Is the Death Penalty Justified?
Death penalty is still controversial topic in our global society. While some of people oppose the executions because of the possibility of misjudgment. There are four sources that researched to find out what is a better argument for death penalties. These four sources have different angle on this death penalty for the reasons of various impact such as the cost of capital punishment, and emotional effect of victim’s family and deterrent for murderers. Among these four sources, ‘Death Penalty Repeal’ by Kyle and ‘Why the Death penalty needs to die?’ by Gillespie Nick will be compared. These two articles contain different views on the death penalty in different way. The writer of the article 'Why the Death penalty …show more content…
Ideologically, Nick (the writer of ‘Why the Death penalty needs to die’) considers that morals should be the first virtue for society. Nick mentioned that even though murderers and criminals are atrocities, the government should separate criminals and citizens by minimizing violence or coercion to ensure the lives of citizens against the murderer, since governments should encourage good behavior and habits, and Nick believes that it is a more moral way. So Nick draws the conclusion on the role and morality of the society and government. Whereas, Kyle (the writer of “Death Penalty Repeal") claims that freedom should be kept by exercising right to execute murderers. Kyle believes that true justice must be realized in punishment and retaliation for the victim. Kyle draws the conclusion based on policy matters and principle. In this stage, both of arguments resulted in conclusion by using axiomatic …show more content…
Therefore, it is hard to consider that the argument of Kyle is true due to insufficient reason.
Consequently, We can assume that Nick's argument is stronger than Kyle’s argument. Nick’s premise is rational because the evidence supporting his premise was credible, and these rational premises resulted in conclusion without fallacy. However, while Kyle's argument passed non-circulation and truthfulness, some claims are just his personal opinions without rational reasons. And he draws the conclusion with these personal opinions. Therefore, comparing these two arguments, Nick's argument should be a better
Death penalty is still controversial topic in our global society. While some of people oppose the executions because of the possibility of misjudgment. There are four sources that researched to find out what is a better argument for death penalties. These four sources have different angle on this death penalty for the reasons of various impact such as the cost of capital punishment, and emotional effect of victim’s family and deterrent for murderers. Among these four sources, ‘Death Penalty Repeal’ by Kyle and ‘Why the Death penalty needs to die?’ by Gillespie Nick will be compared. These two articles contain different views on the death penalty in different way. The writer of the article 'Why the Death penalty …show more content…
Ideologically, Nick (the writer of ‘Why the Death penalty needs to die’) considers that morals should be the first virtue for society. Nick mentioned that even though murderers and criminals are atrocities, the government should separate criminals and citizens by minimizing violence or coercion to ensure the lives of citizens against the murderer, since governments should encourage good behavior and habits, and Nick believes that it is a more moral way. So Nick draws the conclusion on the role and morality of the society and government. Whereas, Kyle (the writer of “Death Penalty Repeal") claims that freedom should be kept by exercising right to execute murderers. Kyle believes that true justice must be realized in punishment and retaliation for the victim. Kyle draws the conclusion based on policy matters and principle. In this stage, both of arguments resulted in conclusion by using axiomatic …show more content…
Therefore, it is hard to consider that the argument of Kyle is true due to insufficient reason.
Consequently, We can assume that Nick's argument is stronger than Kyle’s argument. Nick’s premise is rational because the evidence supporting his premise was credible, and these rational premises resulted in conclusion without fallacy. However, while Kyle's argument passed non-circulation and truthfulness, some claims are just his personal opinions without rational reasons. And he draws the conclusion with these personal opinions. Therefore, comparing these two arguments, Nick's argument should be a better