Name
Professor
Course
Submission Date
Analysis of Edward Koch’s “Death and Justice”
In the essay Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life, Edward Koch expresses his standpoint on the death penalty and attempts to persuade the readers why the penalty is justified. He claims that justice requires adequate punishment for the crime of murder. The author contends that other forms of punishment are inadequate for such a crime compared to the death sentence. He argues that the huge U.S. murder rates coupled with the fact that “murders will murder again,” calls for the enactment of capital punishment. According to him, state-sanctioned murder preserves the sanctity of life and ensures that the society is free of cold-blood killers (Koch).
The essay first appeared in the New Republic magazine. It targets capital punishment opponents, people sitting on the fence, as well as proponents who did not know how to convince others. In the article, Koch counters seven of the most common arguments that death penalty foes present using standard techniques. First, in regards to the claim that capital punishment is barbaric, Koch compares the punishment to cancer, where he says that even though no one likes the method used to treat it, people endure it an effort to improve their lives. Therefore, one does not have to necessarily like a death sentence to support it; they only have to recognize that it is the only adequate form of punishment we have presently. Second, he counters the argument of mistaken executions by claiming that no such cases have occurred in almost a century. Thirdly, Koch counters the claim that it decreases the value of life, saying that it increases. He contends that if penalties for such crimes were lowered, it would show a disregard for the sufferings of those affected by the actions of the offender. Fourth, in countering claims of discrimination, Koch fails to provide ample evidence, other the film, The Hurricane. Fifth, he rebuttals the bible commandment “Thou Shall Not Kill” by referencing great thinkers of the 19th Century, who believed that natural law allowed state-sanctioned killings (Koch).
Koch organizes his essay quite well. He begins the essay be narrating about Robert Lee Willie’s execution; how he told the individuals carrying out the sentence that they were not better than him if they continued with the execution. He explains that Robert Lee needed the death sentence to comprehend the value of life. Koch strategically places his thesis on the third paragraph to demonstrate to his readers that even murderers see the value of life, especially when faced with death. Then he proceeds to address each argument using research studies, statistics, and sub-arguments.
The biggest concern for most capital punishment critics is that it risks executing innocent individuals (Evans). Koch refutes this claim by providing evidence that proves the contrary. In specific, he references Adam Bedaub, whose study found that no such cases have occurred between 1893 and 1971. However, the author also conceded that such mistakes are prone to happen. He reiterates that a functioning government should understand that errors will always occur. Koch also makes assumptions like reducing the sentence of a crime serves to diminish the value of the victim. While, undeniably, diminishing punishment does not represent true justice, increasing it does not mean that the victim’s life is regarded highly either. As columnist Kimmy Breslin observed, serving life in prison is a harsher punishment than capital punishment. There is no shred of doubt that living is better than death; however, living in confinement for a long time is tiring and drains the offender – a befitting punishment. Capital punishment does not in any way make the victim feel any better, or make the criminal feel remorseful. Therefore, when a criminal is “put to sleep,” practically, no punishment is administered, and no justice is served to his/her victim (Thompson and Poole). Additionally, Koch claims that it is only when criminals are put to the fate they subjected others that they realize the value of life. Koch assumes that the only way for society to learn its lesson is by killing murderers.
Koch begins with the opposite opinions and proceeds to present his counterarguments to each of the points, throughout the article. This technique works well because it helps the audience identify their inaccuracies and sway their stand. Koch continues with the use of real-life examples to illustrate his ideas which serve to render his argument far more convincing. Besides, he leverages statistics and studies from credible sources, such as a study by MIT which suggested “a greater risk of being murdered in a major American city than being killed in combat in World War II,” to sway readers stance. These statistics and studies demonstrate to the readers the dangers lurking in their midst without the enactment of capital punishment.
Weaknesses also abound in Koch’s essay. For example, during the rebuttal of the “Thou Shall Not Commit Murder” command from the Christian bible, Koch references people he calls “thinkers of nineteenth century.” Those referenced include Hobbes, Bentham, Kant, Montesquieu, Locke, Mill, and Rousseau (Koch). However, other than Bentham and Mill, all the others are not 19th Century thinkers. In fact, some of them can be traced back as far as the 1600s. This misrepresentation of facts creates a huge hole in Koch’s argument. It suggests that Koch did not carry out thorough research on the philosophers he is referencing, ultimately, taking much of his credibility as a writer, as well as that of his capital punishment case.
Although Koch’s argument is convincing on the surface, it also contains several logical fallacies. For example, he hastily generalizes by claiming that death by chemicals is not painless (paragraph 5). How does he know that lethal injections are not painful? Patently, evidence cannot be collected from the victims because they are already dead. Albeit there are some tests that measure pain levels as an individual dies, some studies on failed suicides have found that death by chemical injection is more painful than other types. Similarly, his argument also contains faulty analogies: In paragraph 10, Koch equates murder with rape, claiming that if the punishment for rape is diminished, that would also be diminishing the rape victim. However, following his “eye for an eye” reasoning to a logical conclusion, rapists should not be imprisoned; instead, they should be raped in return – just like individuals who kill are killed. Another instance of faulty analogy appears in paragraph 6. While chemotherapy is a form of treatment used to extend life, the death penalty is a treatment used to end life. Also, cancer is a physical disease, crime is, well, not a physical disease – although if Koch wanted to leverage a metaphorical comparison, there are better ways of accomplishing this feat. Moreover, his declaration that injustice is a disease is then a non sequitur. It fails to follow his prior statements.
If one kills, s/he should also be killed. Koch deliberately used strong words that adequately addressed the concerns raised by opponents of the death penalty. His arguments are solid and show some level of contradiction in most of the dominant, opposing beliefs. Therefore, it would be unbiased to conclude that the argument was fairly persuasive.
Works Cited
Evans, Kim. Capital Punishment. Farmington Hills, Mich: Gale, a Cengage Company, 2019. Print.
Koch, Edward. “Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life.” n.d. New Republic. Internet. 27 October 2020.
Thompson, Bruce. and Mary. Poole. The Greenhaven Encyclopedia of Capital Punishment. Detroit: Greenhaven Press/Thomson/Gale, 2006. Print.