Analysis of, Death and Justice by Edward I. Koch 13 October 2013 In his essay Death and Justice, Edward Koch argues in support of capital punishment, he believes it is just and it saves lives. He successfully delivers an argument laced with true and vivid examples of unforgettable murderous events. His intended audience consists of the opposing voters and readers of the New Republic, the political magazine that published his essay. Prior to reading Edward Koch’s essay I was sure that I would disagree but it became clear to me that he is right. There are seven commonly held views against the death penalty that Koch argues against in his essay.
In “With death penalty, let punishment truly fit the crime,” published on CNN’s website on August 22nd, 2013, Robert Blecker, a professor at New York Law School, argues that the death penalty is suitable to anyone depending on the crime they commit. He mentions in his argument that the majority of people usually like to give the same degree of punishment to a person equal to the crime they committed. He is not fond with this sort of outcome as Blecker states the alternative of the death penalty, “An unpleasant life in prison, a quick but painful death cannot erase the harm. But it can help restore a moral balance”(Blecker 1). He describes lethal injections as too “hospitalized” and would oppose the thought of it.
Due to the amount of appeals and thorough investigation of each case, no piece of evidence is overlooked for the benefit of the defendant. Unless there is strong criminating evidence and the court is certain the accused is guilty, the death penalty would not be issued. For the 2,293,157 behind bars in our country the miniscule 3,220 on death row is unlikely to contain innocents due to their case being examined extensively. If one innocent man was wrongfully put to death by the state, should we abolish the death penalty? This argument can be compared to if a police officer shoots an innocent man, the country should purge police officers of their weapons.
This shows he cares more about what is right for the people then his own personal benefits. The authors used very strong language quoted by Del. Davis throughout the paper such as, “the death penalty is flawed, ineffective and racially biased. And if we can get enough people to understand that, then in a few years we can repeal the death penalty in the United States once and for all” (Jealous & Braveboy, p. 11). Those sentences speak a lot about how powerful words can affect us.
Wright demonstrated the use of this method at the end of his/her letter, as a way to conclude the argument. The choice given to the reader is, “…either we demand the death penalty for convicted murderers or we’ll never feel safe in our homes and on our streets. No one wants to live in fear, so it’s obvious that we need to bring back the death penalty!” By just presenting these two conclusions to the reader, it only allows them to imagine the two extreme possibilities. It is clear that there are more possibilities regarding the situation that the author is presenting – for example, criminals are kept in prison to allow people to feel safe in their homes, the death penalty is not the only option –; however, by him/her only pointing out those two outcomes it makes the reader more alarmed and willing to side with the authors
The people that Shelton killed are considered combatants because they support they governmental system and work with it. Based on Just War Theory, the proportionality of killing these people is that their deaths are outweighed by the justice that will bring to the judicial system. Shelton believes the system to be corrupt, focusing instead on conviction rates rather than making sure the right person is placed behind bars. By killing these people Shelton can put a new mindset into the “system” because those affected by the killings will want the right man punished rather since they now know how it feels to be wronged. All the killings made by Shelton were to people who were directly showed how flawed the system was.
Our justice system shows more sympathy for criminals than it does victims and this should be altered. It’s time we put the emphasis of our criminal justice system back on protecting the victim rather that the accused. We need justice for current and past victims, longer sentences and the death penalty is the way to achieve this. Death sentence provides a deterrent for prisoners already serving a life sentence. Nothing is to stop people who have been sentenced to life imprisonment to kill in prison; to escape and kill or to kill when their life sentence (minimum of 15 years) has been
He explains that the death penalty is just an act of torture and is too horrible to be used by our civilized society, stating that it is “torture until death” (220). He goes on to argue that the death penalty is unjust in its practice because it is applied in arbitrary and also in discriminatory ways. Quoting, “Remain grants that the death penalty is a just punishment for some murderers, but he thinks that justice does not require the death penalty for murderers” (221). He goes on to say that life imprisonment can be an alternative decision that stratifies the requirements of the justice
Even though I think flogging is humiliating and painful, it is clearly a much easier and cheaper way of locking up a criminal rather than putting them in prison, and that we should consider bringing it back for non-violent crimes. In Jacoby’s article, "Bring Back Flogging," he talks to the readers about the flaws of today's criminal justice system and tries to persuade them to bring back flogging as a punishment for some crimes and other instances. Jacoby’s thesis is directly in his title “Bring Back Flogging”. His title is an attention grabber and it also makes the us think about his essay. He starts his essay with a knowledge on the puritans justice system, and how they dealt with criminals back in the old days.
McGurruth Miguel Instructor A.D. Ulm EN 120A/ 03 23 November 2012 Did you ever wonder why we need death penalty in Pohnpei? Pohnpei really need to have this type of punishment to make its citizens to stop committing crimes. If Pohnpei state will not have this it will get out of control so we must adapt this type of punishment. Pohnpei state government should adapt the process of having death penalty for criminals. There are four important reasons why death penalty which are to reduce chaos, stop crimes, eliminate criminals, and secure citizens.