Death and Justice, Essay Example

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.