The Blind Spot

“An eight year old girl in South Africa recently told Ted Koppel on Nightline, ‘White people are better then black people, I wish I was white but I am not’” (Racism in America’s Schools). This statement is believed to be true by many people. People all over the world feel hatred or dislike toward a certain group of people for no apparent reason, other than because they are different from themselves. Michael Lewis wrote the biography The Blindside that captures the issue of racism through an athletic black man’s life. In his biography, The Blindside,

Would it be true that capital punishment saves lives? Edward Koch, in his article “Death and Justice” believes it does. Koch, using common techniques to influence his audience, suggests that killers should be handled within this tried and avenged form of punishment. Koch opens his article by quoting convicted murderers Robert Lee Willie and Joseph Carl Shaw, both in the last moments of their lives pleading for the justice system to put a stop to the endless cycle of killing. Using simple logic, Koch argues that the sudden changing of the killers’ moral character is not a result of remorse for the victims, but rather an attempt to save their own lives from the killing hands of the justice system. Koch effectively uses these quotes to suggest to the reader that a killer might have thought twice about his/her own actions if the death sentence were a belief.

The debate on whether or not the death penalty should be abolished has been ongoing for quite a long period of time. While there are those who believe that the death penalty does not serve its intended purpose, proponents of the same are convinced that the relevance of the same cannot be overstated and hence it should not be abolished. In this text, I examine the arguments for and against the death penalty.

The author claims that Capital Punishment is a free right and is important in keeping criminals out of society. His purpose is to show the reasons why the death penalty is important to society and he does just that! Gibson shares how the death penalty serves justice for the families of the victims and how its retributive for the victim. Not to mention how Capital Punishment acts as a deterrence. Through these statements one can't help but be a little persuaded to read on.

The death penalty is a very controversial topic that has been the top of discussion for years around the world. It is a topic that many individuals feel very strongly about. Christopher Hitchens, a political journalist in Washington D.C., writes an essay entitled “Scenes from an Execution” in which it is clear that he is against it. To get his views across in the essay, he uses light humor rather than very serious scenarios directed toward it, although it is a very serious topic. Instead of ranting about opinions, Hitchens writes about his experiences and how others as well as himself were affected. He uses rhetorical devices such as ethos, logos, and pathos to attack capital punishment.

On the other hand, Greenberg, Reiman, and Gray argue against deterrence and how it is not a leading factor for justifying the administration the death penalty. “Because of the goals that our criminal justice system must satisfy - deterring crime, punishing the guilty, acquitting the innocent, avoiding needless cruelty, treating citizens equally, and prohibiting oppression by the state - America simply does not have the kind of capital punishment system contemplated by death penalty partisans” (Greenberg 1670). Greenberg argues how due to the American system of capital punishment, deterrence is not a factor due to the “infrequent, random, and erratic executions” of this system

A review was conducted from the Law and society Association, American society of criminology and the Criminal Justice sciences Academy and it revealed that a big majority concluded that capital punishment was not a deterrent to homicide. More than 80 percent of those interrogated believe that the survey doesn’t hold up the effect of deterrence for the death penalty. Other criminologists suggest that more homicides are caused due to the fact that there is death penalty. The outcome of brutalization argues that the rates of homicides will increase because of the example served by state executions.

In the essay, “A cruel and unusual kingdom”, by Leonard Pitts Jr. columnist for the Miami Herald, effectively argues that the use of the death penalty in the United States is inhumane, irrational and goes against American values. Though Pitts overall maintains a strong argument, writing style, and voice, he purely targets a supportive audience as he doesn’t include clear common ground nor a refutation of the other bias.

If we examine some arguments presented from both sides, opponents of the capital punishment claim that executing someone is nothing more than an immoral, state-authorized killing which undervalues the human life and destroys our respect for our government which itself says that killing is wrong. But the supporters of the death penalty think that certain murderers

“The use of the death penalty in the United States has been rapidly declining since the end of the 1990s” (Dieter, 2015). This is contrast to the believes of the Founding Fathers where “the death penalty was widely accepted at the time the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified” (Gardner & Anderson, 2014). While the crimes have not changed, aspects of capital punishment which were once viewed as constitutional, today are deemed cruel and unusual. The prevailing liberal view sees the death penalty as morally unjustified and a vengeful form retribution. “It is the most brutal form of state power, requires massive state administrations and it costs significantly more than life imprisonment which is both more humane and equally effective” (Davidson, 2015). They point to the lack of deterrence it provides and highlight the racial and gender biases of the criminal justice system and the potential for the execution of the innocent by the State. In contrast, those in favor of capital punishment see it as a valid, moral and constitutional punishment as punishments should be imposed in proportion to the crime. The death penalty is reserved for the most violent of crimes in society and without it, justice is not achieved for victims and their families. The death penalty must be viewed again as a valid, moral and legal

Many people question the need for the death penalty, the execution of those who have committed certain crimes, as a capital punishment. For instance, the author of “Against the American System of Capital Punishment”, Jack Greenburg, who is a Professor of Law at Columbia University, argues that the death penalty does not benefit society and is not necessary. Likewise, Kevin Johnson, writer of “Study Finds No Evidence Death Penalty Deters Crime”, also argues against the use of the death penalty by pointing out the flaws in the common research of deterrence. On the other hand, some may also argue for the many aids the death penalty offers. Professor of Jurisprudence and Public Policy at Fordham University, Ernest Van den Haag, with his “The Ultimate Punishment: a Defense”, and authors James M. Reams and Charles T. Putnam, with their article, “Making a Case for the Deterrence Effect of Capital Punishment”, both give arguments for the grander justice the death penalty offers. While each of these articles give very well thought out claims for the necessity of the death penalty, using arguments including racism, and deterrence, Van den Haag’s claim gives the clearest and best arguments.

While I have little philosophical demurral to the death a remorseless, malevolent savage who is so sociopathic that any endeavors to inspire redemption seem laughable, I object resolutely to the imposing presence of a government which would assume the power to order the death of its citizens.This signifies a disturbing totalitarian relationship between peoples and their leaders. The state’s aversion to murder is so unremitting that it is ironically willing to repeat this heinous crime remorselessly in an attempt to prevent it, but the state’s brutalization of criminals is not to be tainted by being compared to the crime itself, according to conservative ideology. We must bear in mind, however, that criminals are killed by other people, not

Amnesty International. “The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished.” Criminal Justice, edited by David Haugen and Susan Musser, Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010119285/OVIC?u=easternview&xid=cc20262f. Accessed 30 Oct. 2017. Originally published as “The

Last but not least, from a sociologic perspective, capital punishment does not work as intended, to deter crime rate, rather, it might brutalize individuals, at the same time does nothing good to the victim’s family other than brutal vengeance. The origin of death penalty is served as a vehicle to put a warning for those potential future criminals that such kind of behavior will lead to death. However, so far, no clear evidence can be seen that capital punishment, as a mechanism of deterrent, actually cut down the local crime rate. Ironically, a reversal trend was found by Death Penalty Information Center (2010) in the USA that the death penalty leads to an increase in local murder rate. To die might be too easy for the mindless murderers. Also, for the relatives or friends of criminals put into death through capital punishment, they are more likely to be

From an early age, children are taught that murder is morally wrong. In today’s complex society that is impeded by unsettling periods of civil unrest, it is an expectation for everyone to acknowledge and accept that murder is one of the worst crimes individuals can commit. Perhaps it can be said that the death penalty is one of our legal system’s biggest contradictions of itself, as, if someone commits murder (or another heinous crime of that caliber), such ‘murderers’ will, in states that have capital punishment laws, be sent to Death Row and ultimately murdered in order to prevent potential future crimes by such perpetrators. I believe that the death penalty is wrong not only as it is immoral to take a life, but also, such ineffective laws waste money and do not deter crime.