DEATH PENALTY
David Bruck is an attorney who is a strong supporter of death penalty rather than death justice. Bruck is an advisor on death penalty and he advocates for capital reprimand for the extreme criminal acts. However, his counterpart Ed Koch opposes the idea of death punishment as he argues out that it does not fully bring out justice in totality (Bruck & Koch 20). He asserts that death punishment affirms life and failure to execute executioners poses a lesser value to the other victim who has been killed. Koch therefore approaches his argument by comparing those who oppose death justice with the neighbors of Kitty Genovese who failed to help her out when her assassin stabbed her to death (Bruck & Koch 20). Earlier on, the average justification of death as punishment was that this was the only way in which the justice would be served for the worst crimes. However, executions do not really discourage brutal crimes more effectively than the imprisonment.
Bruck believes in morality while dealing with death penalty while Koch is agitated by morality issue as he asserts that the inquisitiveness of the modern life has led us into listening to morality lectures by cold-blooded assassins (Koch 12-15). Bruck argues that the capital penalty is the one that led to the inquisitiveness of the people rather than the modern life. Though Bruck agrees with Koch that execution brings justice especially to worst cases and to people guilty of the act but he is however concerned with cases where mistakes are made. He thus asserts that execution is not necessary as a mistake may occur where one may end up being executed when he is totally innocent. On the other hand Koch agrees to the fact that similar cases has ever occurred in the past where innocent people were executed but he continues to assert that in most cases where a prisoners guilt is in question ends up unresolved (Koch 12-15).
Bruck believes that execution is not a solution to the violent crimes but it has been fueled by the rationalization disappointment and anger of the people who witness the failure of the government to cope with these brutal crimes. Bruck therefore states that continuous execution may blinding us to a point of wanting more of penalty on flesh and bones of the convicted prisoners but yet forgetting of the demoralization and the negative consequences that come along with it (Bruck & Koch 20).
Koch focuses on fury and he confuses it with an act of justice as he states that we underestimate murder if we fail to execute the murderers. This would mean that for us to get justice on any crime committed logically a similar crime should be committed. for instance if its rape case we should sodomize rapists so as to not underestimate the crime. Bruck argues that yes justice is important and it demands murderers to be punished but not to be executed while the society needs to be guarded against such people (Bruck & Koch 20). Edward strongly believes that life is precious but the only way to confirm this is when death penalty is put in practice. According to him this would be a key lesson to any murderer before committing such a crime as the possibility of death penalty is fresh in their minds and their moral awareness should have been seen before their crime and not after their act. Koch argues that though death penalty may seem barbaric but it is the only adequate and just way to punish cold blooded assassins as capital punishment would be inadequate and unjust. Death penalty according to Koch is the only way in which the special life of man is protected from assassins who by executing would not be able to kill again (Koch 12-15).
Both Bruck and Koch are guilty of fallacies as they at one at point drawing conclusions from a sample to the entire population without even making clear evidence as to why they are opposing or proposing their ideas.
They are using some evidences to support their arguments but some of these arguments are just there to scare and not justifiable. They are subjects to manipulation so as to prove their point.
Koch’s argument is more persuasive as his argument has a strong foundation and he is thus able to convince us on the importance of the death penalty. According to him he is determined to prove why death penalty is essential. He therefore goes deeper to explain his rationale for his death penalty action. In his argument he is ready to accept his weak points but then he continues to emphasize on justice that should be served and the only way to do it is by death penalty. He goes ahead to argue using more practical cases outside the topic so as to relate his argument for instance in the choice of the cancer story to relay his ideas. Therefore Koch seems more convinced of what he is arguing about hence making any reader or anyone listening to his argument to be persuaded that death penalty is the only way out thus he stands out to be the best persuader in this case.
References
Bruck, David, and Edward I. Koch. "The Death Penalty: An Exchange." New Republic 192.20 (1985): 20-21. Business Source Premier. Web. 21 May 2016
Koch, Edward I. "DEATH AND JUSTICE." New Republic 15 Apr. 1985: 12+. Business Source Premier. Web. 21 May 2016.
