(1)
When Steven Judy was executed in Indiana [in 1981] America took another step back towards legitimizing murder as a way of dealing with evil in our society.
Although Judy was convicted of four of the most horrible and brutal murders imaginable, and his case is probably the worst in recent memory for opponents of the death penalty, we still have to face the real issue squarely: Can we expected a decent society if the state is allowed to kill its own people?
In recent years, an increase of violence in America, both individual and political, has prompted a backlash of public opinion on capital punishment, but however much we abhor violence, legally sanctioned executions are no deterrent and are, in fact, immoral and unconstitutional...
An evil deed is not redeemed [compensated for] by an evil deed of retaliation. Justice is never advanced in the taking of a human life.
Morality is never upheld by legalized murder. Morality apart, there are a number of practical reasons which form a powerful argument against capital punishment...
Proponents of capital punishment often cited a “deterrent effect” as the main benefit of the death penalty. Not only is there no hard evidence that murdering murderers will deter other potential killers, but even the “logic” of this argument defies comprehension.
Numerous studies show that the majority of homicides committed in this country are the acts of the victims’ relatives, friends and acquaintances in the “heat of passion”
What this strongly suggests is that rational consideration of future consequences is seldom a part of the killer’s attitude at the time commits a crime.
The only way to break the chain of violent reaction is to practice nonviolence as individuals and collectively through our laws and institutions.
—Adapted from Coretta Scott King, “On the Death Penalty”
What is the author’s viewpoint toward the death penalty?
The author is opposed to the death penalty and argued that it’s immoral and unconstitutional, and it doesn’t prevent more murders.
What is the author's attitude toward the “deterrent effect” of the death penalty? Cite evidence to support your view.
Doubtful. The author said that “not only is there no hard evidence that murdering murderers will deter other potential killers, but even the ‘logic’ of this argument defies comprehension”. So he doubted about the existence of deter effect and the inner logic.
What is the function of the first two paragraphs?
To bring in the topic of this article, the rationality and necessity of the death penalty, and then illustrate his opinions in the following.
What does “this argument” refer to? Explain in your own words the meaning of “but even the ‘logic’ of this argument defies comprehension”?
This argument is that murdering murderers will deter other potential killers. The logic behind deter effect is that when the potential murder has motives to commit a murder he will think of the punishment of death penalty and give up murdering. But the author doubted the logic and believed the majority of homicides committed are the acts of the victims’ relatives, friends and acquaintances in the ‘heat of passion’, so he won’t have that rational consideration. So this logic is false.