Analysis Of The Death Penalty Essay

Justifying the Death Penalty: An Analysis of Two Essays

“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement” (Tolkien, 1994.) Capital punishment, or more commonly known as the death penalty, has been a hotly controversial issue throughout the history of humankind. Some people have the view that Hammurabi had in his own law code, “an eye for an eye,” whereas others believe that it is wrong to kill another person no matter the nature of their crime. In the essays, “Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life” by Edward Koch and “The Death Penalty” by David Bruck, this controversy is once again discussed and argued between two knowledgeable authors.

In Edward Koch 's essay, his main claim is that the death penalty is just, in the case of heinous crimes and it should be used to protect the sanctity of human life. As contradictory as this may sound, he makes it work in his reasonings. Koch uses an almost brutish example of cancer treatments to better explain his view of the death penalty. Koch rationalizes that if somebody has cancer, in order to get rid of cancer, one may have to go through chemotherapy, radiation, invasive surgeries, all to stop the cancer cells from spreading to other parts of the body. Some people may view these types of medical treatments as "barbaric" or harsh, but they are used for the greater good of someone 's life. Also, it is important to note that Koch is writing this to most likely be read by a

Bruck’s main claim is that the death penalty is inhumane. He is trying to persuade the readers that the death penalty is illogical and unnecessary in our American society. Bruck brings up a few examples of men that were wrongly convicted and executed. He also brings up a man who specifically was sentenced to death but he was mentally insane while on death row. The author explains the laws surrounding the death penalty and mental illness. The author also makes it a point to discuss arbitrariness. The author describes this as when people commit a crime that unexpectedly results in murder. He uses the example of Ernest Knighton who had planned to rob a gas station who later on ended up killing the gas station owner. The author did not think that the criminals death sentence was just. Bruck claims that he should not have been electrocuted because his intent was not to kill the gas station owner. The author then goes on to question the motives of the jury regarding his skin color and the color of the jury. One of the other things that this author discusses is the idea that the prisoners who are on death row are chosen at random. The author doesn 't seem to find a crime that is heinous enough to result in the death of the criminal. Whereas Koch was the