Essays /
Pro Con Analysis (Immigrants to Learn English) [19]
Simone. It turns out the teacher doesn't follow the outline either because she says I don't spend enough time on the issues (the outline only addresses the issues in two places of the 12). I have asked why we have a model outline if we are not expected to follow it, but I doubt I'll get an answer before tomorrow. I am attempting to remove the rambling, but I think I ramble because I can't have an opinion and so I'm afraid to be too specific about either side.
Sean: If I had been allowed to have an opinion I would have used the story about that guy (Case) who was on death row for murder, but released last month and then arrested last weekend for another murder. I have updated my essay and added more statistics. I am afraid that too many will make it look like a research paper or a slanted opinion.
Here is what my instructor says.
"Controversies surrounding application of the death penalty in the United States continue to surge because of differing ideologies about whether humans can choose to end a life. You're staying vague. What is at stake? What is the issue? I'm not sure "choice" is the right word to use. (And I wouldn't use Surge.) Isn't the issue that the death penalty is inherently biased in the sense that we simply cannot find an utterly fair and impartial means of applying it? States like OR almost never use it; in Texas the death penalty is the state sport.
"You really don't move to a section assessing the conflict. You have ONE P where you even address this at all. That's the heart of this essay.
"Don't end on rhetorical questions. That seems to me a cop-out given this topic. If you ask a question, answer it. You spend much more time on set-up than on the assessment of the issue. I would develop the second half of the essay much more."
One thing that confuses me is do I have to have a good solution? There are some issues that are simply too complex to resolve. I thought that by showing the reader that the issue causes too much emotional reaction, I would exempt myself from having to provide a solution.
I also get the feeling that she doesn't like the Texas way of doing things. Well that is having an opinion.
I have done my best to follow everyone's recommendations, but I am having trouble losing the questions in the conclusion. Sorry this is so long. Thank you again so much.
The Death Penalty Controversy in America
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person." The U.S. Declaration of Independence reads that "all Men" have a right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Modern understanding of the term "all Men" leads a person to conclude that this declaration is for everyone. This begs the following questions, at what point does a person lose these rights and who decides when to end a person's life? Controversies surrounding application of the death penalty in the United States result from differing ideologies about whether humans have the right to end a life.
It was a rainy Monday morning in Portland, Oregon in February of 1994. Just two days after I had returned from a week long, student trip to Washington D.C., to study government. I struggled to get out of bed, still jet-lagged, and headed to another exciting day of high school. My early Civics class had been cancelled after our trip, to Washington so it would be much later that day before I realized what was taking place. As I rode the city bus and walked down the long sidewalk, past the football field, and up to the school an important piece of controversial history was being made. U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia was making a written statement about a prominent death penalty case called "Callins v. Collins." Justice Scalia was upholding the Death Penalty saying that all the required provisions had been met in the case to honor the Fifth and Eighth Amendments. Justice Scalia observed that death by lethal injection of Callins was far preferable than the heinous ways that certain victims had died at the hand of other death row inmates. This decision came just one day before the scheduled execution and the very next day, somewhere in Texas, Callins was put to death.
In the U.S. there are two major schools of thought with regard to the death penalty. One side declares that removing the individual right to life is inhumane because it lacks compassion for that individual. The other believes that the death penalty is not a question of humanity, rather once one individual has infringed upon another's rights, to "life, liberty, and security" then the offender's rights end. The pro side further believes that if a person demonstrates compassion it is because one both condones criminal acts and disregards the victims, or one is weak in applying the law. Both arguments are equally impassive because they are based on ideology and statics are skewed rather than taking a neutral stance.
As a result of firmly held opinions the American people must rely heavily on the court system to sort out differences, which can take years. Using evidence and precedent courts determine whether or not an individual is guilty and how likely they are to re-commit a crime. Then based on that determination the court decides whether the person would best serve society by a lengthy prison sentence or by being put to death. After the sentence is given the condemned persons can spend years appealing for a stay of execution, which may or may not be granted. The individuals most affected by this process are the condemned and their victims. In many instances the victim is no longer alive, but there are cases in which the victim watches for the sentence to be carried out, while the condemned individual awaits reprieve.
For those who are opposed to employment of the death penalty, the moral question of human intervention to life is really about whether the death penalty is "cruel and unusual." Opponents argue ardently that it is inhumane to use methods such as electrocution, hanging, gas chamber, or the firing squad; although lethal injection is the preferred method in all states. Botched executions are also a real point to consider when examining the "cruel and unusual" argument. One other talking point used by the anti-death penalty side is that it is irreversible and that individuals who are not actually guilty could be put to death by mistake. This fear can be substantiated by the number of innocent people who have been released from death row. In the state of Texas, for example, which has the highest rate of carrying out a death sentence in the U.S., the Death Penalty Information website shows that since 1974, nine innocent individuals have been freed.
On the opposite spectrum the philosophy that justice is served through execution is the essential argument to the pro death penalty movement. Proponents say that the recidivism rate, or tendency to reoffend, for those who have committed felonies is very high. This can be supported by an on-line document from the State of Washington Sentencing Guidelines Commission from 2004, in which it says that during that year approximately 81% of convicted males and 61.5% of convicted females "had a history of one or more prior offenses." Another example of recidivism is from the Criminal Offender Statics on the Bureau of Justice Statistics website, which says that "within 3 years of release, 2.5% of released rapists were rearrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for a new homicide." A second argument often used is that sentencing of criminals, including those given the death penalty, needs to be carried out so that victims and their families can feel at peace about crimes perpetrated on them.
There do not seem to be any good options for resolving this conflict. The status quo has been left to a debate about whether to execute a condemned individual or require that person to serve a lifetime sentence. To add to the confusion are the issues of: overcrowded jails and precedent set by court determinations. Each of these issues stokes the fire under the side of the debate that is in favor of executing prisoners. The one side further motivates the other to more ardently defend the anti-death sentence ideology.
The resulting conclusion that one can reach to the conflict brought by the death penalty is that there is no real resolution. Individuals who are deeply tied to their beliefs strongly favor one ideology over the other. When it comes to the question of sentencing criminals to be put to death these questions remain unanswered. Is it in the interest of humanity to decide to end one life to avenge another? Or for the sake of humanity does the condemned individual deserve to live, but live locked away?
Works CitedUnknown. Recidivism of Adult Felons 2004. Sentencing Guidelines Commission, State of Washington.
Unknown. State by State Database. Death Penalty Information Center.
Unknown. Criminal Offender Statistics. U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Programs, Bureau of Statistics.
