death and justice essay

“Death and Justice” by Edward I. Koch Essay (Book Review)

To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
As a template for you assignment

Introduction

The death penalty is barbaric, thou shall not kill, the death penalty is state-sanctioned murder.

This report is a review of the essay Death and justice by Edward I. Koch. This essay addresses the use of the death penalty as a way of deterring people from engaging in serious criminal offenses such as cold blood murder (Koch 1).

Koch uses statements of some of the condemned murderers to show that killing a person is wrong. It implies that even the murderers understand how painful killing another person is and they still proceed to do it. For instance, the author gives an example of Mr. Willie, a convicted murderer, who testifies that no person deserves to be killed (Koch 1).

Due to his vast experience in the criminal justice system, Koch is fit to write about issues of the death penalty and justice. He currently works in a popular TV courtroom show after serving as a mayor of New York for 12 years. Apart from Death and justice, Koch has also written other literary works such as Mayor (1984) and Politics (1985). Although the issue of the death penalty is quite controversial, it is the most effective deterrence and the fairest justice that can be done to the victims of the most serious offenses.

This book has a total of seven chapters. Chapter 1, “The Death Penalty Is Barbaric,” reinforces the need to create an injustice-free society. Chapter 2, “No Other Major Democracy Uses the Death Penalty,” supports the states that apply the death penalty to enforce justice. Chapter 3, An Innocent Person May Be Executed By Mistake, addresses the risks involved in wrongful executions. Chapter 4, “Capital Punishment Cheapens the Value of Human Life,” asserts that the death penalty promotes the value of life.

Chapter 5, “The Death Penalty Is Applied in a Discriminatory Manner,” refutes possibilities of discrimination in the death penalty. Chapter 6, “Thou Shall Not Kill,” uses the Bible to support the death penalty. Lastly, chapter 7, “The Death Penalty Is State-Sanctioned Murder,” asserts that the death penalty helps to construct a civilized society.

The way the law and the criminal justice system work is intricate; this complexity makes it hard to understand the differences that arise in the different crimes and cases. However, the main argument about punishment is that anyone who commits a criminal offense deserves to be penalized. Retribution and deterrence are the main arguments on which punishment is based. Retribution asserts that punishment should be given out in form of vengeance.

Criminals should be given a similar treatment such as the harm they cause their victims and the society. If someone kills another person, he too should be killed as an equal penalty. Unlike what the murderers do, the death penalty is “less inhumane as it is done painlessly” (Koch 5). Deterrence works hand in hand with retribution and it asserts that people who commit criminal offenses should be incapacitated to bar them from engaging in similar offenses.

Keeping someone behind bars does not completely prevent him from committing a crime. The death penalty is the best “punishment for cold-blooded murderers” (Koch 6). In addition, the death penalty and other capital punishments help to “create injustice-free societies” (Koch 6).

The death penalty is developed from the principles and commandments outlined in the bible. The bible illustrates the rules that should be used to build a society that is free from injustices and other anti-social behaviors. The Bible clearly states that no one person should “terminate the life of another one” (Koch 12).

The holy book allows authorities to apply capital punishments such as “death in order to vindicate justice” (Koch 12). In any case, the criminal justice system of the United States criticizes inhuman punishments, which are different from the “capital punishment that it uses to uphold justice” (Koch 12). A good criminal justice system is one that ensures that criminals are punished according to the offenses they commit.

The death penalty seems to be the most effective deterrence because the dead criminals cannot get a chance to engage in criminal activities again. It is also the fairest justice that can be given to the victims of serious offenses such as cold-blood murders. Koch argues that the death penalty is the “foundation of a civilization” (13).

This is because criminals tend to grow bolder and become repeat offenders if they are subjected to less serious punishments such as incarceration. The death penalty helps to “instill fear in people to desist from serious offenses” (Koch 15). It is evident that societies that tend to “protect guilty lives lose innocent lives in return” (Koch 15).

Although the death penalty is cruel and appears inhumane, it remains the most effective deterrence and the fairest justice that can be given to the victims of serious offenses such as murder. It is evident that the other punishments used by most criminal justice systems are ineffective at preventing criminals from engaging in similar crimes.

If these measures were effective enough, repeat offenders would be a thing of the past. The death penalty terminates the life of the most serious offenders and in that way barring them completely from engaging in unlawful activities.

Koch, Edward I. Death and Justice . New York, NY: New Republic, 1985. Pdf.

Euthanasia: Your Right to Die?
Should Names of Rape Victims Be Disclosed in Public
The Taj Mahal: Architecture, Symbolism, and Urban Significance
Sangmin Bae on the Death Penalty
Research Importance to Current Nursing Practice
The Death Penalty: Can It Ever Be Justified?
Ethical Issues for Defense Attorneys and Persecutors
Freedom of Expression Essay
Defamation and Law
Universal Moral and Legal Codes
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, December 11). "Death and Justice" by Edward I. Koch. https://ivypanda.com/essays/death-and-justice-by-edward-i-koch-a-book-report/

""Death and Justice" by Edward I. Koch." IvyPanda , 11 Dec. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/death-and-justice-by-edward-i-koch-a-book-report/.

IvyPanda . (2018) '"Death and Justice" by Edward I. Koch'. 11 December.

IvyPanda . 2018. ""Death and Justice" by Edward I. Koch." December 11, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/death-and-justice-by-edward-i-koch-a-book-report/.

1. IvyPanda . ""Death and Justice" by Edward I. Koch." December 11, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/death-and-justice-by-edward-i-koch-a-book-report/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . ""Death and Justice" by Edward I. Koch." December 11, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/death-and-justice-by-edward-i-koch-a-book-report/.

Houston Community College
Eagle Online

Charley Miles
English Composition I MW 530-650, Rm B125 (ENGL 1301)

"Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life" by Edward Koch

To print or download this file, click the link below:

Essay Service Examples Social Issues Capital Punishment

Essay on 'Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life'

Introduction

Proper editing and formatting
Free revision, title page, and bibliography
Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Koch, E.K. (1985, April 15). Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life. The New Republic.

Our writers will provide you with an essay sample written from scratch: any topic, any deadline, any instructions.

Cite this paper

Join our 150k of happy users

Get original paper written according to your instructions
Save time for what matters most

Fair Use Policy

EduBirdie considers academic integrity to be the essential part of the learning process and does not support any violation of the academic standards. Should you have any questions regarding our Fair Use Policy or become aware of any violations, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected].

We are here 24/7 to write your paper in as fast as 3 hours.

Provide your email, and we'll send you this sample!

By providing your email, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Say goodbye to copy-pasting!

Get custom-crafted papers for you.

Enter your email, and we'll promptly send you the full essay. No need to copy piece by piece. It's in your inbox!

History & Society
Science & Tech
Biographies
Animals & Nature
Geography & Travel
Arts & Culture
Games & Quizzes
On This Day
One Good Fact
New Articles
Lifestyles & Social Issues
Philosophy & Religion
Politics, Law & Government
World History
Health & Medicine
Browse Biographies
Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
Environment
Fossils & Geologic Time
Entertainment & Pop Culture
Sports & Recreation
Visual Arts
Demystified
Image Galleries
Infographics
Top Questions
Britannica Kids
Saving Earth
Space Next 50
Student Center
Introduction
Historical considerations

Moral arguments

Utilitarian arguments, practical arguments, the abolition movement.

Capital punishment in the early 21st century

Arguments for and against capital punishment

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Capital Punishment
Santa Clara University - Capital Punishment: Our Duty or Our Doom?
Cornell Law School - Legal Information Institute - Death penalty
capital punishment - Children's Encyclopedia (Ages 8-11)
capital punishment - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)
Table Of Contents

Capital punishment has long engendered considerable debate about both its morality and its effect on criminal behaviour. Contemporary arguments for and against capital punishment fall under three general headings: moral , utilitarian, and practical.

Recent News

Supporters of the death penalty believe that those who commit murder , because they have taken the life of another, have forfeited their own right to life. Furthermore, they believe, capital punishment is a just form of retribution , expressing and reinforcing the moral indignation not only of the victim’s relatives but of law-abiding citizens in general. By contrast, opponents of capital punishment, following the writings of Cesare Beccaria (in particular On Crimes and Punishments [1764]), argue that, by legitimizing the very behaviour that the law seeks to repress—killing—capital punishment is counterproductive in the moral message it conveys. Moreover, they urge, when it is used for lesser crimes, capital punishment is immoral because it is wholly disproportionate to the harm done. Abolitionists also claim that capital punishment violates the condemned person’s right to life and is fundamentally inhuman and degrading.

Although death was prescribed for crimes in many sacred religious documents and historically was practiced widely with the support of religious hierarchies , today there is no agreement among religious faiths, or among denominations or sects within them, on the morality of capital punishment. Beginning in the last half of the 20th century, increasing numbers of religious leaders—particularly within Judaism and Roman Catholicism—campaigned against it. Capital punishment was abolished by the state of Israel for all offenses except treason and crimes against humanity, and Pope John Paul II condemned it as “cruel and unnecessary.”

Supporters of capital punishment also claim that it has a uniquely potent deterrent effect on potentially violent offenders for whom the threat of imprisonment is not a sufficient restraint. Opponents, however, point to research that generally has demonstrated that the death penalty is not a more effective deterrent than the alternative sanction of life or long-term imprisonment.

There also are disputes about whether capital punishment can be administered in a manner consistent with justice . Those who support capital punishment believe that it is possible to fashion laws and procedures that ensure that only those who are really deserving of death are executed. By contrast, opponents maintain that the historical application of capital punishment shows that any attempt to single out certain kinds of crime as deserving of death will inevitably be arbitrary and discriminatory. They also point to other factors that they think preclude the possibility that capital punishment can be fairly applied, arguing that the poor and ethnic and religious minorities often do not have access to good legal assistance, that racial prejudice motivates predominantly white juries in capital cases to convict black and other nonwhite defendants in disproportionate numbers, and that, because errors are inevitable even in a well-run criminal justice system, some people will be executed for crimes they did not commit. Finally, they argue that, because the appeals process for death sentences is protracted, those condemned to death are often cruelly forced to endure long periods of uncertainty about their fate.

Under the influence of the European Enlightenment , in the latter part of the 18th century there began a movement to limit the scope of capital punishment. Until that time a very wide range of offenses, including even common theft, were punishable by death—though the punishment was not always enforced , in part because juries tended to acquit defendants against the evidence in minor cases. In 1794 the U.S. state of Pennsylvania became the first jurisdiction to restrict the death penalty to first-degree murder, and in 1846 the state of Michigan abolished capital punishment for all murders and other common crimes. In 1863 Venezuela became the first country to abolish capital punishment for all crimes, including serious offenses against the state (e.g., treason and military offenses in time of war). San Marino was the first European country to abolish the death penalty, doing so in 1865; by the early 20th century several other countries, including the Netherlands, Norway , Sweden , Denmark , and Italy , had followed suit (though it was reintroduced in Italy under the fascist regime of Benito Mussolini ). By the mid-1960s some 25 countries had abolished the death penalty for murder, though only about half of them also had abolished it for offenses against the state or the military code. For example, Britain abolished capital punishment for murder in 1965, but treason, piracy, and military crimes remained capital offenses until 1998.

During the last third of the 20th century, the number of abolitionist countries increased more than threefold. These countries, together with those that are “de facto” abolitionist—i.e., those in which capital punishment is legal but not exercised—now represent more than half the countries of the world. One reason for the significant increase in the number of abolitionist states was that the abolition movement was successful in making capital punishment an international human rights issue, whereas formerly it had been regarded as solely an internal matter for the countries concerned.

In 1971 the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution that, “in order fully to guarantee the right to life, provided for in…the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” called for restricting the number of offenses for which the death penalty could be imposed, with a view toward abolishing it altogether. This resolution was reaffirmed by the General Assembly in 1977. Optional protocols to the European Convention on Human Rights (1983) and to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1989) have been established, under which countries party to the convention and the covenant undertake not to carry out executions. The Council of Europe (1994) and the EU (1998) established as a condition of membership in their organizations the requirement that prospective member countries suspend executions and commit themselves to abolition. This decision had a remarkable impact on the countries of central and eastern Europe , prompting several of them—e.g., the Czech Republic , Hungary , Romania , Slovakia , and Slovenia—to abolish capital punishment.

In the 1990s many African countries—including Angola, Djibouti, Mozambique, and Namibia—abolished capital punishment, though most African countries retained it. In South Africa , which formerly had one of the world’s highest execution rates, capital punishment was outlawed in 1995 by the Constitutional Court, which declared that it was incompatible with the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment and with “a human rights culture.”

Undergraduate
High School
Architecture
American History
Asian History
Antique Literature
American Literature
Asian Literature
Classic English Literature
World Literature
Creative Writing
Linguistics
Criminal Justice
Legal Issues
Anthropology
Archaeology
Political Science
World Affairs
African-American Studies
East European Studies
Latin-American Studies
Native-American Studies
West European Studies
Family and Consumer Science
Social Issues
Women and Gender Studies
Social Work
Natural Sciences
Pharmacology
Earth science
Agriculture
Agricultural Studies
Computer Science
IT Management
Mathematics
Investments
Engineering and Technology
Engineering
Aeronautics
Medicine and Health
Alternative Medicine
Communications and Media
Advertising
Communication Strategies
Public Relations
Educational Theories
Teacher's Career
Chicago/Turabian
Company Analysis
Education Theories
Shakespeare
Canadian Studies
Food Safety
Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
Movie Review
Admission Essay
Annotated Bibliography
Application Essay
Article Critique
Article Review
Article Writing
Book Review
Business Plan
Business Proposal
Capstone Project
Cover Letter
Creative Essay
Dissertation
Dissertation - Abstract
Dissertation - Conclusion
Dissertation - Discussion
Dissertation - Hypothesis
Dissertation - Introduction
Dissertation - Literature
Dissertation - Methodology
Dissertation - Results
GCSE Coursework
Grant Proposal
Marketing Plan
Multiple Choice Quiz
Personal Statement
Power Point Presentation
Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
Questionnaire
Reaction Paper

Research Paper

Research Proposal
SWOT analysis
Thesis Paper
Online Quiz
Literature Review
Movie Analysis
Statistics problem
Math Problem
All papers examples
How It Works
Money Back Policy
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
We Are Hiring

Death and Justice, Essay Example

Pages: 3

Words: 697

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

In the view of those who oppose the death penalty, the imposition of capital punishment is wrong on both ethical and pragmatic grounds. Critics of the death penalty frequently cite key points of support for their argument that appeal to both moral and civic ideals. Eric M. Freedman’s article, “The Case against the Death Penalty” (1997) lays out a representative case against capital punishment. According to Freedman, the death penalty “does not reduce crime, is extraordinarily expensive, actually reduces public safety, is arbitrary in operation, and damages the criminal justice system.” These points can be considered as the practical foundation of the anti-death penalty argument. In addition to this pragmatic foundation, critics offer an appeal to empathy and morality. Freedman sums up this approach by observing that “”The stark reality is that death is final. A mistake cannot be corrected if the defendant has been executed.” (Freedman). While each of the points referenced above have obvious merit, equally valid points exist to support the continuation of capital punishment.

The arguments in support of the death penalty are based around notions of deterrence, public safety, and victims’ justice. An extremely articulate article by Ed Koch titled, “Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life” (1985), exhibits how persuasive the pro-death penalty can be when approached rationally. One of the greatest weaknesses that is faced by those who favor the use of capital punishment is that arguments in support of the death penalty are based on emotional, rather than logical, grounds. This is a natural impulse, but it leaves the pro-death penalty adherent’s vulnerable to a rationally constructed rebuttal. Koch’s article is highly compelling due to its impeccable logic. The article disposes of each of the most common objections to the death penalty in order and with comprehensive detail. The following summary will examine the most salient points. First of all, in regard to the idea that innocent people may be killed under the death penalty, Koch eloquently replies “If government functioned only when the possibility of error didn’t exist, government wouldn’t function at all. Human life deserves special protection, and one of the best ways to guarantee that protection is to assure that convicted murderers do not kill again.” (Koch, para. 6). By shifting the emphasis to victims and potential victims, Koch successfully rebuts this important anti-death penalty point.

In terms of the arguments that the death penalty is expensive and that it fails to serve as a real deterrent, Koch refers to the reality that victims’ lives are worth holding murderers to the highest penalty of law. He writes that “When we lower the penalty for murder, it signals a lessened regard for the value of the victim’s life.” (Koch, para. 7). This turns the empathy argument around and asks the observer to see the situation from the perspective of the victims and their families rather than convicted killers. What actually damages the criminal justice system according to Koch is restricting its ability to enforce the law through the most powerful of punishments and deterrents. The idea that capital punishment wastes tax-money due to the costly appeals process only strengthens Koch’s counter-argument about the need for thorough application of the death penalty.

The fact is that, despite its flaws, the application of capital punishment is a necessary part of the criminal justice system. The primary reason that this is the case is due to the need to protect innocent people from additional crimes and to show respect to victims of violent crime. Koch writes that “It is hard to imagine anything worse than being murdered while neighbors do nothing. But something worse exists. When those same neighbors shrink back from justly punishing the murderer, the victim dies twice.” (Koch, 14). Whether the argument about capital punishment is based on rational or emotional grounds, the most persuasive evidence favors the continuation of capital punishment. What can be taken from the anti –death penalty argument is the continued need for vigilance and care when enforcing the death penalty.

Works Cited

Freedman, Eric M. “The Case against the Death Penalty.” USA TODAY Mar. 1997: 48+. Questia. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.

Koch, Edward I. “Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life.” The New Republic , Apr. 1985.

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

Action in National and International Policy, Research Paper Example

Best in-House Child Care Services, Essay Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Voting as a civic responsibility, essay example.

Pages: 1

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 999

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Words: 371

Capital Punishment: Our Duty or Our Doom?
Markkula Center for Applied Ethics
Focus Areas
More Focus Areas

Capital Punishment:Our Duty or Our Doom?

But human rights advocates and civil libertarians continue to decry the immorality of state-sanctioned killing in the U.S. Is capital punishment moral?

About 2000 men, women, and teenagers currently wait on America's "death row." Their time grows shorter as federal and state courts increasingly ratify death penalty laws, allowing executions to proceed at an accelerated rate. It's unlikely that any of these executions will make the front page, having become more or less a matter of routine in the last decade. Indeed, recent public opinion polls show a wide margin of support for the death penalty. But human rights advocates and civil libertarians continue to decry the immorality of state-sanctioned killing in the U.S., the only western industrialized country that continues to use the death penalty. Is capital punishment moral?

Capital punishment is often defended on the grounds that society has a moral obligation to protect the safety and welfare of its citizens. Murderers threaten this safety and welfare. Only by putting murderers to death can society ensure that convicted killers do not kill again.

Second, those favoring capital punishment contend that society should support those practices that will bring about the greatest balance of good over evil, and capital punishment is one such practice. Capital punishment benefits society because it may deter violent crime. While it is difficult to produce direct evidence to support this claim since, by definition, those who are deterred by the death penalty do not commit murders, common sense tells us that if people know that they will die if they perform a certain act, they will be unwilling to perform that act.

If the threat of death has, in fact, stayed the hand of many a would be murderer, and we abolish the death penalty, we will sacrifice the lives of many innocent victims whose murders could have been deterred. But if, in fact, the death penalty does not deter, and we continue to impose it, we have only sacrificed the lives of convicted murderers. Surely it's better for society to take a gamble that the death penalty deters in order to protect the lives of innocent people than to take a gamble that it doesn't deter and thereby protect the lives of murderers, while risking the lives of innocents. If grave risks are to be run, it's better that they be run by the guilty, not the innocent.

Finally, defenders of capital punishment argue that justice demands that those convicted of heinous crimes of murder be sentenced to death. Justice is essentially a matter of ensuring that everyone is treated equally. It is unjust when a criminal deliberately and wrongly inflicts greater losses on others than he or she has to bear. If the losses society imposes on criminals are less than those the criminals imposed on their innocent victims, society would be favoring criminals, allowing them to get away with bearing fewer costs than their victims had to bear. Justice requires that society impose on criminals losses equal to those they imposed on innocent persons. By inflicting death on those who deliberately inflict death on others, the death penalty ensures justice for all.

This requirement that justice be served is not weakened by charges that only the black and the poor receive the death penalty. Any unfair application of the death penalty is the basis for extending its application, not abolishing it. If an employer discriminates in hiring workers, do we demand that jobs be taken from the deserving who were hired or that jobs be abolished altogether? Likewise, if our criminal justice system discriminates in applying the death penalty so that some do not get their deserved punishment, it's no reason to give Iesser punishments to murderers who deserved the death penalty and got it. Some justice, however unequal, is better than no justice, however equal. To ensure justice and equality, we must work to improve our system so that everyone who deserves the death penalty gets it.

The case against capital punishment is often made on the basis that society has a moral obligation to protect human life, not take it. The taking of human life is permissible only if it is a necessary condition to achieving the greatest balance of good over evil for everyone involved. Given the value we place on life and our obligation to minimize suffering and pain whenever possible, if a less severe alternative to the death penalty exists which would accomplish the same goal, we are duty-bound to reject the death penalty in favor of the less severe alternative.

There is no evidence to support the claim that the death penalty is a more effective deterrent of violent crime than, say, life imprisonment. In fact, statistical studies that have compared the murder rates of jurisdictions with and without the death penalty have shown that the rate of murder is not related to whether the death penalty is in force: There are as many murders committed in jurisdictions with the death penalty as in those without. Unless it can be demonstrated that the death penalty, and the death penalty alone, does in fact deter crimes of murder, we are obligated to refrain from imposing it when other alternatives exist.

Further, the death penalty is not necessary to achieve the benefit of protecting the public from murderers who may strike again. Locking murderers away for life achieves the same goal without requiring us to take yet another life. Nor is the death penalty necessary to ensure that criminals "get what they deserve." Justice does not require us to punish murder by death. It only requires that the gravest crimes receive the severest punishment that our moral principles would allow us to impose.

While it is clear that the death penalty is by no means necessary to achieve certain social benefits, it does, without a doubt, impose grave costs on society. First, the death penalty wastes lives. Many of those sentenced to death could be rehabilitated to live socially productive lives. Carrying out the death penalty destroys any good such persons might have done for society if they had been allowed to live. Furthermore, juries have been known to make mistakes, inflicting the death penalty on innocent people. Had such innocent parties been allowed to live, the wrong done to them might have been corrected and their lives not wasted.

In addition to wasting lives, the death penalty also wastes money. Contrary to conventional wisdom, it's much more costly to execute a person than to imprison them for life. The finality of punishment by death rightly requires that great procedural precautions be taken throughout all stages of death penalty cases to ensure that the chance of error is minimized. As a result, executing a single capital case costs about three times as much as it costs to keep a person in prison for their remaining life expectancy, which is about 40 years.

Finally, the death penalty harms society by cheapening the value of life. Allowing the state to inflict death on certain of its citizens legitimizes the taking of life. The death of anyone, even a convicted killer, diminishes us all. Society has a duty to end this practice which causes such harm, yet produces little in the way of benefits.

Opponents of capital punishment also argue that the death penalty should be abolished because it is unjust. Justice, they claim, requires that all persons be treated equally. And the requirement that justice bc served is all the more rigorous when life and death are at stake. Of 19,000 people who committed willful homicides in the U.S. in 1987, only 293 were sentenced to death. Who are these few being selected to die? They are nearly always poor and disproportionately black. It is not the nature of the crime that determines who goes to death row and who doesn't. People go to death row simply because they have no money to appeal their case, or they have a poor defense, or they lack the funds to being witnesses to courts, or they are members of a political or racial minority.

The death penalty is also unjust because it is sometimes inflicted on innocent people. Since 1900, 350 people have been wrongly convicted of homicide or capital rape. The death penalty makes it impossible to remedy any such mistakes. If, on the other hand, the death penalty is not in force, convicted persons later found to be innocent can be released and compensated for the time they wrongly served in prison.

The case for and the case against the death penalty appeal, in different ways, to the value we place on life and to the value we place on bringing about the greatest balance of good over evil. Each also appeals to our commitment to"justice": Is justice to be served at all costs? Or is our commitment to justice to be one tempered by our commitment to equality and our reverence for life? Indeed, is capital punishment our duty or our doom?

(Capital punishment) is . . . the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal's deed, however calculated . . can be compared . . . For there to be an equivalence, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life. --Albert Camus

If . . . he has committed a murder, he must die. In this case, there is no substitute that will satisfy the requirements of legal justice. There is no sameness of kind between death and remaining alive even under the most miserable conditions, and consequently there is no equality between the crime and the retribution unless the criminal is judicially condemned and put to death. --Immanuel Kant

For further reading:

Hugo Adam Bedau, Death Is Different: Studies in the Morality, Law, and Politics of Capital Punishment (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1987).

Walter Berns, For Capital Punishment (New York: Basic Books, 1979.)

David Bruch, "The Death Penalty: An Exchange," The New Republic , Volume 192 (May 20, 1985), pp. 20-21.

Edward I. Koch, "Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life," The New Republic, Volume 192 (April 15,1985), pp. 13-15.

Ernest van den Haag and John P. Conrad , The Death Penalty: A Debate (New York: Plenum Press, 1983).

This article was originally published in Issues in Ethics - V. 1, N.3 Spring 1988

Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump, left, moderated by ABC's Rachel Scott, speaks at the National Association of Black Journalists convention, July 31, 2024, in Chicago.

At the NABJ convention in Chicago on July 31st, Donald Trump Asked Rachel Scott To Define DEI. She Should Have.

Pro Palestine protest and encampment in White Memorial Plaza in Stanford University in late April 2024, during the Israeli Hamas War. Photos taken on April 28th 2024 Suiren2022, CC BY 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

While free speech is a right that has been embraced in the United States for several centuries, ethical issues about the process and limitations of free speech and protest behavior, like some of those seen on college campuses this Spring, are in question and are debatable.

A ramp worker walks near one of two CFM International LEAP-1B engines on a Boeing 737-9 Max airplane Monday, March 1, 2021, at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in Seattle. Photo by Ted S. Warren_AP Photo.

Stockholders pay the price when executives and directors choose profits over ethics.

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Capital Punishment — The Death Penalty: Is it Ethical and Effective in Crime Prevention?

The Death Penalty: is It Ethical and Effective in Crime Prevention?

Categories: Capital Punishment

About this sample

Words: 521 |

Published: Mar 8, 2024

Words: 521 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Utilizing the death penalty raises ethical concerns, on the other hand, proponents argue that the death penalty is a necessary tool in the fight against crime, in conclusion.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

Expert in: Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1551 words

2 pages / 961 words

2 pages / 684 words

3 pages / 1531 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Capital Punishment

Capital punishment remains a contentious issue in the legal system, both in the United States and globally. The death penalty is the ultimate punishment, where individuals are put to death as a form of retribution for their [...]

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, has been a topic of intense debate for centuries. It raises profound ethical questions about the value of human life, the role of the state in administering justice, and the [...]

Laws are an integral part of every society, serving as a framework for maintaining order, resolving disputes, and promoting justice. They play a crucial role in shaping how individuals and communities interact and function. But [...]

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, has been a contentious issue around the world for centuries. This form of punishment involves the judicial execution of a convicted individual for committing a serious crime, [...]

I believe the death penalty should be legal throughout the nation. Discussing the death penalty pros and cons, there are many reasons as to why I think the death penalty should be legalized in all states, including deterrence, [...]

The Death Penalty has been a widely controversial topic in America as it is illegal in 27 of the 50 states in America. Only 21 of the 50 states have been a part of this movement including Texas, Alabama, and more. During the [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

Share full article

Supported by

The Death Penalty Can Ensure ‘Justice Is Being Done’

A top Justice Department official says for many Americans the death penalty is a difficult issue on moral, religious and policy grounds. But as a legal issue, it is straightforward.

By Jeffrey A. Rosen

Mr. Rosen is the deputy attorney general.

This month, for the first time in 17 years , the United States resumed carrying out death sentences for federal crimes.

On July 14, Daniel Lewis Lee was executed for the 1996 murder of a family, including an 8-year-old girl, by suffocating and drowning them in the Illinois Bayou after robbing them to fund a white-supremacist organization. On July 16, Wesley Purkey was executed for the 1998 murder of a teenage girl, whom he kidnapped, raped, killed, dismembered and discarded in a septic pond. The next day, Dustin Honken was executed for five murders committed in 1993, including the execution-style shooting of two young girls, their mother, and two prospective witnesses against him in a federal prosecution for methamphetamine trafficking.

The death penalty is a difficult issue for many Americans on moral, religious and policy grounds. But as a legal issue, it is straightforward. The United States Constitution expressly contemplates “capital” crimes, and Congress has authorized the death penalty for serious federal offenses since President George Washington signed the Crimes Act of 1790. The American people have repeatedly ratified that decision, including through the Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994 signed by President Bill Clinton, the federal execution of Timothy McVeigh under President George W. Bush and the decision by President Barack Obama’s Justice Department to seek the death penalty against the Boston Marathon bomber and Dylann Roof .

The recent executions reflect that consensus, as the Justice Department has an obligation to carry out the law. The decision to seek the death penalty against Mr. Lee was made by Attorney General Janet Reno (who said she personally opposed the death penalty but was bound by the law) and reaffirmed by Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder.

Mr. Purkey was prosecuted during the George W. Bush administration, and his conviction and sentence were vigorously defended throughout the Obama administration. The judge who imposed the death sentence on Mr. Honken, Mark Bennett, said that while he generally opposed the death penalty, he would not lose any sleep over Mr. Honken’s execution.

In a New York Times Op-Ed essay published on July 17 , two of Mr. Lee’s lawyers criticized the execution of their client, which they contend was carried out in a “shameful rush.” That objection overlooks that Mr. Lee was sentenced more than 20 years ago, and his appeals and other permissible challenges failed, up to and including the day of his execution.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

Want all of The Times? Subscribe .

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

The Attorney General
Organizational Chart
Budget & Performance
Privacy Program
Press Releases
Photo Galleries
Guidance Documents
Publications
Information for Victims in Large Cases
Justice Manual
Business and Contracts
Why Justice ?
DOJ Vacancies
Legal Careers at DOJ
About USAO-MA

Former Massachusetts Police Officer Arrested in Connection with Murder of Young Woman

BOSTON – A former Stoughton, Mass. police officer has been charged in federal court in Boston with allegedly murdering a young woman to prevent her from disclosing information about his longstanding sexual exploitation of her while he was on duty, beginning when she was a minor.

Matthew Farwell, 38, of North Easton, Mass., has been indicted on one count of killing a witness or victim. Farwell was arrested this morning and will make an initial appearance in federal court in Boston at 2:30 p.m. today.

According to the indictment, on or about Feb. 1, 2021, Farwell allegedly killed Sandra Birchmore by strangulation. It is alleged that Farwell staged her body and apartment to make it appear as if Birchmore had committed suicide. The indictment alleges that Farwell killed Birchmore with the intent to prevent law enforcement from learning about Farwell’s commission or possible commission of federal offenses.

According to court documents, Farwell was a sworn officer of the Stoughton Police Department beginning on or about March 27, 2012, until on or about April 1, 2022. In his capacity as a police officer, Farwell served as an instructor for the Stoughton Police Department’s Explorer’s Program, which is a vocational education program designed for youth to learn about careers in law enforcement. Sandra Birchmore joined the Stoughton Explorers Program in 2010, when she was 12 years old. Farwell allegedly used his authority and access to groom, sexually exploit and ultimately sexually abuse Birchmore when she was 15 years old and continued to have sex with her when she became an adult.

On several occasions, Farwell allegedly engaged in sex acts with Birchmore while on duty as a Stoughton police officer. To conceal this activity, it is alleged that Farwell falsely represented that he had worked certain hours, when in fact he was not working but engaging in sex acts with the then-minor victim. Farwell’s sexual contact with Birchmore continued until her death on Feb. 1, 2021.

In December 2020, Birchmore learned that she was pregnant. According to court documents, she was excited about the pregnancy: scheduling doctors’ appointments, purchasing items for childcare and telling loved ones how happy she was to become a mother. Soon after she learned she was pregnant, Birchmore told Farwell that he was the father of the child and that she expected him to be involved, at least in part, in the child’s life. Birchmore disclosed to loved ones that Farwell allegedly became violent with her when they discussed the pregnancy and his role in the child’s life. At one point while she was pregnant, Farwell allegedly held Birchmore in a headlock and told her that he wished she were dead.

On or about Jan. 20, 2021, Birchmore’s friend called the Stoughton Police Department and referenced Farwell and Birchmore’s sexual relationship. Upon learning this, Farwell allegedly then sent Birchmore angry text messages and, a few days later – approximately one week prior to Birchmore’s death – Farwell visited Birchmore at her apartment in Canton and asked her if she could give him a spare apartment key and keep it a secret. It is further alleged that one week prior to her death, Farwell visited Birchmore’s apartment and began looking through her closets and bathroom, conduct which made her uncomfortable. The court documents allege that, on Feb. 1, 2021, facing perceived imminent disclosure of his criminal conduct, Farwell murdered Birchmore to silence her.

According to court documents, while Birchmore’s death was initially ruled a suicide, the federal investigation probed old evidence and revealed critical new evidence leading to the charge against Farwell.

The charge of killing a witness or victim carries a mandatory sentence of death or life in prison. Sentences are imposed by a federal district court judge based upon the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and statutes which govern the determination of a sentence in a criminal case.

Acting United States Attorney Joshua S. Levy and Jodi Cohen, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Boston Division made the announcement today. The Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, Massachusetts State Police, Stoughton Police Department and Norfolk District Attorney’s Office provided assistance in the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Elizabeth Riley, Torey B. Cummings and Brian A. Fogerty of the office’s Human Trafficking & Civil Rights Unit are prosecuting the case. The details contained in the charging documents are allegations. The defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.