Koch Vs. Bruck

312 Words2 Pages
Michael Rea March 22, 2011 Koch vs. Bruck "Is capital punishment an adequate and necessary form of payback for the crime of murder? And will it prevent the occurrence of future murders? These are the vital issues argued by Edward I. Koch in his article, "The Death Penalty is Justice," and David Bruck's "No Death Penalty." In my opinion, Koch is able to ideally show the need for capital punishment, while Bruck is ineffective at justifying his stance that the death penalty is an unsuitable punishment for the crime of murder." In "Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life", readers view the opinions toward the death penalty in today's world. Koch reviews a variety of excuses to abolish the death penalty, and in his mind all of them should be disregarded. He argues the importance of the death penalty, as well as, argues excuses of the death penalty opponents. He argues the ethics and politics towards the importance and support of the death penalty. He tries to appeal to the readers’ emotion whenever he can. He uses information that appeals to himself and other readers as opposed to Bruck’s essay. In contrast, in “No Death Penalty” written by Bruck, it seems that the majority of the essay was just quotes and cold hard facts that Bruck found before writing. He quotes Koch several times and tries to convince the reader that Koch’s information is incorrect. Overall, I am more convinced by Koch’s essay than Bruck’s essay just because it appeals to me on a more emotional level, and causes me to want to keep the death penalty. Although I admire that Bruck tried to appeal to the audience in a more intellectual tone, I still feel that his essay was lacking, and will not adequately convince the reader to vote against the death
Open Document