Capital Punishment Debate Remains Highly

¶ … capital punishment debate remains highly controversial. While there are those who are convinced that the same should be abolished terming it unjust, others have offered compelling reasons in support of the death penalty. In this text, I analyze an article by Honorable Paul G. Cassell. This article titled in Defense of the Death Penalty supports the death penalty as an appropriate form of punishment for some criminals. I beg to differ.

In his article, Cassell attempts to present a compelling argument in support of the death penalty. In so doing, he analyses and dismisses some of the arguments that have been presented by abolitionists over time. It is however important to note that in seeking to present his view of the issue at hand, Cassell does make some errors in reasoning that effectively weaken his argument.

In presenting his arguments, Cassell at times directly attacks the abolitionists as opposed to their arguments. For instance, he at some point brands the reasoning of abolitionists narrow. He also sensationally claims that abolitionists have little time on their hands to carry out meaningful investigations. The author does not however provide any evidence to backup his assertion. Further, it can also be noted that Cassell tends to use the slippery slope argument with his claim that abolishing the death penalty could bring about some undesirable consequences. This can also be viewed as an appeal to force in which case the author paints the picture of a gloomy scenario should the death penalty be abolished. He however fails to present sufficient evidence to support this assertion.

It is also important to note that Cassell ends up distorting some facts by making hasty generalizations. For instance, he argues against the abolishment of the death penalty by claiming that "no death penalty is ever imposed unless the jury (or in some states, a judge) decides that the ultimate penalty is justified by the facts of the case" (Cassell, 2008). 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.