The magazine Upfront has many interesting articles. One of these articles, written by Diann Rust-
Tierney and Joshua Marquis, is called “Should the Death Penalty be Abolished?”
In this article these two debate about the fate of an important capital
punishment.
Ms. Tierney argues that the death
penalty should be abolished. She says that 142 people have been freed from
death row because of human error of putting those people in jail in the first
place. But several of unknown innocents may have died because of human error.
Also that 2/3 of the world’s countries has also ended the death penalty. The
death penalty discriminates race because death penalties seemed issued when the
victim is white. It also discriminates the non wealthy who can’t afford good
lawyers. I agree with her. Death penalties shouldn’t be given out. I think it’s
better if a criminal was sentenced to be jailed for the rest of their lives.
Though killers have done the worst imaginable, I think killing them makes us
killers as well. And if they are executed, I feel that we are more below them
than we were above.
Mr. Marquis disagrees with Ms. Tierney. He says that a death penalty is “reserved
for the worst of the worst.” That as many have been executed, the murder rate
in the U.S has decreased by 24%. Also, that now a test of DNA can reveal if one
is guilty or not. He justifies it with saying that taking precautions won’t
hurt if the killer wont be released and kill again. I disagree with him,
because killing someone anyone won’t solve anything. There has to be
compromise, isn’t that what trials are for?; to come to a compromise between
the public and the defendant. There has to be equality between everyone.
This article challenges readers to see that how harsh government rule
is. There is a quote that says “an eye for an eye” I think that’s not right. Killing
one is not right but executing the killer isn't right either. Its always better
to better than someone else, no matter what. Because that’s what really counts.