David Bruck Death Penalty

“Does Death Penalty Save Lives? A New Debate.” The New York Times. The New York Times.

He uses the KKK statement to transition into discussing Ernest Knighton’ case to indicate that race is another factor in deciding whether a person should be executed. Moreover, he states that people are ruled by fury rather than justice when wanting capital punishment for murderers. Finally he finalizes his argument by asserting that the electric chair was made by a governor who was in favor of lynching to bring justice.

Capital punishment is a subject full of controversy. When it comes to the topic of the death penalty, most of us will readily agree that it’s a grim subject. Where this agreement usually ends however, is on the question of how necessary it is. Whereas some are convinced that capital punishment is not only cruel its useless as well, others maintain that it is necessary for justice to be adequately served . In the article “The Penalty of Death” by H.L. Mencken the author addresses the objections against the death penalty as well as his stand on the whole issue while using several rhetorical strategies to not only get his viewpoint across but, make the reader really think about their own stand on the death penalty. Three of the most effective

In 1985, David Bruck wrote an article titled The Death Penalty in the New Republic. In the article, David Bruck wrote a rebuttal to the assertions that New York Mayor Ed Koch had in support of the death penalty. Mayor Koch asserted that the death penalty gave proper respect to the lives of the victims. However, Bruck argued that the death penalty gave the voice to the murders, and that the spectacle created an event that was less than respectful to the victims. Mayor Koch also points out that there has been no evidence that innocent people have sentenced to death. However, Bruck uses Mayor Koch’s own source to prove that innocents had been wrongly convicted, but that those cases did not involve the death penalty. Consequently, the finality

“His testimony was responsible for the execution of some 35 persons, but, as the frenzy subsided, inconsistencies were discovered in his story.”

The court struck “seven of 11 African-Americans, who traditionally do not support the death penalty, in favor of whites vocalizing strong conservative values” when deciding on the final juror pool (McMichael). This blatant disregard for a neutral jury is shadowed by deeply-rooted racial biases that were present in the south even in its infancy. The fact that this trial was handled so poorly is an affront to America’s justice system and suggests that Brannan’s trial is not the only trial handled in this manner. In another political play, “assistant district attorney Craig Fraser repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of PTSD as a medical diagnosis” and Brannan’s disability pay, leading the jury “to believe that Brannan faked his mental illness after the war to live off hard-working taxpayers” (McMichael). Rather than insult and mock Brannan, a man who fought for the nation even in an unpopular war, the district attorney and other people in power should have reviewed the case through an unbiased, professional lense. The degradation of Brannan not only affected him, but also contributed to harmful notions against PTSD and other mental illnesses, as well as

The development of McMillian’s story is similar to Haney’s explanation that the courts dehumanize those accused of a crime, painting them as people incapable of feeling compassion or pain. In Psychological Secrecy and The Death Penalty, Haney’s main argument is that in many cases peoples social and family history is not taken into consideration to explain what lead the defendant to violently act out. In McMillian’s case, his alibies and background were not considered – just the fact that he was African American and fit the community imposed stereotype of African Americans. If looked at, background history may give a deeper insight and could explain the person’s actions – humanizing them. The framing of a story portrays a person and sets

In Jim’s case, the subject of “excitement and prejudice in the public mind” is greatly emphasized; a large amount of hype surrounded the trial, which consequently may have altered the decision made by the courts. During this time, executions were still part of a public spectacle. Stemming back to European and colonial society, executions, especially hangings, were a large form of public entertainment that brought the whole community together. In one perspective the execution may have created a hole in society, but with the development of executions as communal spectacles, the hole is mended, and instead brings the community together in a sense through the removal of a “bad” in their society. Jim’s case comes during a time in which there was a large amount of fear surrounding slave revolts- with Jim his act of violence likely sparked a sense of fear throughout his community. By deciding to sentence Jim to hanging, this would act to reassure the community with a sense of safety to enforce the superiority of the “better”

The author built his argument through combination of emotions and logic. When he quoted from the former Supreme Court justice Harry Blackmun that "The horrors experienced by many young inmates, particularly those who ... are convicted of nonviolent offenses," Jacoby tries here to convince some of his readers who use their emotions to describe the flogging as "too degrading" "too brutal" without looking to the efficiency this punishment. The author uses the logic also to convince the rest of his readers by the use of facts like

Carl Shaw was convicted for assisting in the murders of two teenagers, he was a Military Police at Ft. Jackson South Carolina; he was given the death penalty. Shaw was proven to have mental health issues and at the time was on an illegal drug, PCP, his last words was (“Killing was wrong when I did it, It is wrong when you do it”). Another example used by Bruck, Alvin Ford, convicted of killing a cop, he has been on death row for years and during that time has lost his mind, he now spends his days rocking back and forth, and muttering unintelligible

The death penalty act as an exterminator of a race, who will lead America as a nation of a single race which is the Caucasian race. Moreover, Marcus illuminate that a non-white who kill a white person have a high chance to be executed than a white who kill a non-white. The death penalty will remove the United States of its unique characteristic to be a melting pot. This inequality can be perceive not only in race, but also as an individual. Some individuals have been executed unjustly since the reasons of incrimination was feeble. Joseph O’Dell is a victim of the unfair death penalty, who were executed because of the lack of DNA testing evidence. And he is not the only

The authors argue that recent research has modified the way the general population used to think and how now, if given the option, many would support the alternative punishment of life without parole over the death penalty.

In Stephen Bright’s article, “The Death Penalty as the Answer to Crime: Costly, Counterproductive, and Corrupting” Bright asserts that capital punishment does not work because it is racially biased, the quality of the lawyers and attorneys supplied by the state to poor defendants is unfair, and that the law system currently in place does not accomplish its true goals. Bright defends his claim with logos and ethos by examining the opinions of judges and district attorneys, and by describing experience within the fields of human rights and law himself in order to persuade the reader to take up more cases for those on death row. Given the language used in this article Bright is writing to an audience with intermediate to professional experience within the field of law, and a willingness to adopt a new idea on the constitutionality behind the death penalty.

Premise three, might be obvious to some but there are still people that deny the “greater brutality and violence of the death penalty when compared to” life imprisonment (Bedau, 5). In response to those in favor of the death penalty, Bedau, replies with reasons why lifetime imprisonment is less severe and invasive than execution:

An issue that has continually created tension in today's society is whether the death penalty serves as a justified and valid form of punishment. Whenever the word "death penalty" comes up, extremists from both sides start yelling out their arguments. One side says deterrence, the other side says there's a potential of executing an innocent man; one says justice, retribution, and punishment; the other side says execution is murder. Crime is an evident part of society, and everyone is aware that something must be done about it. Most people know the threat of crime to their lives, but the question lies in the methods and action in which it should be dealt with. In several parts of