In the feature essay “Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life,” the author, Edward I Koch illustrates his opinion about why he supports the death penalty and believes all life is precious. In the essay he provides seven arguments that people have when they are against capital punishment and those seven arguments are; the death penalty is “barbaric,” No other mayor democracy uses the death penalty, an innocent person might be executed by mistake, capital punishment cheapens the value of human life, the death penalty is applied in a discriminatory, Thou shalt not kill, the death penalty I state-sanctioned murder. In the essay “ The Death Penalty,” the author, David Bruck explicates his opinion about why he’s against the death penalty by quoting several things that Koch said. Bruck believes that the death penalty is inhumane and not servicing justice, he shows this by illustrating some cases were an inmate was on death row. The examples he uses are to persuade the reader to believe that capital punishment isn’t serving justice by killing a human who is in prison. In the essay Bruck talks about a case where a young black engineer served more than a year for a robbery he didn’t commit. Bruck’s make his point by flipping the scenario and say if someone had been killed in this case Lenell jeter, the young black …show more content…
For example, Bruck’s says, “ At least it gives us the satisfaction of knowing that we got one or two of the sons of bitches” (493). To me this sounds like an eye for an eye, which I believe is absurd. For some people who believe that someone’s learning a lesson, think about it can you teach someone to not kill by killing to set an example? I also agree with how he illustrated his point about mistakenly executing an innocent person. He also provides statistics in order to persuade the reader as to why we don’t need capital
In the essay “Death and Justice”, Ed Koch, the former mayor of New York City, presents an argument defending the use of capital punishment in heinous murder cases. In advancing his viewpoint on the subject matter, Koch addresses the arguments made by those who oppose the death penalty. This novel approach to making an argument not only engages the reader more in the piece, but also immediately illustrates his balanced understanding of both sides of the argument. Rather than simply presenting a biased or one-sided argument regarding his opinion, Koch explores a full range of issues surrounding the incendiary issue and displays both balance and erudition in expression his opinion on the issue of capital punishment.
He begins his article with a counterclaim, which discusses how the death penalty is actually a better alternative than life in prison without parole. He uses an example of David Zink, a recently executed murderer, who says prisoners should “embrace” the death penalty because it is better than spending “23 hours a day locked inside a cell” (Holloway 3). A personal story from an actual inmate lends much credibility to his counterclaim. Acknowledging the death penalty can be beneficial strengthens Holloway’s overall argument. Holloway’s most effective claim is the high cost of litigation to the taxpayers. He uses good statistics when he says, in Colorado, the James Holmes case has cost the state “$3.5 million” dollars (3). This is strong data to back up his argument. Not seeking the death penalty only costs “an average of $150,000, again providing valid statistics to further his argument (3). When given a choice, taxpayers will want to save money when it affects their bottom line. These numbers are only for one case, so readers will wonder what the death penalty is really costing their state. His next argument states innocent people are sitting on death row. Holloway appeals to the reader’s emotions when he states, “there have been 154 verified cases of death row exonerations since 1973” (4). Readers will be mad or sad that this many people are locked in jail for crimes they did not commit. He
It is the 1940's, in a small Cajun community, there is a trial for the murder of a white liquor store attendant. The defense is Jefferson, a poorly educated black man. His appointed attorney is closing his argument in an attempt to spare his client the death penalty. His attorney states, "Gentlemen of the jury, be merciful. For God's sake, be merciful. He is innocent of all charges brought against him. But let us say he was not. Let us for a moment say he was not. What justice would there be to take this life? Justice, gentlemen? Why, I would just as soon put a hog in the electric chair as this." (p. 8)
The death penalty, a subject that is often the cause of major controversy, has become an integral part of the southern justice system in recent years. The supporters and opponents of this issue have heatedly debated each other about whether or not the death penalty should be allowed. They back their arguments with moral, logical, and ethical appeals, as seen in the essays by Ed Koch and David Bruck. Although both authors are on opposite sides of the issue, they use the same ideas to back up their argument, while ignoring others that they don’t have evidence for. Koch and Bruck’s use of moral, logical, and ethical persuasion enhance both of their arguments and place a certain importance on the issue of the death penalty, making the readers come to the realization that it is more than just life and death, or right and wrong; there are so many implications that make the issue much more 3-dimensional. In dealing with politics and controversial issues such as capital punishment.
In “The Death Penalty” (1985), David Bruck argues that the death penalty is injustice and that it is fury rather than justice that compels others to “demand that murderers be punished” by death. Bruck relies on varies cases of death row inmates to persuade the readers against capital punishment. His purpose is to persuade readers against the death penalty in order for them to realize that it is inhuman, irrational, and that “neither justice nor self-preservation demands that we kill men whom we have already imprisoned.” Bruck does not employ an array of devices but he does employ some such as juxtaposition, rhetorical questions, and appeals to strengthen his argument. He establishes an informal relationship with his audience of supporters of capital punishment such as Mayor Koch.
..."Justice Is Not Served with the Death Penalty." The Death Penalty. Ed. Jenny Cromie and Lynn M. Zott. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "The Road to Justice and Peace." blog.nj.com 2 Feb. 2009. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 28 Apr. 2014.
Although the flaws of death penalty are lucid, they are often times over looked by society. Innocuous people have been ruled to death based upon mistaken eyewitness testimonies, mistaken identity, and false confessions through coercion. Former Governor of Illinois George Ryan was a staunch proponent o...
Mr. Edward Koch wrote the essay “Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms life”. Mr. Koch makes the argument that the death penalty is still the most appropriate punishment for certain egregious criminal acts. He suggest that in most murder cases, execution is the only justified punishment in order to atone for the taking of an innocent person’s life. His contention is that only by putting the murderer to death do we as a society assert our intolerance for such heinous acts. Koch mentions his thesis, “Life is precious, and I believe the death penalty helps to affirm that fact.” (Koch -Intro) He states this to say if a convicted murderer is sentence to death they will experience the consternation, like his victim before he killed. Mr. Koch asked a question, “Did their newfound reverence for life stem from the realization that they were about to lose their own?” (Koch -Intro) Edward Koch used this when he mentioned the convicted killer, as he was about to be executed, he made statements to some affect like “Killing was wrong when I did it. Killing is wrong when you do it.” (K...
The one thing about this argument, though, if it were valid, it would not show that capital punishment is never proportionate and just, but only that it is very rarely so. The implication of this argument is not that we ought to do away with capital punishment altogether, nor that we ought to restrict it to those cases of murder where the murderer had warned the victim weeks or months in advance of what he was going to do, but we ought to reexamine the procedure of carrying out this kind of
From the time the first colonists arrived in the late Sixteen Hundreds Pennsylvania executions were carried out by public hanging (Cor.state.pa.us, 2014). In Eighteen Forty Three, Pennsylvania became the first state to abolish public hangings. From Eighteen Thirty Four until Nineteen Fifty Three each county was responsible for carrying out private hanging of criminal within the wall of the county jail.
In any justice system that is flawed and allows bias in certain cases, the death penalty should not be used as a means of punishment because of its irrevocable nature. When I came across Sarah Hawkins’ article regarding the case of Karla Faye Tucker, I was surprised to see the manifestation
“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.
Employing pathos and logos, Baude gives an explanation for why the death penalty is flawed as he tells the tale of a man on death row. Baude claims “.Judgments, right or wrong. This concern with concepts such as finality, jurisdiction, and the balance of powers may sound technical, lawyerly, and highly abstract. But so is the criminal justice system. Law must provide simple answers: innocence or guilt, freedom or imprisonment, life or death.”
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