In “Kill Capital Punishment” by Janine Espino a Reagan High school student argues that Capital Punishment should be abolished in all fifty states, Espino’s position is vaild. The author claims that killing another human cannot be taken back, one you murder a living individual you cannot take it back. The author argues that since manslaughter another individual in a malicious fashion is illegal so should capital punishment. Espino gives a quote by Peggy Parks in that was published in the article “Current Issues: The Death Penalty” published on 29 March.
In the the Supreme Court case Gregg Vs. Georgia, Justice Stewart concluded that “We now hold that the punishment of death does not invariably violate the Constitution.” (GREGG v. GEORGIA, 1976), answering the question of whether or not capital punishment is ever unconstitutional. Some may argue that Stewart is saying that the death penalty is sometimes considered constitutional, however, it is important to note that if we as Americans don’t enforce the constitutional rights of human beings at all times, the foundation of our nation will slowly begin to lose its strength. If in any way something can be declared as unconstitutional, then from there on out it will never fall into the realm of being constitutional.
The essay, “Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life”, written by Edward I. Koch is written to persuade the reader to accept the favor of the death penalty. The writer not only states a variety of facts, but he also tries to generate sorrow or even anger at times. He expresses different topics that lead to these emotions throughout the text by using ethos, pathos, and logos. Koch was successful at making the reader favor the death penalty not only because he used these techniques, but he also kept the reading concise. Another solid reasoning that Edward I. Koch uses that mixes with the internal emotions is pathos.
Nathanson uses his essay, Does It Matter If the Death Penalty Is Arbitrarily Administered, to combat the notion that capital punishment is an effective outcome for criminals. It is my goal to propose that capital punishment in itself is as fair outcome, and point out that it should remain established as long as the ones sentencing criminals to this fate are held to higher, more fair standards. The driving force behind Nathanson’s argument against capital punishment is statistics. While no one comes forth to outright say that race plays an important role in the decision on who receives capital punishment, there are statistical findings put forth by Bowers and Pierce state that killers of whites have the highest chance of being executed
A second disputation of those who advocate capital punishment is that it is “just and moral”. One of those who believe this is Casey Carmical, who is professional translator and blog writer of website called “Casey 's Critical Thinking” pertaining to current social and political issues. In article “Capital Punishment Is Morally Justified”, Carmical confirmed that “the purpose of the
The topic of capital punishment presents a test of values. The arguments in support of and opposition to the death penalty are complex. In the end, this is a question of an individual’s values and morals. The topic requires careful thought to reach a reasoned position. Both sides of the argument are defensible.
The capital punishment is well supported in this article. It clearly shows how ethos, pathos and logos support the why the capital punishment should be kept and not taken away. The reader is heavily given enough information to go towards the side of keeping the capital punishment. While there is little information why the punishment shouldn’t be used its not supported as well.
The University of Texas-Pan American Essay #2 Anna Salkinder LSPI July 27, 2015 The death penalty has been a major topic of debate in the United States as well as various parts of the world for numerous years. At this time, there are thirty-one states in which the death penalty is legal. Nineteen states have completely abolished it (“States with and without The Death Penalty”). Since its initial development back in the 1600’s, the death penalty has taken a different course in the way it is utilized. In its early days, the death penalty was greatly used and implemented for several offenses.
The United States remains in the minority of nations in the world that still uses death as penalty for certain crimes. Capital punishment is seen by many as barbaric and against American values, while others see it as a very important tool in fighting violent pre-meditated murder. One of the supporters of the Death penalty was a man named Walter Berns (a professor of American constitutional law and political philosophy.) He wrote clearly about his view on the death penalty in his Crime and Delinquency article, “Defending the Death Penalty.” He argued that the “Opposition to capital punishment is a modern phenomenon, a product of modern sentiment and modern thought” (p. 504) and with the help of historical references and logical reasoning throughout
Annotated Bibliography Draft Student name : Haider Zafaryab Student number: 2360526 Thesis Statement : Capital Punishment is a very controversial topic around the globe. I believe that it does more harm than good and breeds violence in society. Source 1: Radelet, M. L., & Akers, R. L. (1996).
Introduction: Despite the common misconception that capital punishment leads to a safer and utopian society, research provides evidence that there is no correlation between the two. During 1972, the Supreme Court of Georgia ruled against the use of capital punishment in the Furman v Georgia case. This ruling arose after three African Americans were put on stand after being accused for different cases of murder and rape. Although death penalty was already imposed for these three cases, the court decided that death was “cruel and unusual” and consequently abolished the use of it.
Death Penalty is a very ominous punishment to discuss. It is probably the most controversial and feared form of punishment in the United States. Many are unaware, but 31 of the 52 states have the Death penalty passes as an acceptable punishment. In the following essay, I will agree and support Stephen Nathanson's statement that "Equality retributivism cannot justify the death penalty. " In the reading, "An Eye for an Eye?", Nathanson gives objections to why equality retributivism is morally acceptable for the death penalty to be legal.
It’s unfortunate that these individuals had to face this by themselves, without the proof, evidence, and validation. Capital punishment treats murders with more mercifulness and pride than the victim the murders has killed. The death penalty is the simplest method to cleanse the nation. Criminals would fear the action of government is willing to do. The act of crimes would decrease profoundly.
Even though it is true that taking the life of another is not right, it is even truer that the punishment should fit the crime. The death penalty is an exercise of justice that promotes retribution for crime and moral punishment for those who choose to take human life. Also, it prevents society 's worse offenders from re-offending, and it provides justice for the victims whose lives were cut short without a second thought. To better understand why capital punishment is a justifiable act, Kant 's theory gives a clear and logical understanding of the eye for an eye approach. Additionally the utilitarian view also explains why capital punishment is justifiable in regards to comfort for the victim 's family and prevention of re-offending.
It is basic that we start to pass enactment making capital punishment lawful all through the United States so justice can be served appropriately. The morality of the death penalty has been hotly discussed for a long time. Those opposed to the death penalty say that it is immoral for the government to take the life of a citizen under any circumstance. This contention is refuted by Immanuel Kant who set forth the idea that, a society that is not willing to request a life of some individual who has taken another person 's life is essentially immoral.