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 …show more content…
He uses seven arguments that are generally heard from opposition to refute it in his essay. He concedes that the death penalty is barbaric; however, he refutes that the only way to treat injustice is the death penalty. Additionally, he concedes that very few major democratic countries use the death penalty; nonetheless, not many countries are plagued with high murder rates. Koch uses ethos as he mentions, “as a district leader, councilman, congressman, and mayor..” to provide a background of where he comes from and his character. Throughout his essay he brings up statistics and great thinkers to bring credibility to his work as: Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Montesquieu, and Mill, Washington, Lincoln, Franklin and Adam Bedau. Furthermore, many of his refutation are based on logos. As Koch logical breaks down the first opposition of the death penalty being barbaric, explaining that there is no other punishment that are adequate enough to punish the crimes of cold blooded killers. He purposefully uses victims that are women and teens to gain an emotional feel toward the reader. The story of Kitty Genovese who was assaulted and murder as her neighbors turned their
This not only reflected Koch’s intellectual rigor and reach, but also revealed how complex the issue of capital punishment is not only for political leaders but society as a whole. Moreover, it was interesting to see that the essay was published in the New Republic, which has been liberal periodical that typically made editorial arguments against capital punishment. For the publication is to provide Koch with the platform for him to express his viewpoint illustrated in its own intellectual openness and rigor as well as served to further as that was its position as a leading publication regarding critical thought in the United States.
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.
Some crimes cannot be paid for in full. This is true for many acts of murder, rape, and torture for which some are put behind bars. As said in “Death Penalty’s False Promise: An Eye for an Eye” by Anna Quindlen, “There is nothing anyone could do that is bad enough for an adult who took a 6-year-old boy away from his parents, perhaps tortured, then murdered, him and cut off his head. Nothing at all. Lethal injection?
Essentially every paragraph of both essays has some sort of statistic, anecdote, or supposed fact that is used to help each case. To me, the use of logic to back up an argument is extremely helpful in getting one’s point across; personally, I do not respond well to moral appeals as much as I do ethical and logical ones, especially when it comes to matters such as the death penalty. Koch used very reliable sources, such studies done at M.I.T., to affirm his argument that the murder rate in the United States is so high, the death penalty should not only be advocated, but that it is necessary for our criminal justice system. Bruck also used a lot of anecdotal evidence and specific examples of death penalty recipients throughout time, creating a sort of “face to face”, more personal appeal to the reader. This allowed the audience of his essay to, in a way, come in contact with the very people who were against the death
...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.
In the article “The Penalty of Death”, written by H. L. Mencken, utilitarian principles are used to cover up for a system that wants results. All of the reasons that Mencken gives as justifications do not give concrete evidence of why the death penalty should continue as a means of punishment. The article states, “Any lesser penalty leaves them feeling that the criminal has got the better of society...” This statement alone demonstrates how he believes the death penalty brings justice and satisfaction to the people. Mencken creates the points he makes in his article in order to give society a way to make the death penalty seem less intrusive on moral principles and more of a necessary act.
Thomas Nagel’s paper Death would be better if renamed “Why Death is Bad” because that is the issue he is dealing with throughout it. He is not raising a general view on what death is but rather to establish a specific point about death; that it is bad. He raises the question on how we should regard death and whether “it is a bad thing to die.” Nagel is building a case for saying that death is bad, that death is an evil and that when someone dies something bad happens to them. What Nagel is trying to establish is the reputation of Epicurus who said that death is neither good nor bad because since death is not something we experience, and death is the taking away of all experience; the ability to experience, it is nothing to us, neither good nor bad. What Nagel wants to establish it that Epicurus didn’t have it right. Nagel wants to restore our common sense or natural view that death is an evil.
This essay will discuss the various views regarding the death penalty and its current status in the United States. It can be said that almost all of us are familiar with the saying “An eye for an eye” and for most people that is how the death penalty is viewed. In most people’s eyes, if a person is convicted without a doubt of murdering someone, it is believed that he/she should pay for that crime with their own life. However, there are some people who believe that enforcing the death penalty makes society look just as guilty as the convicted. Still, the death penalty diminishes the possibility of a convicted murderer to achieve the freedom needed to commit a crime again; it can also be seen as a violation of the convicted person’s rights going against the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
“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.
Americans have argued over the death penalty since the early days of our country. In the United States only 38 states have capital punishment statutes. As of year ended in 1999, in Texas, the state had executed 496 prisoners since 1930. The laws in the United States have change drastically in regards to capital punishment. An example of this would be the years from 1968 to 1977 due to the nearly 10 year moratorium. During those years, the Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment violated the Eight Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. However, this ended in 1976, when the Supreme Court reversed the ruling. They stated that the punishment of sentencing one to death does not perpetually infringe the Constitution. Richard Nixon said, “Contrary to the views of some social theorists, I am convinced that the death penalty can be an effective deterrent against specific crimes.”1 Whether the case be morally, monetarily, or just pure disagreement, citizens have argued the benefits of capital punishment. While we may all want murders off the street, the problem we come to face is that is capital punishment being used for vengeance or as a deterrent.
In Thomas Nagel’s “Death,” he questions whether death is a bad thing, if it is assumed that death is the permanent end of our existence. Besides addressing whether death is a bad thing, Nagel focuses on whether or not it is something that people should be fearful of. He also explores whether death is evil. Death is defined as permanent death, without any form of consciousness, while evil is defined as the deprivation of some quality or characteristic. In his conclusion, he reaffirms that conscious existence ends at death and that there is no subject to experience death and death ultimately deprives a person of life. Therefore, he states that Death actually deprives a person of conscious existence and the ability to experience. The ability to experience is open ended and future oriented. If a person cannot permanently experience in the future, it is a bad or an evil. A person is harmed by deprivation. Finally, he claims that death is an evil and a person is harmed even though the person does not experience the harm.
In Wislawa Szymborska’s poem, “On Death, without Exaggeration”, the idea of Death is assigned characteristics of Deaths waged war against numerous quantities of emerging life that, itself, destroys life. Szymborska grew up in Poland during the Second World War, she was surrounded by Death, in addition, the experiences she had helped her to cope with Death and remain hopeful. The poem seems to make the reader think Death is an inevitable part of life and in order to appreciate life one must accept Death. However, if you read closely in the last line of the second stanza, “which is always beside the point” (7), Death is revealed to be indifferent, not accepting. Szymborska uses persona, irony, and personification to create rich
The death penalty has been a strong controversial argument since it first got ratified into the law. It gives the power of taking an individual’s life into the hands of those around them. The peers around him may only need to state one effortless word that can sentence the person to incarceration leading to their inevitable execution that. The death penalty has inflicted a new type of concern in the minds of many Americans, in which many are not entirely sure such punishments are necessary anymore, not only through opinions but also through substantial facts that support the abolishing of such an inhumane punishment which has proven to have become less beneficial than anything else.
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