On April 15th, 1985 “Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life” was published in the New Republic. In this article, the author Edward Koch, an outspoken lawyer and former mayor of New York City, uses seven main arguments of why he believes capital punishment is not only necessary but also a way to show how precious human life is (483). In this essay, I will not argue whether or not I agree with his view on the death penalty, but rather if Koch makes a sound and logical argument in favor of capital punishment. Although Koch is a well-educated man with a lot of experience with the issue at hand, his arguments seem to lack empirical evidence as well as plaguing them with fallacies.
Koch starts out by painting a picture in your mind, …show more content…
First, he explains that like cancer, we need to “cure” the murder problem and compares the death penalty to some sort of social chemotherapy (484). But since the death penalty was enacted in 1787 when the Constitution was written, that would mean it had been in effect for nearly 200 years when this article was written. I personally believe that 200 years is a sufficient amount of time to bring an end to a murder problem if this were truly the “cure” that Koch claims it to be (484). Then in direct contrast, his second argument he states that although we are the only major democracy that practices the death penalty if those other major democracies had a murder rate like ours, they too would enact the death penalty (485). His deductions lead me to ask; if capital punishment really corrects the problem of these heinous crimes, how do these other countries keep their murder rates lower? This goes against his belief that the death penalty is necessary, as used in his second argument (484). I would not consider these arguments sufficient support to his overall point, due to the contradicting data that Koch presents. Which then leads us to the former politician’s next points, the jail system, and the conviction …show more content…
However, Koch fails to mention that all of the Founding Fathers cited were also slave owners (The Founding Fathers and Slavery). Just because the creators of this country supported this form of justice 150 years ago, does not mean that their views on what was, and still is just, were not misguided. I believe that when you are speaking in regards to the laws of today you can not look to the past; for this demonstrates that the beliefs held then are considered outdated and not a valid argument in current times. That theme ties to the final closing point of the essay; the death penalty is not murder because it is done lawfully (487). However, there have been many laws that at one point and time were considered lawful and now, as we look back that same law is considered atrocious. Like I have previously mentioned, slavery was completely lawful until 1865. This is what Critical Thinking and Enduring Questions would define as an oversimplification (375). Some laws could be construed as fair and others no – this is no reason to say every law in place is correct because the government says it is. Furthermore, in response to this essay, David Bruck also compared how the government even called for lynching in 1912, calling all else to be an injustice (493). As time progresses, so do our beliefs of what is fair and
Koch starts out by painting a picture in your mind, …show more content…
First, he explains that like cancer, we need to “cure” the murder problem and compares the death penalty to some sort of social chemotherapy (484). But since the death penalty was enacted in 1787 when the Constitution was written, that would mean it had been in effect for nearly 200 years when this article was written. I personally believe that 200 years is a sufficient amount of time to bring an end to a murder problem if this were truly the “cure” that Koch claims it to be (484). Then in direct contrast, his second argument he states that although we are the only major democracy that practices the death penalty if those other major democracies had a murder rate like ours, they too would enact the death penalty (485). His deductions lead me to ask; if capital punishment really corrects the problem of these heinous crimes, how do these other countries keep their murder rates lower? This goes against his belief that the death penalty is necessary, as used in his second argument (484). I would not consider these arguments sufficient support to his overall point, due to the contradicting data that Koch presents. Which then leads us to the former politician’s next points, the jail system, and the conviction …show more content…
However, Koch fails to mention that all of the Founding Fathers cited were also slave owners (The Founding Fathers and Slavery). Just because the creators of this country supported this form of justice 150 years ago, does not mean that their views on what was, and still is just, were not misguided. I believe that when you are speaking in regards to the laws of today you can not look to the past; for this demonstrates that the beliefs held then are considered outdated and not a valid argument in current times. That theme ties to the final closing point of the essay; the death penalty is not murder because it is done lawfully (487). However, there have been many laws that at one point and time were considered lawful and now, as we look back that same law is considered atrocious. Like I have previously mentioned, slavery was completely lawful until 1865. This is what Critical Thinking and Enduring Questions would define as an oversimplification (375). Some laws could be construed as fair and others no – this is no reason to say every law in place is correct because the government says it is. Furthermore, in response to this essay, David Bruck also compared how the government even called for lynching in 1912, calling all else to be an injustice (493). As time progresses, so do our beliefs of what is fair and