I really didn’t understand the way the author support the death penalty with articles that are against it. Koch says that we don’t have thecure for cancer but we still fighting it with different treatments, so he says that they don’t have the cure for violence and injustice so they are trying to eliminate it with moredeaths and injustice. How can he compare cancer with death penalty, they can be weight in the same balance.
In other part of the essay if I understand well, he says that theobligation of the government is assure that killers don’t kill again and this only can be done with the death penalty. And if they work worrying about killing someone innocent wellthey wouldn’t function at all. So, he says that it doesn’t matter if they kill someone innocent because it would save more lives? But he is innocent! How he could kill more livesif he is innocent? The thing is that death penalty kills murders but kill to innocent people, that doesn’t matter because they were less that the guilty ones. But, for me savingone innocent life is better that killing 1,000 guilty ones. He says too that the death penalty strengthens the value of human life. What? Killing people that kill people strengthensthe value of life? This chain makes us feel more love for our life, yeah right. In the last thing the serial killers thing when they are going to commit a crime is the fact theycould get killed for it. They don’t care if you kill them, they will be as happy as when he or she committed the crime.
Koch uses other articles to sustain his points, but Idon’t really understand them and I didn’t agree too. He has the right to think whatever he wants. But it’s a shame that a people like him waste their words to defend that cause.