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
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.
As every day passes, prisoners wait patiently in their dreadful chamber, awaiting their execution day, which tends to result to physical and psychological torture. Consequently, this remains as the so-called righteousness of the death penalty, which is supposed to get rid of murderers, radicalism, and criminals that perform sodomy. Though, there are times when capital punishment goes horribly wrong, initiating the death of innocent prisoners, and instigating the prisoner to go through atrocious anguish. Moreover, the death penalty leads to additional damage to the victim’s family, since the death penalty entails the family to relieve the agony and grief of the death of their loved one for many years. Furthermore, capital punishment remains as the fundamental block to eradicate criminals, however, there are numerous drawbacks to the death penalty that lead to additional damage than solving the problem; therefore, Americans shouldn’t support capital punishment, unless their prepared to perform the undesirable job of killing the prisoners.
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.
Capital punishment has long been a topic for heated debate throughout the United States of America and the civilized world. For many politicians, the death penalty has been a key pillar to winning a state or election; and, to some extent, politics have been a key influence in America’s justice system. Many nations have outlawed capital punishment, with the United States included between 1972 and 1976. In the United States, there has been a renewed movement for this “eye for an eye” method, citing such arguments as “deterrence” and “victims’ rights.” This movement begs a single question – is there any economical, legal, or statistical support for the ultimate punishment? This article will strive to answer that question by evaluating several key issues (be they supporting or otherwise) concerning capital punishment – the legitimacy of ‘deterrence,’ the legality of capital punishment under the Eighth Amendment’s “cruel and unusual punishment” clause, and the cost associated with putting a man to death in relation to the cost associated with life imprisonment.
The Death Penalty is cruel and unusual, however we still give constitutional acceptance to the federal system. It presents “a relic of the earliest days of penology, when slavery, branding, and other corporal punishments were commonplace. Like those other barbaric practices, executions have no place in civilized society.”(1) It is wrong to advocate the the use of the capital punishment when numerous options are available to those in need of rehabilitation. Three of the most prominent problems with continuing this archaic method of retribution are innocents conflicted with inaccurate verdicts, the death penalty being a state-sanctioned killing that only continues the evolution of violence, and the nation's taxes going towards the purchase of fatal narcotics used in the killings of fellow human beings.
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...
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.
The death penalty remains a very controversial and highly criticized topic. Both sides argue vehemently from many different angles about the constitutionality, morality, and justice of the death penalty; but, both sides know that there must be some form of punishment for the violent criminals who commit murder. The conflict arises with the question, “what punishment is fair for a convicted murderer?”
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
Bedau, H. A. (2004). Killing as Punishment:Reflections on the Death Penalty in America. York, Pennsylvania. Maple Press. Northeastern University Press. Print
In order to defend my standing in this argument I will reason that the use of capital punishment has many benefits that trump any possible objections. 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.
Van Den Haag, Earnest, and John Conrad. The Death Penalty: A Debate. New York: Plenum Press, 1997.
The death penalty has been an ongoing debate for many years. Each side of the issue presents valid arguments to explain why someone should be either for or against the subject. One side of the argument says deterrence, the other side says there’s a likelihood of putting to death an innocent man; one says justice, retribution, and punishment; the other side says execution is murder itself. Crime is an unmistakable part of our society, and it is safe to say that everyone would concur that something must be done about it. The majority of people know the risk of crime to their lives, but the subject lies in the techniques and actions in which it should be dealt with. As the past tells us, capital punishment, whose meaning is “the use of death as a legally sanctioned punishment,” is a suitable and proficient means of deterring crime. Today, the death penalty resides as an effective method of punishment for murder and other atrocious crimes.
“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.