Amber Young’s Capital Punishment: Society’s Self Defense is an essay that supports capital punishment. She cites reasons like self-defense, insufficient care for the preservation of life and liberty as more important than freedom. The chance that a guilty party will be freed rather than being convicted. All these arguments are presented to build the case claim. This essay claims that, just like a person can defend themselves against a criminal like a killer or a terrorist, so should a nation be able use deadly force to eliminate first-degree murderers such as Ted Bundy. The claim is tempered by the statement “whenever it is possible and necessary”. The author does not feel sorry for first-degree killers who take other people’s lives. Therefore, capital punishment should be allowed whenever a first degree murderer is convicted. The author offers exceptions to this claim, stating that the government bears the burden of proof in criminal cases and that guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. It is stated that courts rarely prosecute innocent persons and that the wrongly accused are not prosecuted if guilt proves beyond reasonable doubt. This paper will discuss the reasons, the evidence that supports them, their relevance and value, as well the objections to and rebuttals.
According to the author, capital punishment does not have a strong justification for punishment, retribution or punishment. Instead, it is based on society’s right and duty to defend itself. This is because the claim compares the act of defending oneself against a criminal through death to that of a nation or society using capital punishment. In other words, it makes capital punishment seem to be self-defense. However, this reasoning isn’t always positive. A person may be able to defend themselves against a murderer using deadly force but they are just a person with limited options. A nation or society has a multitude of resources, institutions and staff that they can use to save lives and ensure Ted Bundy stays in prison for the rest of his life. “Many prisoners would rather die than live in prison,” stated the author. If true, it is more worthwhile for a prisoner to learn their lesson through imprisonment and rehabilitation rather than having their life taken away by someone else. The author’s evidence is that many people will admit to using deadly force to defend themselves or their family from a criminal. This brings us back to the objection about nations and people not being equal in self-defense. The author can also rebut the assertion that society has every right and authority to demand that its government bans from ever again those individuals who are unable to trust their ability to circulate within the community, even on a restricted basis, without causing havoc. Bundy, a first degree killer, is to be removed from society. The author thinks society doesn’t value the preservation life. He uses examples like the soldiers giving their lives in order to preserve liberty, the prisoners choosing death rather than life in prison, or the deaths of thousands in car accidents. This is because few people in today’s society care about life preservation. Unfortunately, it is not always a good argument. Although life preservation is not a priority in society, there are still opposing views on capital punishment. This would be a valid reason if more statistics and credible resources were available to support it.
The author added the third reason. This is related because it claims that liberty is more important that life. The author also states that prisoners would choose to die in prison over live, and this is a relation. This is another reason the situation isn’t great. While the author asserts that freedom is the most important principle in our society, she also repeatedly contradicts her assertions that neither life nor liberty are higher-valued than the others. The author offers some evidence and rebuttal to this claim. “Patrick Henry,” who would later be instrumental with the adoption of U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights, is best known for his defiant American Revolutionary declaration, “I don’t know what other people will do, but for me, give my liberty or death!” Patrick Henry was an important historical figure. However, his stance on freedom for prisoners in the current society and first-degree murderers such as Ted Bundy is completely different. Patrick Henry wasn’t thinking of Ted Bundy, a prisoner today, when he said these words.
The author claims that there are more chances for a guilty person to be released from prison than for an innocent person to be convicted. This is an attempt to reinforce the claim by suggesting, “The chances of a guilty person going free in our system are many times greater than those of an innocent person being convicted”. In order to be convicted in the United States, the accused must first prove guilty. Most cases will require evidence to support that case. This is a very good and pertinent reason. In America, where there is so much crime, it is not uncommon for innocent people to be free. The author states that innocent people are not often convicted because the media will cover the scandal of innocent persons being convicted. This is undisputed evidence. When it becomes known that an innocent person was wrongly sentenced or put in prison, it’s huge news.