The following article which appeared in the Jewish World Review on Tuesday June 19, 2001 illustrates both sides of the spectrum concerning the death penalty. There has been much debate for decades past and will be present in decades to come. The article reports arguments from both sides of the extremes. The argument begins in the eighth paragraph.
Risking the possibility that innocent person could possibly wrongly convicted and sentenced to capital punishment in hopes of save thousands of innocent people lives who might be in danger of being the victims of murder is a practice that is deemed acceptable.
Premise 2: Capital punishment has proved to be a success with previous civilization and has illustrated positive outcomes
Conclusion: therefore the death penalty should not be abolished.
The issue of moral deficiency in capital punishment has been a heated debate among all members of society and caused tension among people regardless of gender, affiliation, status, religion or culture backgrounds. The argument is whether the death penalty is valid source of punishment for heinous crimes. Those supporting the death penalty believe it serves justice and is a strong source of punishment while the opposing side feels it to be hypocritical and a disguised way committing murder.
The purpose of the criminal justice system is to protect the life and liberty of all citizens. There must be a strong sense of law and order to establish and maintain a healthy, safe and morally efficient society. The author believes punishments should fit the crime, but the apposing side believe that the death penalty is a clear violation of citizens 8th amendment which states that “cruel and unusual” punishment cannot be used. The author asks “How can it be civilizing to tell the worlds worst people that no matter how many victims they butcher no matter what cruelty they victims, the worst that will happen to them I that they will go to prison? “
The Authors article is in Moderate Condition. It was difficult to find fallacies but the author ends the article by saying "Those of us who favor death for murderers rely on history, on common sense, on an instinctive sense of fairness, and on a moral tradition stretching back to Sinai. But in our time as in all times, there are those who would rather let evildoers get away with murder. The debate goes on." He uses Appeal to Emotions. 'This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples' emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true.' Over all this article had minimal fallacies with a overall moderate condition. When discussing the amount of letter that where sent to the New York Times by citizens in defense to a individual who was given and sentenced to the death penalty, Jacoby says, "This is an appeal to emotion, not reason. Of course the victims are still dead. They would still be dead if McVeigh had gotten life in prison, too. Or 20 years. Or probation. No one thinks the purpose of punishment is to undo the crime, yet death penalty abolitionists routinely remind us that killing a murderer won't bring his victims back to life. If that is a reason to ban executions, it is a reason to ban all punishment." He commits the fallacy of Hasty Generalization. Hasty generalization is "a logical fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence.
The Author clearly believes that the death penalty is a fair and successful source of punishment for heinous crimes.
No comments:
Post a Comment