Death Penalty

Justice or state sanctioned Murder?

Introduction

The question of whether the death penalty can be justified provokes great controversy. Those for the death say that capital punishment, among other things, is ultimate deterrent for heinous crimes, it can deal with prison inmates on multiple life sentences who remain dangerous even while incarcerated, and finally as a matter of principle abhorrent crimes deserve to pay the highest price. Advocates for the abolition of the death penalty have, of course, provided many arguments to counter those above.

Deterrent effect

Edward Koch asserts that the death penalty deters crime. On balance, Koch puts forth a reasonable argument for the death penalty, with statistics showing why the Americans would feel the need to have the death penalty enforced in some states. There are two flaws with his approach. First, it fails to provide sufficient evidence that the death penalty actually reduces the incidents of heinous crimes. His argument is made out of ignorance and absent evidence. Second, it assumes that just because most people want something, this makes it inherently justified. This must be wrong since, for example, people can be mistaken about facts just as they were about Iraq.

Anti-death penalty advocates however have an abundance of evidence to suggest otherwise.

Multiple murders

An inmate serving a life sentence kills an inmate or a guard. What kind of real punishment is being dealt out when the convicted are already spending life in prison? Koch poignantly illustrates the futility of multiple life sentences with the example of Lemuel Smith who is serving four other life sentences. The logic of Koch's argument is logically sound. There is no point trying to drown a fish. Contrary to this however is that it is hard to determine if someone is beyond reform.

Inconsistent beliefs

Koch says Ð''one does not have to like the death penalty in order to support it any more than on must like radical surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy'. This is just a bad analogy. The curing of cancer requires treatment. The punishment of criminals and protection of society does not require the death penalty.

There is also the charge that those who support the death penalty are guilty of having inconsistent beliefs. Killing people is wrong, people who kill, should be killed. Though obviously the context of

...