Persuasive Essay On In Cold Blood

When reading the book “In Cold Blood” by Capote, Truman I came across many assertions one in particular discussing how the law is hypocritical. In the assertion it talks about killing and how it is a crime, but enforces it as punishment and justice. Thus showing how the law is contradicting itself. In my paper I hope to further explain and show how killing is in fact a crime, but can be used for justice.

In order for me to achieve this goal, I have organized this paper into three main sections. In the first section, I will explain how everyone has killed in their lifetime for their own personal needs. In the second section, I will give examples of when killing is needed and required for the safety of one and one’s loved ones. Lastly, I will discuss when killing serves justice to others. I will follow this by citing my work and my resources.

Is killing wrong?

This is a controversial statement most will argue about. For many people it is wrong to kill no matter the circumstance for it is going against many of their own morals. An example would be their religion which states in the bible “Thou shall not kill”, but they themselves have killed for their own needs therefore

going against their morals yet they do not see it as a crime (Exodus 20:13). They may argue that, “killing an animal isn’t the same as killing a human being” which I completely agree with (Anonymous Author). It is however, still going against ones morals of not killing under any circumstance. This is very hypocritical of them because they voice how “killing is wrong”, but go ahead and kill when it is beneficial to them. Consider all the animals that were killed for all the food, clothes, and other inanimate objects a person “needs”. Yes killing is bad to a certain extent, but what I am trying to get at here is that it is ok to go ahead and kill in specific situations such as when in need of food and clothing items.
In the circumstance of a person being asked to be taken off life support a loved one may argue that “They are not ready to let them go”, but by doing this they are putting the patient in more pain than necessary.

The patient will see they are hurting their loved ones which will cause them to rethink their decision and risk putting them in more pain. In this circumstance one should realize that it is best to go through with mercy killing and speed up the inevitable thus minimizing the pain. Euthanasia, mercy killing, means “good death” in the Greek language it is the way to end an ill person’s life painlessly which is better than seeing them suffer for their loved ones. This would be one of the many situations in which it is absolutely ok to kill a person because it will reduce their pain and

suffering.
When is it justifiable?
Killing is acceptable when it is for a valid reason such as self-defense or a form of protection of others. Others may argue that “You should just injure them instead of killing them” which is completely true however, in the moment of fear and possibly shock no one thinks about whether they are aiming to kill or harm. For example in a scenario where the intruder is armed one does not think about the intruders’ well-being, but ensuring they and their family remains safe. When someone attacks another they are completely responsible for their own damage if they are at fault then the victim has every right to fight back even if it means killing them for it is categorized as self-defense. Self-defense is the opposite of murder you are just protecting you and or your loved ones against a threat directed to you. You can’t expect someone to just stand there and not try to fight for their life. I do agree though that if given the opportunity you should just harm the threat rather than kill them, but in the moment you have every right to protect yourself and not care for their well-being.
Another time when killing is acceptable is in war. When soldiers are at war they are fighting for their country and the safety of thousands of others. Yes they are killing others, but they are defeating the enemy for the well-being of innocent people. If we didn’t have anyone out at war for our protection we may all be dead ourselves. In this circumstance I am sure many will agree that it is ok to kill other people.
Justice for killing
The death penalty by many is seen as horrific and wrong because it is killing a person. Some may say that “It is entirely wrong to determine whether a person gets to live or not”, but in a scenario where the criminal has committed a crime such as murder they should receive the death penalty for justice for the innocents loved ones. Why should they receive mercy when they did not give mercy to their victim when committing the murder? There is no valid reason for their mercy they deserve capital punishment. Keeping the criminal locked up in a jail cell will not serve justice to anyone they will just do their time and continue living their life without a second thought. Also keeping them in prison will take away our money just to keep them alive by feeding them and tending to their medical needs. If they get out of prison we are also potentially putting other innocent people in danger with the criminal free. Because of this the criminal should receive the death penalty. Not just for justice for the victim and their loved ones but for the safety and well-being of the public.
Conclusion
In closing, my final take on the controversial topic, of whether killing is always wrong or not, is that in certain scenarios it is acceptable to kill another living thing if and when necessary. Just how the book “In Cold Blood” mentions that the law is hypocritical in its views on killing, the government must feel or see things in this matter as well for the death penalty has not been done away with completely. As a result, killing is essential in extreme circumstances when the perpetrator poses a threat to the innocent and their well-being. Thus, we can no longer state in good faith that killing is wrong.