The Penalty of Death Analysis “What I contend is that one of the prime objects of all judicial punishments is to afford the same grateful relief (a) to the immediate victims of the criminal punished, and (b) to the general body of moral and timorous men.”(Mencken, 395).
A statement with indefinite proportions, Mencken provides his thesis in a rather unfashionable approach. This quote represents the authors feeling towards the death penalty. He relays that one of the key points of punishing a criminal is to give some sense of relief to the victims in question, and even to the law-abiding public in general. Obviously, with such a statement, its not obscure to see that his implication has pro death-penalty tendencies. This paper will try to analyze the authors pro attitude towards the death penalty and analyze his thesis to discern any hidden messages in it. Mencken has two arguments that stand out in the beginning of this essay.
These arguments are against the penalty of death, although his essay is in a way, for it. The first one is, That hanging a man (or frying him or gassing him) is a dreadful business, degrading to those who have to do it and revolting to those who have to witness it . (Mencken 455).
The second one is also against it, That it is useless, for it does not deter others from the same crime . (Mencken 455).
The Term Paper on The Death Penalty And Deterrence As Public Policy
The Death Penalty and Deterrence as Public Policy Every time a death penalty case arises, and the time comes for the convict, thousands of people across the nation support the punishment as well as protest the punishment. This issue does not have any proponents of a particular group. People are much split on this subject, regardless of race, background, age, gender, and other variables that ...
These arguments are obviously against the death penalty. Towards the end of his essay he gives us an example of his true argument.
He says that the wait for the killer and the family is the cruelest part and he despises it. If people deserve the death penalty, which he says people do, then they should be penalized almost on the spot. He does not believe the time in which the crime is committed and the penalty of death should be pushed off as long as it is. I think he is right with this argument but, it seems as though he is against the penalty of death. But, in reality he is not. [Capital punishment] is useless, for it does not deter others from the same crime with harsh critique.
People who concur with the above statement wrongly conclude that capital punishment only in effect because it will punish people for their mistakes. Mencken quotes that this is only one of at least a half dozen reasons why it is in effect. He then continues addressing the issue of why the death penalty is effective, claiming that it is commonly called revenge or else known as catharsis; a salubrious discharge of emotions. He explains this situation with the following this example: A school boy, disliking his teacher, puts a tack on the pedagogical chair; the teacher jumps and the boy laughs. Catharsis is in effect. Similarly, the close relatives of the victims crave, more than anything, to see the perpetrator suffer, as he made them suffer. Majority of people enjoy peace of mind knowing that the accounts are squared.
Once this is achieved, they are much more comfortable. this feeling isn’t necessarily moral, but it is common with most human beings (Mencken 395).
The death penalty is not used for ordinary crimes, even ordinary homicides. Its only used in crimes involving the deliberate and inexcusable taking of a life, which to 9 out of 10 men, is a just punishment. On the contrary, form the viewpoint of the criminal, the wait to be executed is too long. It is horribly cruel and not even cannibals would torture their victims in this way. Mencken quotes, why they need to wait at all suggesting execution to take place the day after their trial.
The Essay on Death Penalty Against People One Murder
There are many reasons to both support and oppose the death penalty. Many people can feel very strongly about whether or not they approve of this method of punishment. I feel that the death penalty is wrong, and I believe that there is much support to back this up. I believe that the death penalty is wrong because it is not an effective deterrent, racially and economically bias, unreliable, ...
While the time allotted in between trial and execution is to make peace with God, it does not take that long to find God. [Making peace with god] may be accomplished, I believe, in two hours quite as comfortably as in two years. There are indeed no temporal limitations upon God. He could forgive a whole herd of murderers in a millionth of a second. More, it has been done.” In conclusion, this essay is rather inconclusive, merely an essay debating an important argument. However the author did a good job of concluding the main arguments he was trying to make throughout his essay. Being a critic, and debating his topic, Mencken uses a lot of attacks throughout his essay to make his opposition’s points seem weaker and making his argument look better.
He uses a plethora of examples throughout the essay supplementing the various arguments. For instance, the example used on the bottom of page 395 explaining the use of catharsis in capital punishment situations, to mention but a few was very essential in making his point. This essay in my opinion was terrible, I did not like the way he set it up, he did not take a solid side. It was written to be as though it is a joke and funny. I did not think it was funny, it just boggled my mind, I had a hard time trying to figure out that he is for the death penalty. I do like the way he described the wait.
I thought that was the best part because it was descriptive and I could understand where he is coming from. The author also includes a few rhetorical questions in his conclusions towards the end of his essay; in the middle of paragraph 8 such as why should he wait [for his execution] at all? His use in vocabulary also pronounces his level of competence on the subject matter. His arguments, on the other hand, seem that of uncaring and inhumane characteristics. He is simply a follower of Ancient Mesopotamias ruler, Hammurabi by concluding, An eye for an eye! Works Cited page 1. Mencken, H. L. The Penalty of Death (1926).
The Term Paper on Ontological Argument God Existence Descartes
Discuss the extent to which Descartes has overcome his doubts of the first Meditations In Descartes' meditations, Descartes begins what Bernard Williams has called the project of 'pure enquiry' to discover an indubitable premise or foundation to base his knowledge on, by subjecting everything to a kind of scepticism now known as Cartesian doubt. This is known as foundational ism, where a ...
The Brief Bedford Reader. Bedford/St.Martins Boston , MA. Page (395).
