Causal Argument – tpaz1

Abolishing the Death Penalty 

Too many states in the U.S execute their own citizens. When an inmate commits a dangerous crime such as killing someone, the court usually sends them on death row, which later results into the death penalty. The death penalty is a pointless execution to inmates to deter crime. States and courts that allow and legalize the death penalty do not realize the negativity this “solution,” brings to the table. It defines violence to the world, it shows others there is no human rights, and it goes against what every state and justice system stand by. The death penalty results into too many negative factors, rather than positive; leaving it to no be possibly administered fairly and must be abolished.

The death penalty is a form of legalized unusual punishment that is done to criminals through-out the United States. It is currently legal to kill an inmate in 31 states by injecting their body with drugs, electrocuting them, and gunning them down. The death penalty violates the most important right anyone believes they should have, which is the right to life. The states and courts that use the death penalty or capital punishment deny the right to live to incoming inmates. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights state, “no one shall be subjected to cruel and degrading punishment,” which the death penalty violates. No matter what a person has done, everyone should have a say on their own life, whether they get to live or sentenced to be killed.

Not only does the death penalty violate human rights but it also violates what the State and Justice System want, which is to prevent violence and criminal activity. The death penalty itself is violent. Electrocuting, gunning down, or injecting lethal drugs in the body is all under a violent category. Performing those types of punishments goes against what states and the criminal justice system stand by. They want less violence, but they are performing a violent act themselves. States and the justice system punish an inmate for murdering someone because it’s a wrong thing to do, but then the punishment the inmate receives is to be murdered themselves. It’s hypocritical for states to allow capital punishment and violates what they stand by.

The criminal justice system in the U.S is suppose to deter or prevent violence and crime, rehabilitate convicts, and incapacitate dangerous criminals. Other than resulting to the death penalty or taking a life away, states should realize other solutions to serve the justice system’s functions. The most obvious and other used solution is by giving life in prison. The states were the death penalty is illegal in, gives inmates life in prison, rather than killing them. Life in prison is certainly deterrent because it discourages criminals to take action in a crime again and it also allows rehabilitation. Life in prison serves a better solution than executing an inmate and most importantly gives an inmate the right to live.

Works Cited 

Hayworth, Michael. “5 Reasons Some People Think the World Needs the Death Penalty.” Amnesty Australia. N.p., 8 July 2013. Web. 2 Nov. 2015.

McElwee, Sean. “It’s Time to Abolish the Death Penalty.” The Huffington Post., 7 Sept. 2013. Web. 2 Nov. 2015.

“The Facts: 13 Reasons to Oppose the Death Penalty.” The Facts: 13 Reasons to Oppose the Death Penalty. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Nov. 2015

This entry was posted in Causal Archives. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Causal Argument – tpaz1

  1. tpaz1 says:

    Feedback was requested.

    Feedback provided.


  2. davidbdale says:

    Hey, tpaz, I’m glad I could get to this before your Portfolio is due.

    P1. Good opening sentence, tpaz. It makes a judgment claim that is entirely pertinent to your topic. But it’s not causal. Wouldn’t it be better to find a way to open that launched your causal argument? The second sentence teases us; when crimes occur . . . waiting for the consequence . . . they are executed. But that can’t be your causal argument either.

    You say the death penalty is pointless. It does not deter. It “defines violence to the world.” I don’t know what that means, but it sounds like an argument you should be making.

    It contradicts our ideals, I think you mean. It subverts our values. It violates the rights we purport to guarantee.

    You claim that states execute to deter. They must think all those negatives are a fair trade-off. If you can show that there’s no deterrence, they’ll be giving away the store for nothing in return. Can you find a quote from a stone-cold convicted killer who gives the lie to the deterrence argument? It sure would come in handy.

    P2. When you call a punishment “unusual,” you’re deliberately invoking the Constitution, which outlaws “cruel and unusual punishment.” Make that reference clear.

    You’re being rhetorical when you use “gunning them down” as your verb, which I entirely admire.

    You don’t share any details about the other methods of execution, but, if you’re going to be vivid and rhetorical, I wonder why you didn’t search “technical details of execution by electric chair,” as I did a minute ago. I got this on the first try:

    …the prisoner’s eyeballs sometimes pop out and rest on [his] cheeks. The prisoner often defecates, urinates, and vomits blood and drool. The body turns bright red as its temperature rises, and the prisoner’s flesh swells and his skin stretches to the point of breaking. Sometimes the prisoner catches fire….Witnesses hear a loud and sustained sound like bacon frying, and the sickly sweet smell of burning flesh permeates the chamber. (Ecenbarger, 1994)

    At postmortem, the body is hot enough to blister if touched, and the autopsy is delayed while the internal organs cool. There are third degree burns with blackening where the electrodes met the skin of the scalp and legs. According to Robert H. Kirschner, the deputy chief medical examiner of Cook County, “The brain appears cooked in most cases.” (Weisberg, 1991)

    I make this suggestion because you’re traveling some VERY beaten paths here, tpaz. We focus on counterintuitive topics specifically to avoid adding more arguments to topics that have already been argued to death.

    Your classmate, ohearnj, got permission to make the anti-death-penalty argument because he was willing to make it entirely on economic grounds. When you decided to make yours on ethical grounds, you chose the beaten path. With no disrespect to your abilities, ask yourself if the world needs another essay declaring that the death penalty violates human rights.

    So, I’d be happier if you could find an angle. Gore is maybe not the best, but something needs to distinguish your essay from the others.

    P3. You’re good. You’re fine. If I had never read this argument before, I’d be more impressed. Your point is well made in the first sentence. The rest of the paragraph repeats the claim repeatedly.

    The value of research to a research paper is to provide readers with access to material they wouldn’t have found themselves. These perfectly rational arguments you make are readily available at any website that takes a stand against the death penalty. You’re not wrong, but you’re not contributing a fresh perspective to a worn-out argument.

    P4. If your solution is life in prison, ask yourself two questions. 1) Can inmates bully, torture, harm, and even kill other inmates and guards? 2) If the point of rehabilitation is to return peaceful, productive citizens back into society, what is the point of rehabilitating prisoners who, on your terms, will never be let out of prison?

    Anything helpful here, tpaz?


  3. tpaz1 says:

    Yes it helped alot, thank you!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s