Comparative Essay On The Death Penalty

Robert B. Travis
Comp 1313
October 18, 2006
Death Penalty
The Argument over capital punishment is greatly carried out by Preservationist John O" Sullivan author of   "Deadly Stakes", and abolitionist Hugo Beadu, author of "The case over the death penalty". Each other argues their point on if the death penalty is fallible, whether or not it is effective as a deterrent, and whether or not it"s barbaric. Even though both authors provide a good argument, in the end it"s the Author John O" Sullivan I agree with.
First, in Beadu"s essay, he feels that execution in the states is barbaric. To support this claim Beadu, provides you with information of how Utah and Idaho, still use firing squads for execution which is erroneous in the way he provides the information. Then to prove that the death penalty is barbaric, he provides accounts of lethal injections and electrocutions that according to him didn"t go as planned.   In O"Sullivan"s essay, he counters Beadu"s view on barbarity by saying it is the only punishment that fits the crime.   O" Sullivan states that" a cold blooded poisoning, say, or the rape and murder of a helpless child, or the mass murders of the Nazis and the Communist the only way to punish such crimes"(O" Sullivan 379). He also goes on to state" Significantly, such civilized nations as the Danes and the Norwegians, which had abolished the death penalty before the First World War, restored it after 1945 in order to deal equitable justice to the Nazis and their collaborators" (O"Sullivan 379). O" Sullivan goes on to show how abolitionist find it hard to reply to questions such as, "Was it Cruel, unusual, barbaric, uncivilized?"   He illustrates this by saying Abolitionist often say that a lifetime in prison is worse than a quick trip to oblivion. Beadu seems to offer some pretty credible arguments but they falter upon closer examination. Beadu begins by pointing out the barbarity since Ohio and Idaho still use firing squads, which is only partially...