Death Penalty Dudley Sharp Claims

Death Penalty

Dudley Sharp claims that the death penalty is the "most appropriate punishment" for particularly horrendous crimes (p. 2). Therefore, first point Sharp makes is that capital punishment is the best punishment for heinous crimes like murder. Second, Sharp claims that no other punishment meets the needs of victims' sense of justice and equity.

Steven W. Hawkins, on the other hand, claims that the death penalty is racially biased and therefore highly unethical. Poor people and people of color do not have access to the quality attorneys that wealthier people do and therefore are more likely to be sentenced to death. Second, Hawkins points out that many innocent people are sentenced to death because of flaws in the justice system.

Sharp claims that most arguments against the death penalty are flawed. Sharp notes that opponents decry capital punishment because an innocent person might be sentenced to death. Sharp argues that the death penalty is an "accurate criminal sanction" and few innocents are sentenced to death (p. 3). The author also states that the death penalty is the only way to completely ensure that the criminal will not commit murder again, and refutes the notion that capital punishment does not deter would-be offenders. Moreover, Sharp refutes the belief that the death penalty is more liberally meted to people of color or to the poor.

According to Hawkins, proponents of the death penalty claim that it is only reserved for the "worst of the worst," (p. 6). The author refutes that claim by citing statistics that show that racial minorities are more frequently sentenced to death than whites. Second, Hawkins implies that many Americans support the death penalty without thoroughly evaluating the alternatives or the ethical issues involved.

3. The death penalty seems blatantly illogical: if killing a human being is wrong then the government should not kill people, period. Thus, on a purely rational level capital punishment makes no sense in the United States. Many nations have abolished the death penalty, illustrating the fact that the United States is unique among developed nations in killing its own citizens. At the same time, Americans criticize the public executions that have taken place in other societies. Death sentences are often carried out in public in America; although not in city squares, many executions take place in rooms open to visitors. Therefore, capital punishment can be viewed as a contradictory or hypocritical punishment.

On ethical grounds, too, the death penalty is wrong. A murderer is still a human being who has the possibility of being rehabilitated and reformed. Offering a human being a second chance at life is a noble gesture that sends a far better message to our citizens than execution does. The family of the convicted felon suffers when their loved one perishes at the hands of the law. Placing someone behind bars for life at least allows families to communicate with the individual throughout the duration of their lives. The individual who is sentenced to life in prison has every chance of learning how to totally transform their personality and persona and even to be redeemed through public service. For example, a convicted felon might write a book that affects far more people than an execution would.

Hawkins points out some of the clear reasons for abolishing capital punishment in the United States. The justice system is flawed in that individuals who cannot afford quality legal representation are more likely to be sentenced to death. Racism is also a problem in the penal system. Furthermore, even if only one innocent person were sentenced to death it would be too many.

1. Perez's observations are most likely correct. Although whistleblowers perform an admirable and courageous act of public service, their efforts are thwarted by legal, political, and social obstacles. I fully agree with the author's observations but still believe whitleblowers are admirable. Whistleblowers should be encouraged to come forward because they ensure a more ethical society. Discouraging whistleblowing allows white collar crime to flourish.

2. Rob Perez claims that whistleblowers suffer consequences including social isolation that may outweigh the impact of their courageous deeds. Colleagues and coworkers cut off the whistleblower. A whistleblower is brought into the public eye, making it difficult for that individual to operate socially or in a business environment. A whistleblower might lose all his or her business accounts and contacts because they are viewed as being untrustworthy.

Citing evidence from whistleblowers whose testimony resulted in convictions, Perez notes that many regret their decision to come forward due to the personal problems they face. Even whistleblower defense groups discourage coming forward because of the personal and financial consequences. Families have been torn apart because of the stress that ensues after coming forward. A spouse, significant other, or family member might disagree with the whistleblower, leading to broken social ties. Whistleblowers also have trouble getting their cases tried in court, negating the possible positive outcomes of their testimony. Financial recompense, when it is available, fails to make up for being socially isolated and ostracized. Yet many whistleblowers lose their jobs and have no compensation for their work. Perez does not directly discourage whistleblowing but does warn readers that coming forward can be disastrous and unproductive.

Whistleblowers may be "branded as snitches or troublemakers," (p. 1). People who come forward may have trouble finding another job because of the incident, as future employers would be wary of hiring someone who might hurt their business. Strife at home and with friends is also a possible consequence, and financial remuneration is rarely enough to offset the negative impacts of whistleblowing. Psychological issues like guilt can also lead to mental and physical health problems.