In the articles “The Death Penalty is a Step Back” written by Coretta Scott King and “Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life” written by Edward I Koch. These two articles give different views of Capital Punishment. Capital Punishment can be argued right or wrong. In the larger view Koch’s essay is better of the two articles.
In the first article “The Death Penalty is a Step Back” Coretta King argues that “...we abhor violence legally sanctioned executions are no deterrent and are, in fact, immoral and unconstitutional” (King, 436).
In her article she wants to make the point that “...capital punishment makes irrevocable any, possible miscarriage of justice” (King, 437). She supports this statement by saying that even though it happens just once that it has happened to many times. She also wants to make the point that “...the death penalty reflects and unwarranted assumption that the wrongdoer is beyond rehabilitation” (King, 437). King does want people to know although there are people that are not able to be rehabilitated there are those who can. The last point she wants to make is that “...the death penalty is inequitable” (King, 437). She supports this statement by giving the statistic that 53.5% of inmates on death row are African American.
Even though some good points are made the points are her opinion. In the article she only gives readers one fact to go on and that is if a mistake is made an innocent person is dead. King may be biased because of the static she provides that states “...half of 711 of persons are black...” (King, 437). Consider that Coretta King is of the African American race this could turn as her being biased. She also blames the fact that many people are being convicted is the court appointed attorneys. King provides emotional appeal to the readers because she tells readers how two family members where killed due to violence.
This article doesn’t give enough facts to support her thesis or any of her opinions. King gives her opinion to much and doesn’t give the other side stand of the argument. Another down fall to this article is that it is poorly organized. This article gives one side to the death penalty but there is a completely different side to this argument.
In the second article “Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life” the author Edward I. Koch wants to prove that the death penalty helps to affirm life. This means that if you murder someone then killing you is justified because you committed a murder.
Throughout this article the author makes many important points. Such as that Capital Punishment isn’t barbaric. Also that high violence in America gives the need for death penalty. All of this points he states are backed up by his opinions. A strong point about his paper is how well it is organized. It gives a fact and opinion and then the other side of the argument; it is very easy to read. It doesn’t seem that Koch is biased in his article.
When he discuss about how capital punishment isn’t barbaric. He makes the point that inmates now would rather have life in prison then to be put on death row. He does do the counter argument stating that “Sometimes opponents of capital punishment horrify with tales of lingering death on the gallows, of faulty electric chairs, or of agony in the gas chamber”(Koch, 429). He also states that years ago a woman was murdered on a street; many people heard the attack but didn’t even call the police. He states this after saying that “Everyone wants his or her rights, and will defend them jealously. Not everyone however, wants responsibilities” (Koch, 433) when they are painful.
This argument does have a logical fallacy. Koch makes an irrelevant connection between cancer and the death penalty. He states that “However, one does not have to like the death penalty in order to support it any more than one must like radical surgery, radiations, or chemotherapy in order to find necessary there attempts at curing cancer”(Koch,430). This comparison has nothing to do with how the death penalty is a good thing and why it should be supported.
After you have read my article evaluation of these two articles it is up to you to make your own assumption about capital punishment King or Koch? Do you also believe that Koch’s article is the better of the two articles?
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I haven't read either of the articles...but I must say that I see nothing wrong with d.p.
When you think about the crimes that these people are put on death row for, they are deserving of an equal punishment, death. If we allowed the brutal murderers of death row to just sit in a jail cell for the rest of their lives...(a jail cell where they get free food, shelter, and education)...we are letting them essentially get away with the crime. That would be like taking away a reckless driver's car, but not their license. It only solves part of the problem. Not to mention, in cases like Jeffry Dahmer's, the death penalty would actually be more humane. He was murdered in prison, in not a nice manner, in this case the death penalty would have been more humane as opposed to the torture that he underwent and the criticism the prison received b/c of it. And yes, I understand that there is, on occasion, an innocent person that gets put on death row, but this is not common. There is going to be flaw within any system, it's a risk society has to take.
This is my view...I would love to hear yours.
I agree. Most of these criminals are sub-human. We should not have to share the same air with them. My biggest problem with the death penalty is that we do not manage to get it done quickly enough. Justice delayed is justice denied. We need to limit all of the ridiculous appeals.
The death penalty is also a very important bargaining chip in our system of justice. Prosecutors are able to get many confessions and a lot of cooperation such as revealing the location of bodies because they wield the threat of the death penalty. They can trade cooperation for life in prison rather than death.
From what I gather as a result of my neuroscience classes, a lot of people who commit crimes have similar brain chemistry, just like people who are suicidal and self destructive also have similarities among their group. If these people are born with a certain type of brain chemistry that makes them more likely to commit a crime, you are calling them SUB HUMAN? A lot of the people who commit crimes can not help it because of factors such as their brain chemistry. By weeding out these people, you are not helping the situation, it is helping these people to reform themselves and to lead more law abiding lives that is a REAL solution.
Brain chemistry is most likely a function of genetics. As you say, they were born this way; it was not a function of their environment.
All the more reason to impose the death penalty. It cleanses the gene pool.
the activation of a gene is the effect of both environmental influences and both genetics. Just because someone else in your family has the gene does not mean that it will be activated in you. Also, depending on your environment growing up, your brain chemistry changes and you can develop the imbalance that individuals, for example such as a criminal may display.
I feel like your point is like saying it is alright to kill a handicapped person because then they won't reproduce and create another handicapped person. I am just not seeing the justification of your logic.
The big difference between a handicapped person and a violent criminal is that one is inflicting harm on the rest of society and the other is not.
I am with Coretta Scott King. I understand the concept of an eye for an eye. But I do not necessarily support it. How does murdering a person for wrongdoing make the wrong that they did right? It doesn't. Therefore, it just adds to the unneeded number of deaths in our nation.
but our country was first founded on upholding justice...and by not doling out an equal punishment for murder we aren't upholding this justice...we aren't serving justice to the families of those victims...we are basically telling them the fact that someone took the rights of their loved one doesn't really matter in our country...which brings me to something else...putting these people to death isn't going against any constitutionality b/c these people have revoked their rights by infringing on someone else's (which is morally unacceptable according to the social contract) so we aren't tied to the constitution but to retribution.
The founders also realized that humans contained passions that often led them to irrationally jump to conclusions before analyzing evidence and standing the test of time. Therefore, the founders instituted a set of checks and balances. Isn't seeing if these individuals on death row can be rehabilitated and receive help to become a more law abiding citizen not a safe guard against the jumping to conclusions that the framers intended to guard against?
If the founders had a problem with the death penalty, don't you think that they would have prohibited it in the Constitution?
The death penalty clearly passed muster with the founders as something other than cruel and unusual. For certain crimes, the founders obviously considered it to be justice. Otherwise they would have forbidden it when they wrote the document.
A lot of what was put in and left out in the constitution was done so in order to gain ratification from the states. At one point the delegates considered the topic of slavery, but did not mention it because they knew it would hinder the support they received from the states.
Also, I think the phrase from a historical document about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" could also support my view point.
wow ummm way to not support your country and it's founding documents....
first...about your rehabilitation of these criminals...considering that 6% of criminals commit 70% of all crimes we can see how high the repeat rates are. Throw in the added bonus of just how bad the crimes earning an award of death row are, do we really want to give these people the chance to recommit? Even if they remain in prison, they are a risk to guards and other inmates. So, I don't even see rehabilitation as an option. Not to mention the amount of resources we would need to rehabilitate all of these people, we already have enough problems with the justice system without adding more to our plate.
second...as for the genetics component...has it actually been proven that these people are born with a neurological malfunction that causes these crimes? and if it has been actually proven would you please provide some evidence....just b/c these people have similar brain patterns and what not doesn't give us a reason to pity them...if the mental issues were that serious they would have been deemed insane or incompetent in trial...but they weren't which means that between doctors, psychologists, and other professionals saw them mentally fit to stand trial and meet the sentence they received. so we can't just let these people get away b/c of this factor...that would be like asking to take pity on child molesters instead of seeking punishment...it's just not logical
finally...as for your reference to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"...first of all pursuit of happiness isn't actually a right we are forced to extend...it is simply suggested...we are all guaranteed life, liberty and property...and as I mentioned in one of my earlier responses...these criminals have infringed on another's rights (which goes against democratic principles exposed in the social contract)...at this point the criminal has inherently revoked their own rights...so while they still are guaranteed due process or trial, we are now tied to retribution and seeking out a fitting punishment, not upholding the criminals rights.
I tried to find more of a summary for what is going on neurologically rather than the empirical data because it is very hard to understand. Let me know though if you want reports and then I will give you links instead to them. But here is the simplest explanations I have found.
"Neurologist Dr. Jonathan Pincus personally examined and probed into the family and medical history of numerous serial killers and other violent criminals to analyze what creates and triggers the violent instinct. He discovered that virtually all suffered severe abuse as children, as well as brain damage and mental illness. In these gripping, terrifying stories, Pincus concludes that violent criminal behavior is the catastrophic product of a dysfunctional brain coupled with an abusive environment."
http://www.wwnorton.com/catalog/spring02/032323.htm
Another website that talks about it, this was just really interesting to read as well, is this http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1997/02/24/1997_02_24_132_TNY_CARDS_000...
Keep in mind, the second article is what I am considering in a career because that is how strongly I feel that people who can not control their behavior because of neurological imbalances should not be punished or receive the death penalty. Since these people have disorders and such if we acknowledge that and devote research to it, we may find valuable information for dealing with criminals in the future.
The main problem with this is that it is coupled with abuse...a preventable problem...not to mention that if there is some chemical imbalance why don't we simply start scanning for the imbalance when we scan newborns for other diseases and treating them...that would decrease crime rates overall...it still doesn't excuse their actions...as I stated before..if the brain problems were a detriment to their decision making then that would've been determined before trial...
plus, what about instances like Jeffry Dahmer where the death penalty would have actually been more humane?
your theories just don't account for a real reason to put our society in danger...we can't let people get away with murder...literally...b/c of a minor brain malfunction....it's illogical
Saying that child abuse is preventable doesn't mean that it does not happen and that it is so easy to stop it from happening. Second, a lot of people who have chemical imbalances and such do not realize it. Look at how many kids go undiagnosed with ADD and people with depression. Its not like all people who have problems know that what they have is abnormal and second that does not mean that they can AFFORD to have the brain scans and psychologists and such from birth. Not all, but at least a good portion of child abuse happens in lower income families. Since it is triggered and in part by abuse babies won't show it, it is something that is developed over time. Just because these people have problems in one aspect of their life does NOT mean that it is obvious when you look at them. When you look at someone with Depression or ADD can you just tell that they have a chemical imbalance from spending time with them. Certain circumstances trigger their actions.
What about the fact that it is just immoral? I don't understand how you can kill someone for killing another person and call it justice. If you ask me, that is just hypocrisy.
I still disagree with you about the whole chemical imbalances issue...but since I've already stated my reasons why I think it's kinda senseless to keep arguing that point...
as for the immorality you bring up...I don't think that death is moral...but I think in this country it is the job of the government to serve justice...it is not hypocritical b/c if we let these people just sit in prison (you can refer to one of my earlier posts for an elaboration) we aren't serving justice to the families of the victims
I actually do not even think that the death penalty is an issue worth debating.
It has been acknowledged multiple times in multiple cases that innocent people have been put on death row.
Some of these innocent people have been killed.
I don't care what the percentage is...that is a chance that should not be taken.
It is the most horrid human rights violation I have ever heard of.
You shouldn't be able to make that kind of mistake.
What if it was you? Or somebody you knew? Would you like to take that risk then. I know I wouldn't.
Innocent people have a chance to be killed.
That's it. That's where the issue ends for me.
There shouldn't be a death penalty.
and innocent people have the chance to be killed putting on their pants in the morning...trust me it happens...but it's something that has to be done for the world to continue.
Every system has flaws, and yes the death penalty may not be at its prime right now, but why don't we then work on fixing it instead of scrapping it altogether forcing us to create something totally new?