As an anti-death penalty advocator and capital punishment abolitionist, David Von Drehle holds a completely opposite against Ernest van den Haag’s perspective. He claims that after 30 years of studying and writing about the death penalty, “the end of this troubled system is creeping into view” (Drehle, 2015). David Von Drehle is an American editor-at-large for TIME (http://time.com/author/david-von-drehle/). His publics cover politics, breaking news and the Supreme Court since 2007. Drehle received his B.A from the University of Denver in 1983, and earned a Masters in Literature as a Marshall Scholar from Oxford University (Achenbach, 2012).
In his article “The Death of The Death Penalty: Why the era of capital punishment is ending” published on TIME, Drehle presents a clear thesis expressing his …show more content…
Ernest van den Haag didn’t use a large amount of evidence to support his opinion, instead, he used a lot more common sense and moral and non-moral purpose of death penalty to explain why capital punishment should not be abolished in the United States. Surprisingly, Ernest van den Haag didn’t use any sources or research findings to serve as evidence, instead, he liked to explain his perspective by simply saying it. An example of this can be found in his third point, where he points out that according to some research data, death penalty is the most deterrent punishment available in the society without citing any sources. Besides the evidence and sources utilization, his logic is clear and well maintained throughout the paper. He gives several real life example to demonstrate his point on the death penalty problem, the case and effect relation is clear and solid. For example, he compares death penalty with ambulances and states that since ambulances would kill innocents by accidents, it’s the same for death penalty to kill innocent people, as long as the main purpose of those two remain the same, they should not be
In his article “The Death of The Death Penalty: Why the era of capital punishment is ending” published on TIME, Drehle presents a clear thesis expressing his …show more content…
Ernest van den Haag didn’t use a large amount of evidence to support his opinion, instead, he used a lot more common sense and moral and non-moral purpose of death penalty to explain why capital punishment should not be abolished in the United States. Surprisingly, Ernest van den Haag didn’t use any sources or research findings to serve as evidence, instead, he liked to explain his perspective by simply saying it. An example of this can be found in his third point, where he points out that according to some research data, death penalty is the most deterrent punishment available in the society without citing any sources. Besides the evidence and sources utilization, his logic is clear and well maintained throughout the paper. He gives several real life example to demonstrate his point on the death penalty problem, the case and effect relation is clear and solid. For example, he compares death penalty with ambulances and states that since ambulances would kill innocents by accidents, it’s the same for death penalty to kill innocent people, as long as the main purpose of those two remain the same, they should not be