Lauren Bowden, a government student at Austin Community College, made her opposition of the death penalty evident in the article The end of Death Row . Since she is a student writing an assignment and not an ideological journalist for a large publication, it is safe to assume that the argument does not contain any ulterior motives or bias. Because there is no available information to evaluate qualifications, it is difficult to establish Bowden’s credibility as a writer. From her participation in a college class, however, one can conclude that Bowden is currently a student and therefore in the process of receiving an education.
Posted on her self-titled Texas government blog last Monday, July 25th, Bowden’s article attempts to persuade her audience, those in favor of the death penalty, to reconsider their opinions. Alluding to the financial burden of imprisonment, a common argument heard from death penalty proponents, Bowden counters that we should “…cut back on the massive amounts of spending that occurs toward our prisons.” After claiming that large sums of money are being spent on incarceration, Bowden fails to clarify what constitutes these “massive amounts” . Additionally, the inclusion of how, exactly, spending could be reduced would have added strength to her argument.
Another factor Bowden brings to the debate is the occurrence of wrongful convictions. The fact that innocent people are sometimes convicted of crimes they did not commit can be considered general knowledge. Since it is widely accepted as true, this statement does not require evidence. However, quantitative evidence would have definitely enhanced the argument. (For example, she might have used a statistic regarding the amount of people falsely convicted.)
Bowden also states that by enacting policy on capitol punishment, the government is, “…simply crouching down to the criminal’s level and committing the same crime.” Bowden is referencing the logical paradox contained in using death as a punishment for people who, themselves, have caused death. To elaborate, because life is highly valued, taking a life is seen as one of the most immoral crimes. Because of this, those who murder are given the most severe punishments. Why then, can a court decide to have someone killed and not also be punished? The argument Bowden made here was that the death penalty, in itself, contradicts the fact that killing is wrong.
The best claim Bowden makes comes at the end of her article. Here, Bowden reminds us of the most important characteristic of death: permanence. Combined with the verifiable occurrence of wrongful convictions, these two factors support Bowden’s disapproval of the use of capital punishment. Unlike a life in prison sentence, where an individual who has been wrongly convicted may be released and then compensated for the injustice they endured, the solidity of death offers not such regression.
No comments:
Post a Comment