What Death Penalty Opponents Don T Get: Article Analysis

A deeper look into the death penalty The death penalty stirs a substantial debate in our society. Many consider it a consequence of severe crimes, while others argue it is an unethical and flawed system. Investigative journalist David Grann’s ‘Trial by fire’ and Matt ridgeway and Robert Casella’s ‘What Death Penalty Opponents Don’t Get’ takes on the contentious topic of the death penalty, this paper aims to explore the arguments presented in these articles, providing a balanced discussion on the ethical, practices, and principals surrounding the death penalty. While both ‘Trial by Fire’ And ‘What Death Penalty Opponents Don’t Get’ explore the complexities of capital punishment, they offer compellingly contrasting views on the ethical

The article describes how the arson investigators analyzed the scene. "Fogg examined a piece of glass from one of the broken windows. It contained a spiderweb-like pattern—what fire investigators call “crazed glass.” Forensic textbooks had long described the effect as a key indicator that a fire had burned “fast and hot,” (Grann 6) and this leaves the readers to question how the investigators can be wrong with the way they used their common knowledge to officially call the scene a triple homicide. How may they be wrong with the profound knowledge they had when they walked on the scene? Grann highlights witness statements that make this a mystery “things were not as they seemed. I had the feeling that [Willingham] was in complete control.” (Grann 8) But Willingham stated “I aint gonna plead to something I didn’t do, especially killing my own kids” (Grann 8) This shows how Grann leaves the readers with compelling views because he shows the two different sides of the argument, leading to why the death penalty is in question. The investigators were wrong, Maybe Willingham is guilty, and this gives a sense of determination to find out the answers, and this is why the death penalty is considered unstable and the system is not in the right

They argue that the safety of the innocent must surpass concern for the fate of convicted criminals, The authors push back against the notion of wrongful convictions, stating that the safeguards and rigorous legal processes ensure the guilt of those sentenced. While acknowledging the gravity of the death penalty, they assert that it serves a crucial propose in deterring re-offenses and protecting society at large. They highlight perspectives that emphasize the risk of error and the sanctity of life, eliciting the complexities of the death penalty debate. They state that as per the Bureau of justice statistics of the 76,523 murderers released since 1980, 1,316 were arrested for new homicides within three years, they contend this statistic underscores the importance of the death penalty in preventing repeat offenders. The authors also argue that considerable safeguards and rigorous legal processes ensure that the only truly guilty are sentenced effectively minimizing the risk of wrongful convictions The authors also show peoples point of view by saying “voters were urged to not simply abolish the death penalty, but to replace it with life without parole” (ridgeway and Casella #2) This urges the opinion of readers which also causes contrasting views of the death