This paper deals with two articles, one viewing the death penalty as wrong and one viewing it as right.
In Coretta Scott King's "The Death Penalty Is a Step Back" and Mike Royko's "Death to the Killers," each author presents their individual analysis on the topic of capital punishment. The writers discuss their personal opinions on the issue of the death penalty, while giving several reasons to support their convictions.
The authors have dissimilar views on the controversial issue of capital punishment. On one hand, King exclaims: "America took another step backwards towards legitimizing murder as a way of dealing with evil in our society." In a desperate attempt to figure out the reasoning of those in favor of the death penalty, she asks: "Can we expect a decent society if the state is allowed to kill its own people?" In addition, the writer explains that because American violence has escalated over the last few years, the government and its citizens have begun reinforcing the act of the death penalty. However, she argues that no matter how much "we abhor violence," executing criminals is neither moral nor constitutional, and it will not deter others from committing the same crimes.
On the other hand, Royko initially explains that he doesn't really like to "make fun of people who oppose the death penalty because they are so sincere." Nevertheless, he wishes they would come up with new reasons as to why the government should put a stop to the death penalty. The author exemplifies his strong perspective on capital punishment by explaining many individual cases in which people "suffered a terrible loss, and live with terrible memories." He declares that every one of these families share "the knowledge that the killers are alive," and they will not gain vengeance until it is evident that the criminals are not being "cared for by society." Royko demands that the "opponents of the death penalty" should think about what the families of these criminals have had to go through, and then explain to them "just how cruel it is to kill someone."
In each article, the writers
The authors have dissimilar views on the controversial issue of capital punishment. On one hand, King exclaims: "America took another step backwards towards legitimizing murder as a way of dealing with evil in our society." In a desperate attempt to figure out the reasoning of those in favor of the death penalty, she asks: "Can we expect a decent society if the state is allowed to kill its own people?" In addition, the writer explains that because American violence has escalated over the last few years, the government and its citizens have begun reinforcing the act of the death penalty. However, she argues that no matter how much "we abhor violence," executing criminals is neither moral nor constitutional, and it will not deter others from committing the same crimes.
On the other hand, Royko initially explains that he doesn't really like to "make fun of people who oppose the death penalty because they are so sincere." Nevertheless, he wishes they would come up with new reasons as to why the government should put a stop to the death penalty. The author exemplifies his strong perspective on capital punishment by explaining many individual cases in which people "suffered a terrible loss, and live with terrible memories." He declares that every one of these families share "the knowledge that the killers are alive," and they will not gain vengeance until it is evident that the criminals are not being "cared for by society." Royko demands that the "opponents of the death penalty" should think about what the families of these criminals have had to go through, and then explain to them "just how cruel it is to kill someone."
In each article, the writers