“The Death Penalty: Can It Ever Be Justified?” Edward I. Koch uses his essay “The Death Penalty: Can It Ever Be Justified?” to defend capital punishment. He believes that justice for murderous crimes is essential for the success of the nation. The possibility of error is of no concern to Koch and if would-be murderers can be deterred from committing these heinous crimes, he feels the value of human life will be boosted and murder rates will consequently plummet (475-479). Koch makes a valiant effort to express these views, yet research contradicts his claims and a real look at his idea of justice must be considered in order to create a fair nation for all. One point that Koch tries to address is the value of human life. Koch is noted as believing that “life is indeed precious.” He feels that the death penalty helps to establish this fact by demonstrating that if a person commits a heinous crime such as murder, they will suffer the worst of consequences (476). How, though, does the taking of another life demonstrate that life is indeed so precious? All other facts aside, is it not simply the end to another life? Most citizens would be in agreement that such inhumane crimes deserve severe ramifications, but ending a life to make up for an unlawful death would contradict these principles of the value of life. Bud Welch supports this theory. His daughter, Julie, had her life viciously taken from her in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Welch, although enduring the greatest pain of all, concluded that Timothy McVeigh’s execution “is simply vengeance; and it was vengeance that killed Julie.” Welch understood the true value of all human life and was able to put his natural emotions away and theorize that vengeance has ... ... middle of paper ... ... http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=4128&scid=6. Koch, Edward I. “The Death Penalty: Can It Ever Be Justified?” Current Issues and Enduring Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking and Argument, with Readings. 5th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1998. 475-479. National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. “Guilty Until Proven Innocent.” 2 Nov. 2003. http://www.ncadp.org/fact_sheet4.html. United States. The Library of Congress. American Memory: Historical Collections for the National Digital Library. “The Bill of Rights.” The Library of Congress. 16 Oct. 1996. 2 Nov. 2003. http://www.memory.loc.gov/const/bor.html. United States. U.S. Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics. “Capital Punishment Statistics.” U.S. Department of Justice. 8 Jan. 2003. 2 Nov. 2003. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cp.htm.
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.
S., & Bedau H. (Eds.) Current issues and enduring questions: a guide to critical thinking and argument, with readings. (pp.551-552). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Government. "The Bill of Rights: A Transcription." National Archives and Records Administration. National Archives and Records Administration, 15 Jan. 2007. Web. 12 Apr. 2014.
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.
"The Bill of Rights: A Transcription." National Archives and Records Administration. National Archives and Records Administration, n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2014. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
Rpt. in Current Issues and Enduring Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking and Argument, with Readings. 9th ed. Ed. Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau. Boston: St. Martin’s, 2011. 192-194. Print
Murder, a common occurrence in American society, is thought of as a horrible, reprehensible atrocity. Why then, is it thought of differently when the state government arranges and executes a human being, the very definition of premeditated murder? Capital punishment has been reviewed and studied for many years, exposing several inequities and weaknesses, showing the need for the death penalty to be abolished.
In the essay, Death and Justice, by Edward I. Koch makes his argument of why he supports capital punishment by the examination of his opposition’s arguments that are most frequently heard. Koch claims the death penalty is just and supports his claims by rebutting the arguments. Koch believes that capital punishment is a mean to uphold justice, until another form of punishments are found as a better solution. Other punishment would be inadequate and therefore unjust for the crimes that deprive someone else life.. Robert Lee Willie and Joseph Carl Shaw committed murders before the murder, they were executed for. If theses individuals had received the death penalty in the beginning, than maybe an 18 year old woman, and two teenagers could still
Is the death penalty fair? Is it humane? Does it deter crime? The answers to these questions vary depending on who answers them. The issue of capital punishment raises many debates. These same questions troubled Americans just as much in the day of the Salem witch trials as now in the say of Timothy McVeigh. During the time of the Salem witchcraft trials they had the same problem as present society faces. Twenty innocent people had been sentenced to death. It was too late to reverse the decision and the jurors admitted to their mistake. The execution of innocent people is still a major concern for American citizens today.
"Bill of Rights and Later Amendments." Ushistory.org. Independence Hall Association, n.d. Web. 14 Feb. 2014.
This essay will discuss the various views regarding the death penalty and its current status in the United States. It can be said that almost all of us are familiar with the saying “An eye for an eye” and for most people that is how the death penalty is viewed. In most people’s eyes, if a person is convicted without a doubt of murdering someone, it is believed that he/she should pay for that crime with their own life. However, there are some people who believe that enforcing the death penalty makes society look just as guilty as the convicted. Still, the death penalty diminishes the possibility of a convicted murderer to achieve the freedom needed to commit a crime again; it can also be seen as a violation of the convicted person’s rights going against the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
When discussing the death penalty many lawful and moral issues are brought up. I was fortunate enough to listen to a representative speak about these issues in a conference held by Housatonic Community College this winter. The speaker was extremely against the death penalty but made good points for each side. For example, proceeding to put a man to death through penalty of law is in fact murder. Just as the man can create an injustice by killing someone else, the government is creating the same injustice by killing that man; however, it providing a sense of justice for the family of the victim. To put a murderer or an alleged murderer through trial, it costs taxpayers a great deal of money. It is a known fact that death penalty trials, on average can cost taxpayers millions of dollars; furthermore, its costs even more money to execute a guilty murderer than it costs to sentence him or her to life imprisonment without bail. Many people view ...
“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.
I believe that under certain circumstances that capital punishment should be allowed because if someone is going to commit mass murder they should pay with the ultimate human right which is of their life. This topic has been widely thought of in the world with a few philosophers really encompassing my views. Those are the views of Ernest Van Den Haag and Bruce Fein. Philosophers who oppose our views are such like Justice William Brennan and Hugo Adam Bedau. I will prove my point using the ideas of deterrence and morality of the issue of capital punishment. If the government would show that if you kill someone there will be a consequence for their actions and that the consequence would be equal to what they have done. The population will see that it isn’t worth taking another humans life. If we were to kill people that are committing these mass killings of innocent people there would not be as many criminals around. Therefore the streets would be a place people wouldn’t be afraid of anymore.
Capital Punishment is a controversial topic discussed in today's society. Capital punishment is often not as harsh in other countries as we may call harsh in our country. There is a heated debate on whether states should be able to kill other humans or not. But if we shall consider that other countries often have more deadly death penalties than we do. People that are in favor of the death penalty say that it saves money by not paying for housing in a maximum prison but what about our smaller countries that abide by the rule of the capital punishment. If one were to look at the issues behind capital punishment in an anthropological prospective than one would see that in some cases no one would assume that capital punishment here in the U.S. is bad. Now those opposed say that it is against the constitution, and is cruel and unusual punishment for humans to be put to his or her death. I believe that the death penalty is against the constitution and is cruel and unusual punishment. The death penalty is cruel because you cannot punish anyone worse than by killing them. It is an unusual punishment because it does not happen very often and it should not happen at all. Therefore, I think that capital punishment should be abolished, everywhere.