Essay Analysis: Fifty Percent of Edward I. Koch's Argument on The Death Penalty is Wrong

by Sparkle Ivery

Edward I. Koch’s essay, “Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life,” mentions that life is precious, but at the same time asserts that the death penalty affirms this idea. Koch voices the opinion that any punishment other than the death penalty is ineffective, but the idea of the death penalty for murder is hypocritical.

How can people say that killing is immoral and then turn around and give the death penalty? Questions should be rephrased as statements.   Koch says, “… any other form of punishment would be inadequate “(94). However, a life sentence would be a better punishment because the killer can think about what he has done wrong.  The death sentence becomes an easy way out for the murderer. It is a form of murder by society. Killing of any kind is not right. Koch says, “It’s the death itself they consider barbaric” (94). Any type of killing is awful, even one that is a punishment. “Of the roughly 900 executions by lethal injections that have occurred since 1977, forty have been botched” (Weisenmiller 3 of 4).
 
Christians try to follow the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are rules to live by. The sixth commandment is “Thou shalt not kill” (96). Basically, it means no matter what the situation, a life should not be taken.. If we (exclude yourself) just let God handle punishments, the burden would not be placed on society. To be a follower of God’s law, humans must never kill. Koch supports the death penalty and says, “The bible is our greatest source of moral inspiration” (96).  Koch is a politician; he is going to say what he wants to say anyway.  Killers are going to kill or they will kill without thinking about the consequences. At that given moment they do not believe that they will ever get caught.  Koch says, “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” (97). It is deceitful to propose that society is responsible for the killer’s actions.  This is not the case. Murderers are not even thinking about the consequences.  Neither are the people who learn about the victim’s death. How can the death penalty therefore, make them think twice about killing?

Koch is also being hypocritical in his discussion on human life.  He states, “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” (95). In this quote he speaks of human life as being valuable, but he puts restrictions on human life. According to the author, not all human life is cherished.  If that were the case, then a killer’s life should be precious and his life should be saved. If Koch values life he would want the murderer to rehabilitate himself and understand he committed a sin. According to Weisenmiller, “ The majority of U.S states are now drawing back from executing those sentenced to death, and juries are preferring life sentences”(3 of 4).

The government system has no right to play God. There are opportunities for people to reform their ways.  Human error is another reason not to have the death penalty.  Koch says “If government functioned only when the possibility of error didn’t exist, government wouldn’t function at all” (95). To avoid putting to death an innocent person accused of murder, a life sentence should be imposed. The government complains about the expensive cost of imprisonment. The burden will fall on the taxpayers, but the taxpayers will pay a moral price because the death penalty is wrong.

Absolute confidence in the U.S. justice system has been shaken by the more than 2,000 death row inmates who have had their sentence or convictions overturned since 1973. The arrival of the use of DNA and other advances in forensic sciences, which have exonerated more than 100 people in other crimes, has intensified questioning over the possibility of judicial mistakes and miscarriages of justice in death penalty cases (Weisenmiller 3 of 4). This is also witnessed in many pieces of fiction take, for example Stephen king’s novel The Green Mile.  The main character John Coffey was wrongly accused of rape and murder and sentenced to die in the electric chair. This form of punishment was not only inhumane; it was administered to the wrong man. Obviously, the government had not regret to kill an innocent person. In doing so, a man became the victim of an unjust law.

The death penalty is also wrong because the prisoner's family must suffer from seeing their loved one put to death by the state.  In addition, they who goes go through the emotionally-draining appeals process.  The death sentence is useless as it does not bring the victim back to life. Why lose two lives when one can change and become better?

As a society, there is the need to move away from the revenge mentality if civilization is to advance.  Just because one has killed someone, we should not punish that person the same way. In short, the death penalty is a wrong form of rebuke.  A sentence of life in prison is a much better punishment. The person can sit in a two by four cell for the rest of his or her life to think about the crime committed Capital Punishment will just be an easy way out for the killer.