Death And Justice : How Capital Punishment Affirms Life

In April 1985, Edward I. Koch published his essay on capital punishment in the liberal magazine New Republic. Koch was a hardworking congressman who eventually became the gutsy mayor of New York between 1978 and 1989. In his essay “Death and Justice”, he addresses common arguments liberals make against the death penalty. According to Koch, “Life is indeed precious.... had the death penalty been a real possibility in the minds of these murderers, they might well have stayed their hand” (3). Koch wants to guide his readers to see that the justice system is failing innocent people whose lives are of tremendous value. He undeniably stirs things up for the strong sided liberal party readers who tend to protect murderers from being executed. However, as someone who was once a congressman, his modes of persuasion with ethos, logos, and pathos, are incredibly effective and on point.

¨The taking of even one life is a momentous event.¨ (Bernardin, The Consistent Ethic of Life). The consistent ethic of life is founded on the belief that all life is sacred and worth protecting, while the reasons for capital punishment may seem similar-- retaliation for a life lost-- the death penalty directly goes against everything the consistent ethic of life teaches. As proven through these presentations, capital punishment cases are often inaccurate and biased, while the act of the Death Penalty has proven to be painful with many examples of botched executions. Not only is killing immoral, but how can we go through with these executions when evidence has shown the death penalty can be inefficient and some

For years the death penalty has been one of the most controversial topics in the judicial field. The death penalty has been abolished in 18 states leaving 34 states that allow it. It is argued that the death penalty goes against moral and religious beliefs along with being unconstitutional. I’m against the death penalty not because of sympathy for criminals but because it isn’t effective in reducing crime, cost more than it would to incarcerate a person for life, and worst of all it risks executions of innocent people. Capital punishment is an increasingly argued issue in today’s society. The main focus of the criminal justice system is to rehabilitate criminals and to protect society from those who are not. Ernest Van Den Haag argues that,

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.

Capital punishment, the state imposed penalty of death, continues to be one of the most controversial issues in contemporary American public policy. Since the earliest days of its employment in the colonial era until today, citizens have struggles with the issue of when and under what circumstances the taking of a human life by the state can be morally or legally justified. For some opponents of the death penalty, the simple answer is that the taking of a human life is always morally and ethically wrong, even when conducted under the auspices of state authority as a legal punishment. In contrast, proponents of capital punishment have contended with equal fervor that the death penalty is morally justified as a form of retributive justice,

In American courts that strive for justice, the idea of justice through retribution aligns with logic. For example, if somebody is guilty in a car accident, they are expected to pay the repairs. However, issues arise when one attempts to offer repairs for the damage caused by murder. How does one offer monetary retribution for a life? Despite America’s measurement-obsessed society that places a price tag on every aspect of life, can a death be quantified to bring justice? Due to this discrepancy, the idea of capital punishment arose millenniums ago, and despite its violent nature, the penalty still exists in American justice systems today. While, logically, the life of a murderer may seem an equal tradeoff for the life of the victim, morally and socially this approach complicates matters. Is this approach not just fighting fire with fire, resulting in greater harm than peace? Even more troubling, these state-administered murders directly contradict the teachings of many religions that teach the right to life. To best align with Christianity, capital punishment should be virtually unpracticed except in extraordinary cases when no other alternative can protect the common good.

From an early age, children are taught that murder is morally wrong. In today’s complex society that is impeded by unsettling periods of civil unrest, it is an expectation for everyone to acknowledge and accept that murder is one of the worst crimes individuals can commit. Perhaps it can be said that the death penalty is one of our legal system’s biggest contradictions of itself, as, if someone commits murder (or another heinous crime of that caliber), such ‘murderers’ will, in states that have capital punishment laws, be sent to Death Row and ultimately murdered in order to prevent potential future crimes by such perpetrators. I believe that the death penalty is wrong not only as it is immoral to take a life, but also, such ineffective laws waste money and do not deter crime.

In this paper I will be discussing everything you need to know about the death penalty such as its pros and cons. While the innocent can be killed, the death penalty has its pros because it prevents them from killing again if they are released or have escaped from prison, it helps overpopulated prisons, and it can help victims’ families get justice and closure. Not only can the innocent be killed, but in the past the death penalty was very inhumane. To some its feels right but to others they feel like 2 wrongs don’t make a right. Most people think that the defendant deserves the death penalty, but what does the defendants’ family think?

If we examine some arguments presented from both sides, opponents of the capital punishment claim that executing someone is nothing more than an immoral, state-authorized killing which undervalues the human life and destroys our respect for our government which itself says that killing is wrong. But the supporters of the death penalty think that certain murderers

The “Does the death penalty bring closure to a victim’s family?” article shares how this family believes that the death penalty does not necessarily bring closure, but it brought relief. I feel that providing two different perspectives will cause the audience to be open to my findings and have questions that I will later address in the paper. At the end of the introduction, I will share my ethos on the topic. While I do not have a lot of ethos I can share that I, like the readers, want to understand the topic more as I am now a tax payer and if the U.S. should still use this form of

Would it be true that capital punishment saves lives? Edward Koch, in his article “Death and Justice” believes it does. Koch, using common techniques to influence his audience, suggests that killers should be handled within this tried and avenged form of punishment. Koch opens his article by quoting convicted murderers Robert Lee Willie and Joseph Carl Shaw, both in the last moments of their lives pleading for the justice system to put a stop to the endless cycle of killing. Using simple logic, Koch argues that the sudden changing of the killers’ moral character is not a result of remorse for the victims, but rather an attempt to save their own lives from the killing hands of the justice system. Koch effectively uses these quotes to suggest to the reader that a killer might have thought twice about his/her own actions if the death sentence were a belief.

In Stephen Bright’s article, “The Death Penalty as the Answer to Crime: Costly, Counterproductive, and Corrupting” Bright asserts that capital punishment does not work because it is racially biased, the quality of the lawyers and attorneys supplied by the state to poor defendants is unfair, and that the law system currently in place does not accomplish its true goals. Bright defends his claim with logos and ethos by examining the opinions of judges and district attorneys, and by describing experience within the fields of human rights and law himself in order to persuade the reader to take up more cases for those on death row. Given the language used in this article Bright is writing to an audience with intermediate to professional experience within the field of law, and a willingness to adopt a new idea on the constitutionality behind the death penalty.

In the United States, the use of the death penalty continues to be a controversial issue. Every election year, politicians, wishing to appeal to the moral sentiments of voters, routinely compete with each other as to who will be toughest in extending the death penalty to those persons who have been convicted of first-degree murder. Both proponents and opponents of capital punishment present compelling arguments to support their claims. Often their arguments are made on different interpretations of what is moral in a just society. In this essay, I intend to present major arguments of those who support the death penalty and those who are opposed to state sanctioned executions application . However, I do intend to fairly and accurately

In 1879, the United States Supreme Court ruled, by a vote of 9-0, that execution by firing squad was not cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution. This began a long debate on whether or not a government reserves the right to punish those who have taken a life by taking their lives. There are many reasons as to why someone would be against capital punishment: it is not our right as humans to play God, it is against the constitution, the threat of capital punishment is not a valid deterrent, it is morally corrupt to take a life. All of these points are valid, and they represent the mindset of millions of Americans; however, capital punishment is a valuable asset to be reserved for only “the most heinous murders and the most brutal and conscienceless murderers” (Alice).

An issue that has continually created tension in today's society is whether the death penalty serves as a justified and valid form of punishment. Whenever the word "death penalty" comes up, extremists from both sides start yelling out their arguments. One side says deterrence, the other side says there's a potential of executing an innocent man; one says justice, retribution, and punishment; the other side says execution is murder. Crime is an evident part of society, and everyone is aware that something must be done about it. Most people know the threat of crime to their lives, but the question lies in the methods and action in which it should be dealt with. In several parts of