In “Bring Back Flogging” the author, Jeff Jacoby suggests that maybe we should adopt some of the punishments of the puritans. He says that Puritan forefathers punished crimes with whipping and branding, but in current times we tend to put someone in jail, no matter the degree of the crime. Jacoby also tells how often, first and second time offenders don’t get jail time, and if one does wind up in jail, it proves rather dangerous. (Jeff Jacoby 196-198)
“I am at peace,” Warren Jeffs said before jury deliberation at his trial. In Katy Vine’s Non-Prophet for Texas Monthly, she recounts Jeffs’ 2011 trial for the sexual assault of minors at the Yearning for Zion (YFZ) Ranch in Eldorado, Texas. Prosecutorial evidence included an audio-recording of Jeffs raping a 12-year-old and a paternity DNA test, which identified Jeffs as the father of a 15-year-olds infant. The Texas jury found Jeffs guilty on all counts (Vine). The judge sentenced Jeffs to life in prison plus 20-years (Associated).
With his hands tied down the pole, the criminal whimpered for help, but no one cared, because all they wanted to see him be punished for the robberies he committed. He became the next to be publicly humiliated and punished with flogging instead of incarceration. Jeff Jacoby’s “Bring Back Flogging” is an intriguing piece of writing that pitches a wild idea that i am unsure is worth catching. Jacoby wrote a thorough essay and presented the idea well but did not have enough evidence to convince his audience.
He successfully refutes this claim by questioning, “Why is it more brutal to flog a wrongdoer than to throw him in prison -- where the risk of being beaten, raped, or murdered is terrifyingly high?” If Jacoby didn't address his opponent’s point of view and refute it, then the reader will have an excuse to reject your argument. Also, by understanding the other point of view and argue against it, then you can illustrate how mature you are with your topic and that you're not just complaining about it. He ends his article short and sweet by implying the Puritan style of punishment might work for the modern world. Jacoby also states at the end, “Maybe we should readopt a few.”
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).
Pojman’s argument against the objections to capital punishment is not completely valid. If we understand the human being, we can also understand that humans are spiteful people and many people are filled with the hopes of revenge. Therefore, the thirst of revenge could potentially be a contributing factor as to why people are for the death penalty. Even if Pojman doesn’t believe in revenge, it should not be a valid reason for him to ignore its potential in justice and decision making during trials. This world is already filled with bitterness towards one another and we, as a society, cannot stop it because we all have different morals.
Joshua Marquis is neither a scholar, a jurist, or a crusader for the wrongly accused. Instead he has spent most of his time as a prosecutor. His essay is written from a personal point of view where he supports the death penalty; however, his essay is unlike the average supporter. Joshua Marquis believes capital punishment should be decided based on the following: each case on its own, within its own context, using the specific facts of the case, considering the community where the crime occurred and the background of the defendants. With that being said, Marquis believes that for certain cases the death penalty is appropriate.
RUNNING HEAD: Executions pg. 1 Inmate Executions COR 120_191 Mia Lombardi Tiffin University RUNNING HEAD: Executions pg. 2 The question of the constitutionality of the sentencing of an inmate on Death Row in Texas is currently being reviewed by the Supreme Court and found in favor of defendant Duane Buck.
Support for capital punishment requires valuing retribution over rehabilitation. Those who favor capital punishment value highly the closure it provides to the families of the victims, and they believe that it deters would be murderers from killing. Retribution, closure and deterrence are the main reasons in favor of the death penalty. Opponents of capital punishment generally believe that it is hypocritical and immoral for the state
Since the beginning of history, the death penalty has been utilized as a means of punishment for a crime. Capital punishment has taken on multiple forms and been used as punishment wide range of crimes; from stealing to murder. Questions and theories have risen that suggest that the penal system is racially biased when considering punishment and deciding when the death penalty is a congruent punishment to the crime committed. In David Gilboa’s report entitled, “Is the Death Penalty in America Racist?” Gilboa analyzes and studies three common conceptions on the death penalty and how it pertains to the African American race and Caucasian race.
This is definitely the best definition of justice that has ever existed or ever will exist. Listed above are some reasons found that America should oppose the death penalty alongside of personal views on summarizing what the information means, this should be an eye opener for many. First, to speak
Pojman uses the analogy if someone committed murder, they would be struck and killed instantly by lightning because by taking another life they forfeited theirs. I find that the following two points from Pojman provides a valid argument as of why we should have the death penalty. He states if we choose a policy of having the death penalty and “… we’re right, we have saved the lives of the innocent. If we are wrong, unfortunately, we’ve sacrificed the lives of some murderers.” (Pojman 144).
In conclusion the idea that the death penalty should be abolished can be supported by many reasons that include extensive evidence. With the death penalty still established we are putting innocent people's lives at risk, spending millions, and continue with racial segregation. The idea that someone's opinion in court can decide the fate of another person is
Why death penalty must end ‘’An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind,’’ said Mahatma Gandhi. The execution of someone who has possibly done a crime is an inhuman act. Death penalty is hypocritical and flawed. If killing is wrong, why do we kill when a criminal has done the crime of killing someone? In this essay, I will write why death penalty should end by writing about the violation of human rights, execution of innocent people, the fact that it does not deter crime and money.
The Death Penalty, loss of life due to previous crimes and actions, is believed by some to be extremely costly, inhumane, and cruel unlike some others whom believe it is just, right, and provides closure. The Death Penalty is not a quick and easy process. Most who get sentenced to deaths row wait years for their ultimate punishment of death. Some believe that it is not right to punish and kill a human for actions they have done because, they believe that the inmate should have another chance. Then others believe that it is right to punish someone for their actions especially if their actions involve killing another or multiple humans.
