More handpicked essays just for you.
Arguments in opposition to the death penalty
Different viewpoints on the death penalty
Arguments in opposition to the death penalty
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In his essay, “Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life,” Edward I. Koch, mayor of New York from 1978 to 1989, argues in favor of the death penalty. His essay was first published in The New Republic on April 15, 1985, a political magazine read by highly influential and educated readers according to “About The New Republic,” to sway readers who did not have a solid perspective of the death penalty. Koch argues that “Life is indeed precious, and I believe the death penalty helps to affirm that fact.” Koch primarily focuses on refuting seven counterarguments against the death penalty. Although Koch presents some logical refutations, Koch’s argument is seriously flawed in his use of fallacious and hypocritical arguments, and lack …show more content…
of evidence. Firstly, Koch’s argument contains flaws by using fallacious arguments. The essay is quite fallacious since Koch tries to persuade us with premises that do not fully support his conclusion (Cooper, Patton 148). For example, Koch refutes the counterargument that the death penalty is barbaric by using a false analogy comparing how one does not have to like the death penalty to favor it any more than one must like radical surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy to cure cancer. However, the analogy does not support the argument because it compares two or more things that are not in essence similar and assumes that since they have one similar characteristic, they share others as well (Cooper, Patton 148). To say radical surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy has the same result as the death penalty is quite extreme. We cannot cure the death penalty by a simple pill (Koch), and killing someone is not the same as healing someone. The death penalty does not save, like the treatments of cancer, but threatens someone’s life. In addition, Koch uses red herring, a type of fallacious argument that changes the issue to another topic (Cooper, Patton 148). When refuting the counterargument that an innocent person might be executed by mistake, Koch uses inefficient premises to support his refutation. He concludes, “If government functioned only when the possibility of error didn’t exist, government wouldn’t function at all.” He then states, “The problem of multiple murder is not confined to the nation’s penitentiaries,” as his premise. Koch also brings up Lemuel Smith, a prisoner who strangled a woman corrections officer while serving time. His premises and conclusion does not fully and directly refute the counterargument that an innocent person might be executed by mistake. Koch moves on from explaining that it is inevitable the government will make a mistake to the problem of multiple murders. Thus, he moves on to an issue that does not support execution by mistake. He barely explains his refutation and moves on to an unrelated premise. Secondly, Koch’s arguments seem hypocritical.
For example, the politician ends his argument about the death penalty being barbaric with, “If we create a society in which injustice is not tolerated, incidents of murder—the most flagrant form of injustice—will diminish.” Koch does not give any explanation or evidence that would make this conclusion factual. However, someone who is against the death penalty could bring up the 18th amendment that banned alcohol, or Prohibition. Instead of its efforts to ban alcohol, the amendment brought upon more saloons. Therefore, through this analogy, the death penalty will not necessary diminish the incidents of murder. Koch also brings up hasty generalizations by stating, “Only the death penalty can accomplish this end,” when arguing that human life deserves special protection. Besides ending guilty lives, Koch neglects alternatives of the death penalty and thus seems hypocritical. Instead, it is dehumanizing life by picking and choosing whom to kill. If society did value human life, then the criminals can be sentenced to life or receive mental treatment to better their life. Koch also uses the hidden assumption that if a victim is killed and we must kill the murderer through the death penalty, then we must perform the same act that is performed on us to the person who did it first. If we apply this conclusion to a state that carries out executions, we can deduct that the state must also be killed. Of course, Koch does not promote this, but his implications only led us to assume
this. Finally, Koch fails to fully argue a rebuttal. The former major does that elaborate on points he brings in his refutations. Although the death penalty has been active in our society, Koch fails to bring up evidence that proves that “If other countries had our murder problem, the cry for capital punishment would be just as loud as it is here.” Koch neglects stating which countries are not plagued by a murder rate such as that in the United States. Also, the fifth counterargument is Koch’s weakest refutation because of his lack of evidence and explanation. He states, “The appeals process for a condemned prisoner is lengthy and painstaking,” and that “Every effort is made to see that the verdict and sentence were fairly arrived at.” Koch overlooks explaining what effort is made and the steps of an appeals process that makes the process lengthy and painstaking. Thus, his arguments are bland and do not have any credibility. Although Koch’s argument contains flaws, Koch does bring up some valid points. Koch’s refutation of the sixth counterargument against the Sixth Commandment that reads “Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder,” contains justifications of capital punishment for a variety of offenses. Koch lists the greatest thinkers of the nineteenth century and the United States Constitution to support his refutation. He also lists how philosophers and American figures have upheld the biblical viewpoint. By doing so, the writer creates ethos and logos. The argument is credible since the beliefs and views of the greatest philosophers support his refutation, and contains logic and reason as to how the biblical viewpoint has been upheld. However, the argument could have been strengthened if Koch provided quotes from the thinkers. In conclusion, Koch’s argument is mostly based on his opinions and what he wants to argue. He fails to bring up sufficient evidence to back up his rebuttals and uses false analogies. We cannot totally discredit Koch since he does bring up some valid arguments. As always, we, as citizens, cannot always be swayed by politicians and must watch out for hidden assumptions. Because of Koch’s gaps in logic and one-sidedness, the audience, readers of the political magazine who do not have a definite opinion of the death penalty, will probably not be swayed by this essay. However, if Koch had added more statistics, quotes, and reasonable arguments to strengthen his essay, the readers would develop more of an opinion about the death penalty.
Anybody can write and persuade a certain audience, based on how the writer wants their audience to look at the situation. In Steve Earle’s essay “A Death in Texas”, he persuades his readers that he wants to believe that Johnathan Wayne Nobles was rehabilitated. In the essay, Nobles was a changed man within faith from becoming a religious man within the prison walls. Prison guards learned to trust Nobles with his quick-witted charm and friendliness. Steve persuaded himself that Johnathan was a changed man from the words that they had exchanged over the years on paper. Reality states that no matter how much someone changed in the present, it doesn’t change what they have done in the past. Earle describes in the essay “There he will be pumped full of chemicals that will collapse his lungs and stop his heart forever” (Earle 73). He’s persuading the audience with horrid emotion with facts of a lethal injection that will happen to Johnathan. What Earle doesn’t describe is how gruesomely Johnathan’s murders were. In this world everyone has a chance to know right from wrong, even if someone was brought up wrong in the society. Johnathan was not rehabilitated, maybe at one point accepted his past, but he was still a murderer and a
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.
Capital punishment and bias in sentencing is among many issue minorities faced for many years in the better part of the nineteen hundreds. Now it continues to spill into the twenty first century due to the erroneous issues our criminal justice system has caused many people to suffer. In the book Just Mercy authored by Bryan Stevenson, Stevenson explains many cases of injustice. Stevenson goes into details of numerous cases of wrongfully accused people, thirteen and fourteen year olds being sentenced to death and sentences of life without parole for children. These issues Stevenson raises bring to question whether the death penalty is as viable as it should be. It brings to light the many issues our criminal justice system has today. There
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.
The thought of death is a scary one. However the scarier thought is “living” a life in pain and suffering from an incurable and terminal disease such as cancer or Alzheimer’s. Imagine your grandparent has recently been diagnosed with Stage 4 Lung cancer. Now the doctor will list off all the possible treatments and in your heart you want your grandparent to try everything to fight for their life. After hearing the doctor give the terrible news, your grandparent ask the doctor about some options but also mentions assisted death. Your mind floods with memories and arguments against it. Your grandparent explains how they have lived a full life, doesn’t want to put the family in debt from the medical bills along with the inevitable cost of a funeral and have
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.
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.
...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 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 1976, the Death Penalty of Execution was reinstated in the United States by the U.S Supreme Court since then over 1,394 people have been executed, out of those people 1 out of 25 are innocent (Death PenaltyFacts). In the articles, “Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life by Koch” and “The Death Penalty by Bruck” both agree on how it is possible that the government could be wrong about a case as well as how the execution is handled in the public’s eye.
“I personally have always voted for the death penalty because I believe that people who go out prepared to take the lives of other people forfeit their own right to live. I believe that the death penalty should be used only very rarely, but I believe that no-one should go out certain that no matter how cruel, how vicious, how hideous their murder, they themselves will not suffer the death penalty.”
“Our position… is that there is no place for capital punishment… We believe that justice for all is better served by a sentence of life imprisonment.”(Szumski 170) The administration of Capital punishment in the United States has been a failed experiment. Capital punishment or “The death penalty” is the legally authorized killing of a human being as punishment for a crime. The entire process of Capital punishment is fraught with error, since 1973, over 87 inmates have been released from death row due to their innocence being proven. (Blecker, 12) Capital punishment attacks the poor, as well as the black community. For the worst crimes, life without parole is better. Not only is the death penalty discriminatory and unethical, it violates the
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
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.
“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.