The death penalty has been a topic of contention since it was introduced among humankind. The two sides of this issue are either for or against it. There are many solid points between the two disagreeing parties that need to be explored to make an informed decision on which side you would choose to support. Two essays I will draw from in this writing are written by Edward Koch, who is for, and David Bruck, who is against it. Both parties have made excellent points in their writings and will be great avenues to explore while making your decision.
Edward Koch, who was Mayor of New York between the years of 1978 to 1989, and has been involved in Democratic politics for many years, is a proponent of the death penalty. His argument is that the only way to give justice to a victim is to put the murderer to death. Koch lists the …show more content…
Kitty Genovese is referenced, a woman who was assaulted and killed on the street twenty-two years ago, whose neighbors heard screaming for help, and was ignored. He argued that in this case, we have given all the power to the person committing the crime. That as a people, our morals have equated to cowardice, and that is why the government should have the authority to protect us from monsters committing similar crimes repeatedly. “When we protect guilty lives, we give up innocent lives in exchange” (Koch 487). Bruck counters Koch with the idea that the death penalty was never really about justice, it is about being vindictive. The idea is brought forth that the public is just satisfied that the government did something about one or two violent offenders. Bruck brings up that, “the Governor is dead wrong when he confuses such fury with justice” (Bruck 493). It is mentioned that neither self-preservation or justice makes it right to kill the men that have been charged with a horrid
Edward Koch, who was Mayor of New York between the years of 1978 to 1989, and has been involved in Democratic politics for many years, is a proponent of the death penalty. His argument is that the only way to give justice to a victim is to put the murderer to death. Koch lists the …show more content…
Kitty Genovese is referenced, a woman who was assaulted and killed on the street twenty-two years ago, whose neighbors heard screaming for help, and was ignored. He argued that in this case, we have given all the power to the person committing the crime. That as a people, our morals have equated to cowardice, and that is why the government should have the authority to protect us from monsters committing similar crimes repeatedly. “When we protect guilty lives, we give up innocent lives in exchange” (Koch 487). Bruck counters Koch with the idea that the death penalty was never really about justice, it is about being vindictive. The idea is brought forth that the public is just satisfied that the government did something about one or two violent offenders. Bruck brings up that, “the Governor is dead wrong when he confuses such fury with justice” (Bruck 493). It is mentioned that neither self-preservation or justice makes it right to kill the men that have been charged with a horrid