This paper analyzes Edward I. Koch's essay "Death and Justice" and Anna Quindlen's essay "Execution," two opposing yet surprisingly compatible perspectives on capital punishment. The paper examines Koch's rhetorical strategies — including his use of questions to engage readers and his systematic rebuttal of anti-death penalty arguments — and contrasts them with Quindlen's conviction that execution fails as meaningful retribution. Despite their opposing conclusions, the paper argues that Koch and Quindlen share more common ground than their surface disagreement suggests, differing primarily in what form of punishment they believe justice demands.
In "Death and Justice," former New York City Mayor Edward I. Koch defends his beliefs and convictions regarding capital punishment and discusses why it remains such a volatile issue in America. The article presents Koch's opinions as he refutes some of the most popular arguments made against capital punishment, making the essay a sustained and methodical defense of the death penalty.
Koch ends his second paragraph with a question because he wants the reader to think carefully about his statement. If he had simply made a declarative statement, the reader might not stop to ponder what he had said; however, the question format creates a natural break in the reading and prompts the reader to pause and reflect. Clearly, Koch saw this as a crucial way to begin his essay. He wanted his readers to look inward, examining their own beliefs and prejudices about capital punishment. Ending this paragraph with a question is an effective technique for encouraging readers to stop, perhaps reread the beginning of the essay, and think more carefully about what they have read before moving on.
In paragraph eight, Koch establishes that the person he is discussing is a vocal and well-known opponent of capital punishment. Early in the paragraph, he calls Adam Bedau "one of the most implacable foes of capital punishment in this country" (Koch 562). Koch signals from the outset that he intends to dispute Bedau's thoughts and ideas, creating a sentence that makes clear he does not agree with Bedau and will continue to challenge him throughout the paragraph. The claim that innocent people may be executed — a central concern for Bedau — is quickly refuted when Koch notes, "If government functioned only when the possibility of error didn't exist, government wouldn't function at all" (Koch 562). Koch sets up Bedau's argument effectively and then dismantles it with a logical and nearly irrefutable counter-claim.
Koch devotes most of his essay to refuting the opposition's arguments because he believes they are either wrong or misguided, and he holds strong convictions that directly counteract what opponents assert. Koch feels as passionately about capital punishment's value as his opponents feel against it, and his arguments in favor of it are among the strongest in the essay. He believes it is the responsibility of government to maintain and utilize the capital punishment system, and he methodically explains why, while simultaneously arguing against the opposition's position. That is the essential purpose of an argumentative essay, and Koch proves his points effectively and repeatedly.
Anna Quindlen's essay "Execution" presents a contrasting view. She argues that the death penalty is not the appropriate form of punishment because, in effect, it "stoops" to the level of the criminal. More significantly, she contends that it fails to serve as true retribution for the most horrific murders. She recounts the feelings of one parent whose child was murdered: "What he wants is for something as horrifying as what happened to his child to happen to Ted Bundy. And that is impossible" (Quindlen 566). Quindlen's essay captures what many people feel about the death penalty — that it should constitute genuine retribution for a horrible crime. While Koch endorses the death penalty partly for this reason, Quindlen explains why retribution of that kind can never truly be achieved and why the death penalty does not deter hardened criminals.
Anna Quindlen's views are, in some respects, not so different from Koch's, despite her opposition to the death penalty. She and Koch hold different positions on capital punishment, but ultimately several of their underlying arguments are quite close, and their core beliefs seem more compatible than their opposing conclusions might suggest. Quindlen simply wants prisoners to pay a different price for their crimes than Koch does. The two would likely never reach agreement in direct conversation, but their equally eloquent essays reveal that they have more in common than they might expect, and their opinions are not as far apart as they initially appear.
Koch, Edward I. "Death and Justice." Pages 560–563.
"Surprising common ground between opposing essayists"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.