The death penalty and how it ties into the morality of the American government is one of the most highly debated topics in America. The death penalty is highly controversial as it falls into deciding if humans should legally judge whether someone should live or die. In Ed Pilkington’s “America’s death penalty divide: why capital punishment is getting better, and worse'' they argue that capital punishment is wrong in the way that it is immoral and is not immune from the bias that comes from America's institutionalized racism. Contrastingly, Zachary Nichol’s “The Death Penalty Should Remain Legal” takes the opposite approach to the death penalty argument and speaks of how the constitution supports the right to use capital punishment.
On the
…show more content…
Zachary Nichol uses the United States Constitution as supporting evidence for his argument. More specifically, Nichol uses a piece from the 5th amendment “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.” This piece of evidence itself is more moderate than strong considering that instead of caring if capital punishment is supported by law or constitution, the opposing side tends to find more issues in the morals behind it or institutionalized racism and its relation to rates of incarceration/capital punishment. Nichol doesn’t forget to include the questions the opposing side has over the questionable morality behind capital punishment, he argues that at some point it’s better to put a person's life behind to save a plethora of others in the future. Zachary Nichol does seem to be right leaning because he has some right-winged interpretations of the constitution and ideals of capital …show more content…
In the interview, they discuss how the Jury decided the fate of the Parkland shooter and chose to let him live and serve the rest of his life in prison. Families were outraged by this decision and believed that the mass shooter didn’t deserve to continue living amongst other people after murdering 17 people and injuring several others. “If not now the death penalty, then when” one teen comments during Today's News interview, her outrage being a shared emotion between her and several other interviewees. The evidence is highly relevant to issues of the present in the way that it directly addresses the topic of school shootings in America and how far it’ll go before punishment becomes more
The death penalty has been one of the most controversial debates in the United States. Some believe that an eye for an eye is an effective mean of punishment while others believe that such mean of punishment is not effective in modern society. Edward Koch believes the death penalty affirms the sanctity of life. In the article by Edward Koch, published in The New Republic, “Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life,’ he utilizes the rhetorical devices of ethos, pathos and logos to justify his position for the death penalty towards the people opposing the death penalty.
In writing the essay entitled "More Innocents Die When We Don't Have Capital Punishment," Dennis Prager examines the arguments of those against capital punishment. He makes a deductive argument that supports his conclusion in favor of capital punishment, taking the stance that murderers should undergo execution as capital punishment imposes a lessened threat to innocent lives than if it was not an option. Furthermore, Prager makes several claims throughout his writing regarding those opposing capital punishment, their arguments, and the effects on the lives of innocent people. Additionally, through this essay, he commits a few logical fallacies such as false dilemma, strawman, slippery slope, and appealing to the person. Prager's essay presents
This paper will serve to show that capital punishment is not, in fact, ethically permissible. I will argue this by explaining the government’s duty to its people, and how capital punishment is indeed a violation of these prima facie duties. 1. The government has a duty to protect its people from harm (including murder, abuse of power, etc.). 2.
Capital punishment is a highly debated issue, with questions surrounding its fairness and constitutionality under the Eighth Amendment due to the protections it provides and the
Should America continue to allow the death penalty? This essay will tell you why America should not be continue the death penalty. For starters, the death penalty is punishment by death; usually resulting after a crime that America calls capital crimes or capital offences. There are many of reasons why the death penalty should not be carried out in America or anywhere “Application of the death penalty tends to be arbitrary and capricious; for similar crimes, some are sentenced to death while others are not.”
In the essay “The Death Penalty Is a Step Back” the author, Coretta Scott King expresses her feelings about capital punishment and states reasons to back up her argument that the death penalty is both a racist and immoral practice. King believes that capital punishment is immoral and illegal, and that it by no means serves as a deterrent for other possible criminals. The author then further talks about how there have been numerous incidents where the mistakenly convicted is put down in the name of American justice. King then argues that by sentencing someone to death, one is assuming that the person convicted is not capable of rehabilitation. The
Support for capital punishment requires valuing retribution over rehabilitation. Those who favor capital punishment value highly the closure it provides to the families of the victims, and they believe that it deters would be murderers from killing. Retribution, closure and deterrence are the main reasons in favor of the death penalty. Opponents of capital punishment generally believe that it is hypocritical and immoral for the state
The first objection is that the death penalty does not "provide a measure of moral desert" (Nathanson). For the second, Nathanson states "it does not provide an adequate criterion for determining appropriate levels of punishment." The main objection is an "eye for an eye", or Lex talionis, and I believe it fails to support equality retributivism and creates punishments that are morally unacceptable. There is no way that
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).