The Case Agaisnt The Death Pen Essay free essay sample

, Research Paper Crumley English 112 17 Sep 00 The Case Against Death Punishment This article was written by Eric M. Freedman, and was printed in the USA Today, magazine in March of 1997. Let us get down right at that place with Mr. Freedman. Since this article appeared in the USA Today I assumed that this adult male was likely one that knew what he was speaking about and likely good respected among his equals. He is a professor at Hofstra University School of Law where he teaches Constitutional Law and the Death Penalty. He has addressed many panels of attorneies, prosecuting officers, Judgess and even Congress about the decease punishment. He graduated from Yale University and is a outstanding First Amendment combatant. Now, after all that research I assumed that what I was approximately to read was traveling to be some cold difficult facts about capital penalty. After all he appears to be highly good versed about the Constitution and the decease punishment. Since I discovered that he was a professor at Hofstra University I decided to make a rebuff background cheque on that peculiar school because I had personally neer heard of Hofstra. Come to happen out Hofstra University, harmonizing to US NEWS, is ranked figure two in the state when it comes to jurisprudence. Hofstra is presently ranked between Yale, which is ranked first, and Harvard, which is graded 3rd. Following that information that I discovered I automatically presumed that Mr. Freedman was most decidedly a qualified adult male and non merely some extremist who opposed the decease punishment. Continuing on with the analysis I figured I would interrupt down the rubric. The Case Against the Death Punishment can merely be seen a few ways in my book. I thought every bit shortly as Crumley 2 I saw the rubric that this individual was composing as an opposition of the decease punishment. I farther assumed to turn out his point that he was traveling to hold a batch of statistics to assist endorse his point. Which for me meant that I was traveling to hold to make more research to assist interrupt this essay a portion. Anyhow, right as I began reading this article I started to hold uncertainties in Mr. Freedman. In the really first paragraph he states Harmonizing to critics ( USA Today, pg 48 ) and does non call any of them. Who are these supposed critics? They could be anybody. They could be a whole commission of oppositions of the decease punishment, who furthermore merely show findings that they agree with. So, I as a reader, have no thought except for the fact that it was a group of so called critics. Then straight after the first paragraph he says that in September of 1995, the province of New York re-instituted the decease punishment and that this lone meant that New Yorkers will acquire less offense control than they had before. ( USA Today, pg 48 ) Well I decided to make a shade bit more digging and discovered that, harmonizing to the 1992 and 1997 FBI Uniform Crime Report for the New York State country, since 1992 serious offense had declined some 33 % . What I besides found was that the slaying rate was down and violent offense was down 39 % and 32 % severally. Now, after turn outing that one incorrect my assurance in Mr. Freedman was dropping quickly. However, I decided to give him the benefit of the uncertainty and said that we all can do errors. Following I discovered his chief intent for composing this article in the first sentence of the 3rd paragraph. And he supports this statement with the grounds of the decease punishment s tremendous cost, a hurt to public safety, it does non cut down offense, is racially Crumley 3 discriminatory, and will finally be inflicted on the inexperienced person. That merely happened to give me a batch more ammo to lb this article. The following point that Freedman attempts to do is that the decease punishment does non cut down offense. What he does non state you is that the decease punishment is non designed to cut down offense. The decease punishment is a signifier of penalty designed to dispose of highly violent felons. Freedman of class so moves to back up this thought with the fact that between 1975 and 1985 twice as many constabularies officers were killed in decease punishment provinces as no decease punishment provinces. Once once more Freedman has tried to take the reader astray. He does non state you that those provinces with the decease punishment have higher offense rates because they are 1s with really big metropoliss, such as New York, Chicago and Detroit. What he besides does non state you is that during the 1980 s offense was up countrywide harmonizing to the FBI Uniform Crime Report. Following Freedman uses a justice in Harris County, Texas to do a point. Freedman points out that 10 % of all executings since 1976 have taken topographic point in this peculiar county legal power. He so uses a quotation mark from this justice to seek and bang his point place or may be aid carry the reader a bit more because he his utilizing another type of authorization figure. What I found interesting about this peculiar quotation mark is that the justice could hold been noticing on offense in general, non merely the decease punishment To follow this portion of the article he throws in the fact that the decease punishment is inordinately expensive. Which I believe was the best and most true portion of this article. With the research that I went through I did happen that even most advocates of the Crumley 4 decease punishment did hold with this point. The decease punishment is really expensive. But, he throws in some cost that I seem to believe would be good. Such as more probe on the side of the prosecution. What he does non state you is that the prosecution needs more probe to acquire a decease punishment finding of fact. The following alleged fact Freedman presents to us is that the decease punishment rhenium duces public safety. That statement is non a fact. If that were true we would likely non hold the decease punishment. Does the judicial system truly desire to set people to decease bad plenty that they would put on the line other peoples lives? Then Freedman states that harmonizing to fiscal jobs New York can non purchase unassailable waistcoats for all of it peace officers. He is really stating that since the decease punishment costs so much it is a direct consequence on the protection of New York s constabulary officers. I believe there are many other factors that can be thrown into that equation. Anyway, have you considered the fact that non every constabulary officer is on responsibility? I have been told that most constabularies officers do non work 24 hours a twenty-four hours three hundred 60 five yearss a twelvemonth. Following Freedman uses the illustration of narcotics and intervention. And that some of the money being spent on the decease punishment could be used for handling these people who support themselves through offense. First of all I ask how many drug users would really set themselves into intervention? I mean after all if these people are so far hooked on drugs that they commit offenses to acquire them, so they likely do non care plenty to set themselves into rehab. Now Freedman presents another so called fact. He states, fundamentally that the Crumley 5 decease punishment is geared towards a peculiar group of people. If that were really true I believe the authorities would be hearing an ear full from the full population. After that great group of facts, Freedman gives the reader some statistics on racial favoritism. However, he did something a small different this clip and questioned his ain Numberss. He was right in stating that there are other factors that need to be taken into history with the figures he displayed. But I must oppugn two more things in this paragraph. First what surveies precisely addressed these issues? And if it were true that one of the major lending factors on whether person received a finding of fact of the decease was their race, I do non believe the justness system would go on to utilize capital penalty. The following variable that Freedman says that contributes to the punishment of the decease in income. He goes on and on about how hapless people can non acquire nice representation in capital instances. Let us look at this from another angle. There are non many attorneies around that accept capital instances. Like Freedman says the field is extremely specified. Besides, I had another expression at the FBI Uniform Crime Report, and it states that lower income groups tend to execute capital offenses. Then Freedman tries to compare the quality of capital slaying tests to that of felony instances. Well, a felony instance does non be near to every bit much as a capital slaying instance. Besides, most defence attorneies are prepared to support felonies a tad spot more than capital instances. The concluding variable that Freedman uses is that of mental disablement. He says that jurymans are more likely to set person to decease that has a mental disablement of some sort. Crumley 6 Now, if you look at the existent offense itself, one would hold to be a small screwed up to perpetrate a offense bad plenty to be tried as a capital instance. Earlier in the article Freedman uses Ted Bundy as an illustration. Why does he non utilize Bundy as an illustration now? May be it is because the name, Ted Bundy, automatically brings a idea of person who is earnestly disturbed and is likely considered by most a good receiver of the decease punishment. The concluding fact that Freedman uses is that finally the decease punishment will be inflicted on the inexperienced person. I would wish to get down with the word inexperienced person. Yes the jurisprudence states one is guiltless until proved guilty. However, the word inexperienced person will non be found in any test. A individual is either found guilty or non guilty. Yes, some people found guilty may non hold committed the offense. But there was adequate grounds for a jury to happen the individual guilty. And that works in contrary, some people are found non guilty because a jury was non presented with adequate grounds to convict. Now, the pick that Freedman makes here to finalise his statement with this is really good planned. He reminds the reader that decease is concluding and can non be reversed. This was a good thought to me because if the reader has non made up their head yet about whether they agree with the decease punishment or non this slightly slams his point place. Freeman so leads the reader into his decision. He restates all of his points to seek and farther carry the reader after his last statement that decease is concluding. This, to me, was a really cagey manner of helping his shutting statement. The last piece of information that I was able to delve into was that right after what seemed to be his summarisation. Freedman tried one last group of people to assist his Crumley 7 statement. And he used the Criminal Justice Section of the New York State Bar Association. He made certain to allow me cognize that it was full of people who are good versed in the judicial system. Now what he did non allow you cognize was that this peculiar subdivision of the NYSBA merely happens to be the 1 that deals specifically with the decease punishment and Constitutional rights. Every member of this subdivision are all oppositions of the decease punishment. In decision I would wish to state that at first sight this seemed to be a really good written and factual article. But after a little spot of delving I found this to non be true at all. Even though Mr. Freedman may be rather qualified in the ways of our judicial system he used many so called facts to seek and carry his audience. Brad Crumley