Russ Shafer-Landau provides us with two separate arguments about the death penalty in his academic book The Ethical Life, fundamental readings in ethics and moral problems. In the first argument, Justifying Legal Punishment, Igor Primoratz gives us substantive reasoning that opts favorably toward the necessity of the death penalty. Contrasting Primoratz, Stephen Nathanson, through An Eye for an Eye, provides us with an argument that hopes to show us that capital punishment, like murder, is also immoral and therefore, unjust. By the end of this essay, I intend to show that while capital punishment may not be the easy choice for a consequence and punishment to murder, it is, however, the necessary one.
Oshinsky did a remarkable job explaining the history of the death penalty in a clear and concise way. While the text was fairly short, he effectively provided his readers with well documented and relevant information on how controversial the death penalty has been throughout the past few centuries. He undertook an exceptionally important issue that many Americans do not know much about, or may have conflicting feelings
Attorneys from both sides of the capital punishment debate were interviewed with one stating “If you are going to kill somebody in the country, don’t be poor.” *6 This opinion was promptly opposed by an Assistant District Attorney who went on to describe the crimes that those on death row had committed. The more people that were interviewed and surveyed the more they began to realize that the American death penalty was filled with
Edward Koch make it clear that he believes that capital punishment can prevent homicides: “Had the death penalty been a real possibility in the minds of these murderers, they might well have stayed their hands” (484). Koch tries to convince his reader that a strict punishment like the death penalty will definitely force people to think twice before they murder another human being. Koch uses evidence like the murder rate and cases where criminals committed multiple murders to support his defense for capital punishment, and uses the statistics to show how necessary capital punishment is necessary in the United States (485-86). This essay is directed at U.S. citizens how can be persuaded to support or have not yet formed an opinion on capital punishment, so the death penalty can gain supporters and be fully incorporated into the law. He also states that by making murderers pay with their lives, capital punishment makes the value of human life at a higher level (487).
In “Death Penalty Debates,” Kenneth Jost, author of the Supreme Court Yearbook talks about the issues of capital punishment. Jost went in depth about the opinions of people that are against the death penalty and the thoughts of people that supports the system. Opponents of the death penalty says that prosecutors are pursuing the death penalty less often as it gets very expensive to sentence and convict a person. In addition, jurors are worried about the risk of executing an innocent individual. However, supporters of the death penalty system stated that the costs are the outcome of death penalty lawyers that deliberately delay procedures.
In his essay, "The Death Penalty," David Bruck hypothesizes that the American people will eventually find that the death penalty is not the best way to punish a convicted murderer. Bruck develops this hypothesis by countering all pro-death penalty arguments with previous cases and specific statistics that apply to the argument. David Bruck's purpose is to persuade the readers to think for themselves on the topic and use what they know as a basis. Bruck uses an educated tone to establish credibility with the reader. He takes apart the views of the local mayor in an attempt to prove anyone wrong who might disagree.
Whether a criminal is guilty of committing murder or any other capital offense, they should all be given the same sentence - life in prison. How is it fair to allow them to voluntarily choose the death penalty over prison? Criminals willingly sought to break the law and should endure the lifelong debt they owe not only to society but to the family of the innocent victims whose lives have been taken. As asserted by Robert Johnson, a professor of justice and law, and Sandra Smith, a professor of legal studies, death by incarceration is a more effective and suitable form of punishment than the death penalty (Cromie and Zott 174). Although some might argue that it is unfair to keep a criminal alive, they fail to understand that the freedom they once had is permanently lost.
Imagine that Zoe’s brother had been sentenced to the death penalty. She knows her brother is innocent and visits him before the execution. The prison smells of dead rodents and faintly of the toxic injection that will eventually find its way into each nail-biting prisoner. The brother cries and laces his cold fingers with Zoe through the cell bars. Zoe cries salty tears and listens to the clatter and moans of prisoners.
Some see the death penalty as the only means to extract justice for victims. Others see it as a morally reprehensible act where a second wrong is committed in order to make something right. With recent issues surrounding the death penalty in which execution hasn 't gone as planned sparking a nationwide debate, this is my outlook on why I 'm for the death penalty not only being abolished in the state of Texas but in addition to the entirety of the US..
Backlogged Courts. And Three More Reasons the Modern Death Penalty Is a Failed Experiment. (Cover Story). " Time, vol. 185, no. 21, 08 June 2015, p. 26.
The Truman Doctrine was an American foreign policy to stop Soviet imperialism during the Cold War. It was announced to Congress by President Harry S. Truman on March 12, 1947 when he pledged to contain Soviet threats to Greece and Turkey. No American military force was involved; instead Congress appropriated a free gift of financial aid to support the economies and the militaries of Greece and Turkey. More generally, the Truman doctrine implied American support for other nations threatened by Soviet communism. The Truman Doctrine became the foundation of American foreign policy, and led, in 1949, to the formation of NATO: a full-fledged military alliance that is in effect to this day.
From the beginning of the foundation of America, men have tried to figure out the correct way to deal with law-opposing criminals. From crucifixion and slavery, to death by firing squad and life sentences, the world has utilized different forms of discipline. The death penalty has formed into the most questionable form of punishment, drawing the most attention from the public eye. This sanction is used to punish criminals for committing the most heinous crimes and offenses. The crimes that obtain the death penalty mostly consist of murder which include murder during a kidnapping, murder for hire, drug-related drive by shooting, and genocide.
In the 1980’s Jack Greenburg, an American lawyer and legal scholar, discussed the idea capital punishment in, “Against the American System of Capital Punishment.” Greenburg poses ideas that question the idea of deterrence for the death penalty. Conversely, Ernest Van den Haag, a sociologist, defends the punishment in his article, “the Ultimate Punishment: A Defense.” He debates the seemingly “cruel and unconstitutional” perspective on the death penalty are false, because
“The Fall of Capital Punishment and the Rise of Prisons: How Punishment Severity Affects Jury Verdicts”. 2016, Microsoft Academic. Drehle, David Von. “Capital Punishment: The End of the Death Penalty.”
In the article “Abolish the Death Penalty” written by Bill Ryan the chairman of the Death Penalty Moratorium Project presents a solution. He thinks of the death penalty as “horribly expensive, ineffective, and inefficient” (Ryan). Ryan first starts off with a cause and effect moment then continuous to state the problem and his solution. He uses certain words, statistics, and questions to entreaty the readers in order to make them be understanding towards his explanation. Ryan’s structure first uses the cause and effect format, the cause would be having the death penalty and the effect are the results of having one.
