The Supreme Court Should Rein In The Death Penalty Summary

Capital punishment, also referred to as the death penalty, is the legal execution by the state for a crime as punishment. These crimes include treason, war crimes, genocide, and, most commonly, murder. The death penalty has been a topic of debate for decades, and while some argue that it is immoral and arbitrary, others believe that it is a just and appropriate punishment for the worst of crimes. In “The Supreme Court Should Rein In The Death Penalty”, Laurence H. Tribe claims that capital punishment often varies depending on countless factors, such as racial bias and geographical location, and therefore should be banned. Alternatively, Bill Montgomery, author of “Arguments to Abolish Death Penalty Refuted by Facts” argues that the death penalty is used sparsely, and when it is used, it is used appropriately. While Montgomery’s argument uses examples of criminals on death row and voter statistics to support his stance, Tribe makes sure that the point of the article reaches his audience by

The author provides well founded reasons such as arbitrariness, racial bias, and execution of the innocent. According to Tribe, “It [the death penalty] has also opened the door to disturbing racial trends. Studies show that people in Arizona (and nationally) accused of murdering white victims are much more likely to receive the death penalty” (Tribe). This serves as an example of how the author is able to state a reason and then provide evidence for his statement. On the other hand, Montgomery’s article lacks supporting reasons. In his article, Montgomery provides two reasons for his claim: the rarity of death penalty cases in Arizona and misconceptions about the role that race plays into these cases. This makes it so that Montgomery’s argument is weakened by the lack of well founded reasons to back up his