Believing this article in a literal sense is obviously very hard to do. I was at first appalled by what he was saying about capital punishment as a form of entertainment, but I quickly realized that he was using a sarcastic voice and writing a satirical article. After that, it was easy to believe what he was saying and agree with the point he was trying to make, which is to portray capital punishment as a cruel and impractical way of dealing with a prisoner. He is also trying to show that there is too much crime, namely murder, in the United States. This is evident when he says that "we merely add to the number of untimely dead without diminishing the number of murders committed." He seems to want Americans to realize that the death penalty is not the best way to deal with prisoners and that maybe the "an eye for an eye" philosophy is not the most practical way to punish criminals. I have always believed that a person never deserves to be killed, even if they committed murder themselves. I think that every person deserves a second chance and no one should be forced to give that up. Everyone has the right to redeem themselves for their actions and it is not fair to deny anyone of that privilege, no matter how awful the crime that they committed might be. Also, it seems to me that spending life in prison, being forced to constantly contemplate what crimes they have committed, is a much harsher punishment then death row because it is unbelievably lonely and causes the person to have to think about what crime they have committed and feel guilty for it.
Doubting
Doubting this article will definitely be the difficult side of this for me. I can understand
why there are people who believe in the "an eye for an eye" philosophy because it makes
sense that someone gets a punishment that represents the crime that they themselves
committed. Also, since murder is such a serious crime, I can understand why someone
would want the person to suffer greatly, especially if the victim was someone close to
them. I can also understand why it would seem like a less expensive alternative to life in
prison, but, according to balancedpolitics.org, it actually ends up costing the American
taxpayer more then keeping the prisoner in custody for life. I suppose advocates of the
death penalty would also argue that keeping a prisoner in jail for life risks that person
being able to escape, and kill again, whereas capital punishment entirely eliminates that
possibility. The final reason that I can think of is that capital punishment might keep
other criminals from committing murder for fear that they will be put on death row, but
I don't see how that could really be tested or proven.
2 comments:
I definitely agree with what your points about Arthur Miller's article. At first his article is very disturbing, but after you read it a couple of times, you really start to understand what he is saying through all the sarcasm. I agree with what you said about spending life in prison is definitely much harsher of a punishment than the death penalty. I think that killing someone is not a good enough punishment. I think they must suffer just like the victim that they hurt, and the victim's family suffered. I think you made some really interesting points in your blog.
Post a Comment