While this may indeed be true to some extent, it may not be the case in all instances. The jury may take all the necessary precautions to ensure that the death sentence is not handed to those who do not deserve it but it is not infallible. This means that there is a rather high probability of the death penalty being meted out to some undeserving parties. In my opinion, the author has also refused to address some of the most controversial aspects of the debate. This makes the article appear biased. Some of the arguments presented by the author are also inconsistent with the findings of past studies. In some cases, Cassell also attempts to pass off his own beliefs and worldviews as statements of fact.

To his credit, the author can be said to have undertaken a comprehensive review of literature. The author also tends to enhance the reliability of the article by relying on recent sources. In addition to making the author's argument appear relevant in modern times, such a move could also stimulate...

However, Cassell appears biased in his choice of reference materials. The author in this case seems to rely mainly on sources supporting his arguments. This could have a negative effect on the reliability of the article.
Conclusion

Although the author in this case makes a compelling argument over the need to uphold the death sentence, his article cannot be regarded convincing. In addition to being inhumane, the death penalty violates the same human rights we strive to protect everyday. Thus in the final analysis, the death penalty does not have a place in the modern society.

References

Cassell, P.G. (2002). In Defense of the Death Penalty. IACJ Journal, 14-28. Retrieved June 22, 2012, from: http://da-tulareco.org/PDF/In_defense_of_the_DP.pdf