In recent discussions of the death penalty, a controversial issue has been whether the death penalty is an appropriate punishment or should it be abolished by the government of the United States. On one hand, Edward Koch’s argues in his essay of “Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life” his thesis is, “Life is precious, and I believe the death penalty helps to affirm this fact.” From this perspective, those who are convicted of murder, having their own life be taken from them, shows them the reality of what they have done in their life. On the other hand, however, David Bruck argues in his essay of “The Death Penalty” explaining his opposing belief against the death penalty and it is an inhumane action; it is also a waste because it is a blood thirst due to anger and retaliation. In the words of David Bruck, his view’s main
The criminal probably deserves to die; killing him will not bring back his victims. The death penalty is barbaric; putting a murderer to death makes us no better than he was. Killing someone, no matter the reason, is morally wrong. For people who follow religion, I am certain that no religion encourages murder. My family are devoted catholics and in a time so was I but the 6th commandment is thou shall not kill. In “Death and Justice”, Edward Koch uses the example of a killer named joseph Carl Shaw who was put to death for murdering two teenagers. In Shaw’s appeal to the governor for clemency he said that “killing is wrong when I did it. Killing is wrong when you do it. I hope you have the courage and moral strength to stop the killing”. In my opinion he is right. Killing is
What does rhetoric have to do with capital punishment? Plenty actually if you want to advance an argument as well as Edward I. Koch has in his compelling essay in support of the death penalty. Koch is introduced by the editors of the book containing his essay as “The feisty, opinionated mayor of New York City…” (handout). The editors continue describing Koch’s character and abilities as they point out that he is politician with a law degree and experience as a lawyer. More specifically that he was a leader for the Democratic Party and then a congressman (handout). Koch was still mayor of New York City in 1985 when he wrote “Death and Justice”. “[The] essay, was first published in the New Republic…” (handout) a liberal American magazine. The readers of the New Republic are primarily democrats and can therefore be assumed in general to be against capital punishment. This situation has Koch in the precarious position of arguing his point contrary to the consensus of his constituents. In spite of this daunting scenario Koch is compelled to produce his essay because he wants to make in clear to his constituents that, even in light of the recently publicized statements by convicted killers that capital punishment is wrong, he [Koch] still supports the death penalty. Koch has opened his introduction with specific and graphic testimony about the statements made by the killers Messrs. Willie and Shaw. I believe that Koch has done a good job of advancing his argument through the use of the modes of persuasion which I will now demonstrate by analyzing his use of ethos, logos and pathos in his writing.
A Gallup Poll shows that “61% of Americans view the death penalty as morally acceptable” (Muhlhausen 1). Despite this statistic, much controversy revolves around the topic of capital punishment. However, the issue very complicated. Questions related to morality, deterrence, and cost are all part of the debate. Professors David Muhlhausen and Philip Holloway take different stances on the death penalty debate in two articles. David Muhlhausen believes the death penalty should be used, whereas Phillip Holloway thinks capital punishment is not appropriate. A close examination of the rhetorical strengths and weaknesses in these articles reveals that Muhlhausen narrowly creates the more effective argument.
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.
Special attention will be given to the topics of deterrence, the families of the victims, and the increased population that has been occurring within our prisons. Any possible objections will also be assessed, including criticism regarding the monetary value of the use of the death penalty and opposition to this practice due to its characteristics, which some identify as hypocritical and inhumane. My goal in arguing for the moral justifiability of capital punishment is not to use this practice extensively, but rather to reduce the use to a minimum and use it only when necessary. Above all else, capital punishment should be morally justified in extreme situations because it has a deterrent effect. Many criminals seem to be threatened more by the thought of death rather than a long-term prison sentence.
The Death Penalty practice has always been a topic of major debate and ethical concern among citizens in society. The death penalty can be defined as the authorization to legally kill a person as punishment for committing a crime, this practice is also known as Capital Punishment. The purpose of creating a harsher punishment for criminals was to deter other people from committing atrocious crimes and it was also intended to serve as a way of incapacitation and retribution. In fact, deterrence, incapacitation, and retribution are some of the basic concepts in the justice system, which explain the intentions of creating punishments as a consequence for illegal conduct. In the United States, the Congress approved the federal death penalty on June 25, 1790 and according to the Death Penalty Focus (DPF, 2011) organization website “there have been 343 executions, two of which were women”.
It's dark and cold, the fortress-like building has cinderblock walls, and death lurks around the perimeter. A man will die tonight. Under the blue sky, small black birds gather outside the fence that surrounds the building to flaunt their freedom. There is a gothic feel to the scene, as though you have stepped into a horror movie.
Proponents of capital punishment believe that killing criminals is a moral and ethical way of punishing them. They feel there is justification in taking the life of a certain criminal, when in fact that justification is nothing more than revenge. They also feel that the death penalty deters crime, although there have been no conclusive studies confirming that viewpoint (Bedau).
In the essay, Death and Justice, by Edward I. Koch makes his argument of why he supports capital punishment by the examination of his opposition’s arguments that are most frequently heard. Koch claims the death penalty is just and supports his claims by rebutting the arguments. Koch believes that capital punishment is a mean to uphold justice, until another form of punishments are found as a better solution. Other punishment would be inadequate and therefore unjust for the crimes that deprive someone else life.. Robert Lee Willie and Joseph Carl Shaw committed murders before the murder, they were executed for. If theses individuals had received the death penalty in the beginning, than maybe an 18 year old woman, and two teenagers could still
It is morally justified to kill criminals who have lost their right to life and whom we have a right to kill.
In support of abolishing the death penalty, criminal defense lawyer David Bruck provides a persuasive thesis in his second-to-last paragraph. In summary, Bruck says, "punishing murderers is just and society needs to be protected, but justice does not permit killing men whom already are imprisoned" (610). In support of this thesis and in response to Edward I. Koch's essay, Bruck argues: there is a difference between the theory of the death penalty and what actually happens, wrongfully executing an innocent individual is an inherent risk, the selection of the death penalty as a punishment is often inconsistent, and, death cases backlog the court systems. Lastly, he believes the death penalty creates "an attitude toward human life that is not
In the feature essay “Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life,” the author, Edward I Koch illustrates his opinion about why he supports the death penalty and believes all life is precious. In the essay he provides seven arguments that people have when they are against capital punishment and those seven arguments are; the death penalty is “barbaric,” No other mayor democracy uses the death penalty, an innocent person might be executed by mistake, capital punishment cheapens the value of human life, the death penalty is applied in a discriminatory, Thou shalt not kill, the death penalty I state-sanctioned murder.
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, or death penalty, is one of the most controversial topics in the United States for a long time. Death penalty is when a criminal is put to death for committing crimes such as murder. Regarding this type of punishment, while there are many supporters who believe that the death penalty should be legalized throughout the nation, there is also a large number of people who against it. While Ernest van den Hagg believes that death penalty is a form of retributive justice that is needed to maintain the legal order by punishing the one who deserves to be punished, on the other hand, Hugo Adam Bedau believes that the purposes of death penalty are to be valued in term of utilitarianism, or giving positive consequences to the society.
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.
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