How can justice be done if it is not even certain that the correct person is being executed? It cannot. In the essay Koch says "Human life deserves special protection, and one of the best ways to guarantee that protection is to assure that convicted murderers do not kill again. Only the death penalty can accomplish this end" (474). The death penalty is not the only way to prevent murderers from killing again. It does not make sense to punish a murderer by killing him. He will not learn a lesson, neither will anyone else. The death penalty does not get rid of problems, it only creates more. There are other ways of ensuring protection against convicted murderers, such as a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. This solution is more sensible, a lesson is learned and we, as a society, do not have to walk around with a guilty conscience. Government should not be responsible for deciding weather or not a murderer should live. Mr. Koch's argument on executions happening by mistake is weak and does not contain any supporting evidence. This gives the readers an impression that he is not very sure about his argument.
Not only are Koch's arguments weak, but they are also unintelligent. Koch says, "The state has rights that the private individual does not," in his try to argue that the death .
.
penalty is not state-sanctioned murder (476). He is correct, it is important that the state has some power over the people, otherwise everything would be chaos. On the other hand, the state does not have the right to take a life. The fact that anyone would believe that the state has that power is sickening and degrading to our country. No one has the authority to take a life except God. Koch is not supporting the government's decision to enforce capital punishment, he is brainwashed by the government. Koch then proceeds to say "Rights and responsibilities surrendered by the individual are what give the state its power to govern.