Ed Koch and Russel Feingold both present valid arguments both for and against capital punishment. Though both writers have broken down their arguments thoroughly I remain sided with Koch. I feel capital punishment is absolutely necessary and Koch's argument affirmed my theory. Feingold argued against capital punishment based on the theory that the government made too many mistakes and is more likely to let an innocent suffer. Feingold states, it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than one innocent suffer. I completely disagree. I feel that in order to create complete security among citizens the harshest punishment necessary should be applied. If ten guilty people were set free to save the one innocent, how many more innocents shall suffer due to the ten escaped guilty people? Feingold also states that the 8th amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. However, how can anyone call capital punishment a cruel and unusual punishment when compared with the criminals heinous crimes? It is ridiculous.
Ed Koch's argument is much more sensible, logical, and provides comfort to .
victims. Koch's greatest argument is against the statement that "Capital Punishment cheapens the value of human life-. I agree with Koch completely that capital punishment does exactly the opposite. IF anything, it affirms the value of life by proving to the criminal how precious life is when the government strips him of his own. Capital Punishment is much like the theory of an eye for an eye'. To prove the value of a lost life, the perpetrator must experience it himself.
