of its history and tradition. Given the pervasiveness of the death penalty in the past, why do so few countries use the death penalty, and why are there American states that no longer sanction its use? Is there a moral wrong involved in the taking of a criminal’s life? Of course the usual arguments will be brought up, but beyond the primary discourse most people do not go deeper than their “gut feeling” or personal convictions. When you hear about how a family was ruthlessly slaughtered by a psychopathic serial killer most minds instantly feel that this man should be punished, but to what extent? Would it be just to put this person to death?
My claim: I argue in favor of the right to die. If someone is suffering from a terminal illness that is: 1) causing them great pain – the pain they are suffering outweighs their will to live (clarification below) 2) wants to commit suicide, and is of sound mind such that their wanting is reasonable. In this context, “sound mind” means the ability to logically reason and not act on impulses or emotions. 3) the pain cannot be reduced to the level where they no longer want to commit suicide, then they should have the right to commit suicide. It should not be considered wrong for someone to give that person the tools needed to commit suicide.
The death penalty continues to be an issue of controversy and is an issue that will be debated in the United States for many years to come. According to Hugo A. Bedau, the writer of “The Death Penalty in America”, capital punishment is the lawful infliction of the death penalty. The death penalty has been used since ancient times for a variety of offenses. The Bible says that death should be done to anyone who commits murder, larceny, rapes, and burglary. It appears that public debate on the death penalty has changed over the years and is still changing, but there are still some out there who are for the death penalty and will continue to believe that it’s a good punishment. I always hear a lot of people say “an eye for an eye.” Most people feel strongly that if a criminal took the life of another, their’s should be taken away as well, and I don’t see how the death penalty could deter anyone from committing crimes if your going to do the crime then at that moment your not thinking about being on death role. I don’t think they should be put to death they should just sit in a cell for the rest of their life and think about how they destroy other families. A change in views and attitudes about the death penalty are likely attributed to results from social science research. The changes suggest a gradual movement toward the eventual abolition of capital punishment in America (Radelet and Borg, 2000).
Ethics and morality are the founding reasons for both supporting and opposing the death penalty, leading to the highly contentious nature of the debate. When heinous crimes are com...
One of the most repetitive and controversial topics discussed in the criminal justice system, is the death penalty. Capital punishment has been a part of our nation’s history since the creation of our constitution. In fact, as of January 1st, 2016, 2,943 inmates were awaiting their fate on death row (Death Penalty Information Center). Throughout my life, I have always been a strong advocate for the death penalty. During the majority of my undergraduate degree, I was a fierce supporter of capital punishment when discussing the topic in classes. However, throughout many criminal justice courses, I found myself in the minority, regarding the abolishment of the death penalty. While debating this topic, I would always find myself sympathetic to the victims and their families, as one should be, wanting those who were responsible for heinous crimes to
“How the Death Penalty Saves Lives” According to DPIC (Death penalty information center), there are one thousand –four hundred thirty- eight executions in the United States since 1976. Currently, there are Two thousand –nine hundred –five inmates on death row, and the average length of time on death row is about fifteen years in the United States. The Capital punishment, which appears on the surface to the fitting conclusion to the life of a murder, in fact, a complicated issue that produces no clear resolution.; However, the article states it’s justice. In the article “How the Death Penalty Saves Lives” an author David B. Muhlhausen illustrates a story of Earl Ringo , Jr, brutal murder’s execution on September ,10,
Edward Koch, who was former mayor of New York, wrote an article about one of the most controversial talks called the death penalty. This controversial topic questions if it is right to execute a person for a crime committed or if it is wrong. He made the point that the death penalty is good, in order to conclude that murderers should be punish with this penalty. He was bias in most of the passage, yet he tried to acknowledge other people’s opinion. In this article, Koch gives his supports to the idea to convict a murderer with death penalty by using a tone of objectiveness, shooting for the individuals who opposes his position to be the audience, and have a written form of conviction for the audience.
Capital Punishment is a highly controversial topic. It’s not about an eye for an eye or life for a life. It’s about a person with dangerous unlawful activities that deserves to be penalize, and Edward Irving Koch conceives it as well. Edward Irving Koch was a prominent and highly assertive mayor of New York City from 1978 to 1989. Koch practiced law for nineteen years, and that took him to get elected as a district leader; than city councilman, US House of Representative, and then he ran for the mayor of New York City, which comprehends more stressful constituents (handout). Koch wrote an article on the subject of capital punishment, “Death and Justice.” It was published in The New Republic magazine on April 1985. As far as Koch believes it, capital punishment is the only way to save innocent lives when he states, “Life is indeed precious, and I believe the death penalty helps to affirm this fact” (320). Koch is making this statement by exemplifying the value of human life, and what he accepts as true punishment for all those ruthless criminals. The audience of his article were typically skeptic because people can be oppose to it, because they think it’s immoral and government should not be given any rights to dictate human lives. Although people might be oppose to capital punishment, yet Edward Koch makes it sure to dispute oppositional arguments about capital punishment by use of modes of persuasion such as Ethos, Pathos and logos.
Bedau, H. A. (2004). Killing as Punishment:Reflections on the Death Penalty in America. York, Pennsylvania. Maple Press. Northeastern University Press. Print
“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.