Death Penalty: Edward Koch Vs David Bruck

Suppose you live under someone else's command: Night and day, they are the one who have the privilege of deciding when or what you eat, sleep, wake up, what to wear, and where to go. Suppose this other person even gets to decide when and how you die. Who gives them this right? Who instilled in them this power? The death penalty – an extremely controversial issue – seems to be a topic great debate in the 1980's.
Two writers who held strong points of view relating to the issue of the death penalty were Edward Koch and David Bruck. Both held opposing stances, but one might unfold to seem more realistic than the other. Edward Koch – Mayor of New York City from 1978-1989 – wrote the essay "Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life" to justify his pro-death penalty ideology. He argues that his twenty-two years in service have shown him the "pros and cons of capital punishment expressed with some special intensity" (Koch 484). Continuing, he clarifies his stance even more by writing:
I have represented constituencies generally throughout as a liberal. Because I support the death penalty for heinous crimes of murder, I have sometimes been the subject of emotional and outraged attacks by voters who find my position reprehensible or worse... I still support the death penalty (Koch 484).

David Bruck, on the other hand, wrote his essay, "The Death Penalty," as a response to Koch's argument. It is important to note that Bruck graduated from Harvard University and has been a Clinical Professor of Law and director to the Virginia Capital Case Cleaning House at Washington and Lee University School of Law. He states his position much more noticeably at the end of his essay, on page 493, when he refers to an occurrence in the year 1912 when Governor Blease initiated an ideology that "a proper regard for justice required both lynching and the electric chair..." But according to Bruck, "eventually we are going to learn that justice requires neither" (493).
Koch and Bruck are both in disagreement about the death penalty. Koch argues that the death penalty is necessary because that is what will "affirm life." On opposing side, Bruck argues that the death penalty is unjust, and, in fact, "the death penalty system asks us to accept that the purpose of killing each of [the murderers] is to affirm the sanctity of human life" (Bruck 492). Even though both arguments are initially in opposition, both Koch and Bruck seem to unintentionally agree that what both arguments have in common is that life is an important factor – how we defend this life is the fork in the road at which both writers take separate paths.
If the purpose of having a death penalty, or punishing people for murders they have committed, means that their punishment is to be executed, doesn't that make the executioner a murderer as well?

In reality, the judicial system does not set a good example to the world by allowing one executioner to execute another, because in that case, the system is just giving birth to another murderer. The only difference is that one is being punished for his actions and the other is not, since he has justification for his actions. In this case, they are what Koch may refer to as licensed killers, on page 485. But then, can we assume that some murders can be justified? Well, according to

Bruck:
"What really fuels the death penalty is the justifiable frustration and rage of people who see that the government is not coping with violent crime. So what if the death penalty doesn't work? At least it gives us the satisfaction of knowing that we got one or two of those sons of bitches" (Bruck 493).
Both Koch and Bruck agree that there might be a huge blame on the system when it comes to how the death penalty is carried out. Bruck specifically called it "arbitrariness" as he gave the example, on page 492, of the way that discrimination is being used, specifically in the case of Ernest Knighton who was "picked out to die", possibly because he was a black man who fell under the hands of a white jury. He states that even though all aspects of that execution might be hazy, "Ernest Knighton was picked out to die the way a fisherman takes a cricket out of a bait jar. No one cares which cricket gets impaled on the hook." He continues by adding, "The death penalty system asks us to accept that the purpose of killing them is to affirm the sanctity of human life" (Bruck 492). In other words, the law tells us that in order to save a life, you have to murder one. Is this the "eye for an eye" ideology that we were always told to stray away from because it increases murder and hatred?
In a different manner, Koch seems to have the attitude that underestimates the importance of discrimination, implying that it is something that is no longer a big issue and he inconvincibly wraps up his weak argument by saying, "It is not justice to exclude everyone from the penalty of the law if a few are found to be so favored. Justice requires that the law be applied equally to all" (Koch 486).
Along with the issues of the reasons behind the death penalty, as well as the discrimination that hides within some intentions, is the issue of the executions of innocent people. The world "innocent" may have a different interpretation from one person to another. However, for the sake of understanding what is meant in these two essays, we can use Oxford Dictionary’s definition which describes the word "innocent" in its second definition, which states, "Not responsible for or directly involved in an event yet suffering its consequences."
With that being said, it is understandable that innocent people are often executed – whether it is on purpose or not. In fact, Bruck affirmed this when he stated, "I don't claim that executions of entirely innocent people will occur very often. But they will occur" (Bruck 492). On the contrary, Koch held a stance, which he explained this way:
If government functioned only when the possibility of error didn't exist, government wouldn't function at all. Human life deserves protection, and one of the best ways to guarantee that protection is to assure that convicted murderers do not kill again. Only the death penalty can accomplish this end (Koch 485).
Although both Koch and Bruck disagree on multiple points, both seem to agree on the idea that life is important. As mentioned before, the main issue on which both oppose is how to protect this life, and who gets to decide when or how to end it. The more reasonable argument leans towards Bruck's stance and his point of view, which conveys that the way to punish someone for his actions is surely not by taking away his life. It is unreasonable and unjust to take away someone's life, especially in the various methods proposed during the 1980's. It is important to feel that the law exists to protect us, not to turn us against each other.