Oedipal Sovereignty And The War In Iraq

The viewpoint I was given for the debate was to favor and keep the death penalty. This was both a difficult and straining task to complete, due to there being very limited information, statistics and proven facts that advocated for the death penalty. Most of the arguments in support of the death penalty, rested on moral beliefs which conflicted with my personal point of view, such as the principle, "an eye for an eye" otherwise known as the law of retaliation.
In my opinion, sentencing someone to death is morally wrong because it denies the defendants awaiting their death sentence, their right to life which is guaranteed in the Universal Declarations of Human Rights. Depriving someone of their life is irrevocable and an ultimate form of punishment, in which no redemption can be sought. In addition, the death penalty is more evident among people of color and the poor who have limited access to legal resources and an adequate lawyer who will advocate on their behalf.
Evidence of the death penalty disproportionately impacting people of color is apparent in Furman v Georgia …show more content…
Sovereignty both “preserves and destroys in the same act” (Arnold 2009, 67). which is further supported in Arnold’s example of the invasion of Iraq. In order to ensure security, the United States created insecurity for both Americans, with a propagandizing terrorists, and producing a violent space within the Iraq borders (Arnold 2009, 69). In regards to the death penalty, by the government alerting the public that the men and women who murder if not put to death, may kill again, the knowledge that death provides, is crucial to the success of the sovereign’s (government’s) use of violence to achieve its