Death and Justice

Meaning
1. The thesis of Edward Koch’s argument in favor of capital punishment is “Life is indeed precious, and I believe the death penalty helps to affirm this fact” (p. 320, Koch). He believes that it is important for life to be kept sacred, even if this means another life must be taken in the process. He believes that capital punishment is absolutely necessary for American society to function, because it gives a great reason as to why people should not commit murders. Koch wants readers to agree with him that capital punishment is necessary to keep American life just and in tact.

2. Koch believes that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide. No actual evidence is given to prove his point, but he lets the readers know what he think would have happen had things been done differently. He says, “Had the death penalty been a real possibility in the minds of these murderers, they might well have stayed their hand. They might have shown moral awareness before their victims died, and not after” (p. 320, Koch). Koch insists that if these murderers had thought about the death penalty beforehand, they most likely would not have committed the homicide. Koch also believes that the death penalty is a form of justice for the injustice done. “We may not like the death penalty, but it must be available to punish crimes of cold-blooded murder, cases in which any other form of punishment would be inadequate and, therefore, unjust” (p. 321, Koch). He feels that is would be unjust for someone to commit a murder and get away off with anything less that a death sentence. The crimes of these “cold-blooded murderers” must be dealt with accordingly, and in the only just way possible.

Purpose and Audience
1. Koch does not seem to be speaking in order to attain votes. He speaks very enthusiastically about this issue and it seems a bit personal for him. He is most likely not trying to attain votes, because if he were, he would not have publically been in such strong agreement with the death penalty, for this could possibly have cost him some votes.

2. The first two paragraphs give evidence that Koch thought that his audience would disagree with him. He asks rhetorical questions to really get the reader thinking about the issue. “Did their newfound reverence for life stem from the realization that they were about to lose their own?” (p. 321, Koch). In this question, he was attempting to make the reader reconsider his opinion about the death penalty. Also, he saves his thesis statement for the end of the first two paragraphs.

3. In the final rebuttal, Koch discusses the issue of state versus individual responsibility. This, in turn, places unspoken responsibilities on the readers. He is attempting to convince the readers that if they know an injustice is taking place for them to speak out against it, or at least tell an authority figure.

Method and Structure
1. Koch uses examples of emotional, ethical, and rational appeals in his essay. An emotional appeal is, “If the penalty for rape were lowered, clearly it would signal a lessened regard for the victims’ suffering, humiliation, and personal integrity” (p. 322, Koch). This is reaching out mainly toward people who can relate to being raped. Maybe it happened to them or someone they knew, but, either way, it catches the readers’ attention. An example of an ethical appeal is, “A prisoner named Lemuel Smith…effectively been given a license to kill (p. 322, Koch). This makes the readers think about how serious the offense of murder is. The fact that there he did not receive the death penalty was the reason that the corrections officer lay dead. An example of a rational appeal is, “In New York City in 1976 and 1977…average of one every 8.5 days” (p. 322, Koch). This quote contains many numerical, unarguable facts. The most effective of these three examples is the rational appeal, because it gives cold, hard facts, and there is really nothing else for the reader to think about. The least effective, in my opinion, is the emotional appeal. Within this appeal, Koch discusses rape, which may be responded to by many, but not every reader will have the same opinion on rape as opposed to death, so rape was probably a bad analogy.

2. Major Premise: All killers admit to the wrongs when they face death themselves, to bring those who sentenced them to death down to their level.Minor Premise: Willie and Shaw charged with the death penalty admitted right before their deaths that “Killing is wrong” and that “Killing is wrong when I did it. Killing is wrong when you do it.” (p. 319, Koch)
Conclusion: Willie and Shaw sought “to bring his accusers down to his own level.” (p. 323, Koch)
Willie and Shaw basically state that by them being killed, those who sentenced them are no better than they were in terms of doing the right thing. They attempt to bring their prosecutors down to their level. This, however, is an invalid argument according to Koch, because the individual does not have the same rights as the state. “Therefore, the execution of a lawfully condemned killer is not an actual act of murder, just like legal imprisonment is not actually considered kidnapping” (p. 324, Koch).

3. Koch counters the argument that “the death penalty is ‘barbaric’”. In a way, his methods of argument in this section are convincing. He argues that people complained that the method of death was inhumane, because the death was painful. However, once the method was switched to lethal injection, capital punishment’s opposers still were not satisfied. (p. 320, Koch) This point nullified the argument of those who opposed, because even after their problem was tended to, they still complained about the death penalty as a whole being inhumane. On the other hand, Koch presents an analogy that was imperfect. He compared murder to cancer, but the only problem was that murder is “not the ‘disease’ we are trying to cure.” (p. 321, Koch) The actual “disease”, which was thereafter pointed out, was injustice.

4. Robert Lee Willie and Joseph Carl Shaw “hoped to soften the resolve of those who sentenced them to death.” (p. 323, Koch) This emphasizes the idea that killers try to bring their accusers down to their levels in terms of rights and wrongs pertaining to death. Luis Vera and the “tragic death of Rosa Velez.”… “I knew I wouldn’t go to the chair.” (p. 320, Koch). This portrays the idea that killers have a warped belief that they won’t face capital punishment. In a sense, it encourages killers to go on with their plans of homicide. A New York Times editorial on the lethal injection proved that “it is not the method that really troubles opponents…but death itself.” (p. 320, Koch). The analogy between cancer and murder proves that “one does not have to like an idea in order to support it.” (p. 321, Koch). “No other major democracy--in fact, few other countries of any description--is plagued by murder rate such as that in the U.S.” This supports the idea that “if other countries had our murder problem, the cry for capital punishment would be just as loud as it is here.” (p. 321, Koch).

Language
1. Koch maintains an assertive and critical tone throughout this essay. He is quite confident in his viewpoint of capital punishment being a good thing, and he asserts his confidence by addressing opposing views to his, and then criticizing them, thus proving his definitude about the issue. He uses language that is declarative and decisive. Through his language, Koch gives the idea that what he says is final, and any opposition is futile. This greatly increased my receptiveness to his essay, because he seemed so positive of what he was saying. Although I am not a condoner of the death penalty, I definitely gave it some thought in Koch’s favor while reading this essay.

2. Koch refers to his opponents’ thinking as “transparently false” and “sophistic nonsense” p. 323, Koch). His use of phrases indicates that Koch views the ideas of the opposers to capital punishment as purposeless and not well thought out. He attacks their ideas by considering them unreasonable and untrue. Then he introduces his own ideas as ideal and right.

Writing Topic
Although Edward Koch has many valid points in his essay, this does not deter me from believing that capital punishment is immoral and unjust. Koch counters many arguments against capital punishment, but some of those can not be attacked and still stand firm.
No other major democracy uses the death penalty. Koch claims that this is because we are the only democracy that is plagued by such a large murder rate. However, it seems quite logical that the murder rates are extremely high due to the death penalty, and other such extreme punishments. There are people who would much rather be executed that be sentenced to spend a life in prison. Koch’s argument that the death penalty discourages people from committing murders is not necessarily true. Some people are encouraged to do it because of this law. It seems like there is some sort of connection between the United States being the only democracy with so many murders, and being the only democracy with this policy of death.
An innocent person might be executed by mistake. The life of an innocent citizen should never be jeopardized by any means, especially purposely by the government. It is essentially unconstitutional, because it goes against the promise of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” to all citizens. Instead, the person in question should just be placed in a correctional facility, then, if they are found to be innocent, the results would not be so final and the accused could possibly return to a normal life.
Capital punishment cheapens the value of human life. Koch argues that the death penalty strengthens the value of human life, but this is not at all the case. Capital punishment ends the lives of many human beings, as if those people were not important enough to live. Koch claims that capital punishment deters many people from committing murders. It is false that more people would kill if there was no death penalty, because, as I have previously stated, many people would rather be sentenced to death than suffer life in prison. Even for those who would rather life in prison, if the consequence for murder was prison, many murders would be discouraged from committing homicides.
Another reason that I consider the death penalty to be wrong is my religion. I believe in a God who created all things, and I feel that it is wrong for anyone to commit murder. I do, in fact, believe that the government killing someone is still considered murder, because it the conscious taking of one’s life. I believe that because God put man on this earth, He should be the only one to take them off. Who gave the government the authority to decide who deserves to live and who should die? I feel that this is a decision that can only rightfully be made by God.
The death penalty was instituted with the belief that those who commit a murder should be killed by the government. This, to me, is unjust and unauthorized, because an innocent person may be killed by mistake, and because only God should be able to take life away, for He is who gave life. Besides, how does it make sense that we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?