Hugo Adam Bedau (Against) Philosopher The editor effectively displays his position on the death penalty, by announcing it in his very first sentence that “he strongly opposes the death penalty no matter what the crime or criminal. “(loc367) The editor effectively demonstrates his knowledge on capital punishment by recapping the history behind degrees of murder. (loc386) In Pennsylvania 1793, the state divided murder into two categories, first and second degree murder, and to confine the punishment of death to offenders convicted of murder in the first degree.
First degree murder is defined to include both premeditated murder and felony murder, that is, any killing in the course. (Loc. 388) In America the creation of degrees of murder and the limitation of a death sentence to offenders guilty of first-degree murder amounted to a recognition that not all murderers are equally bad, dangerous, and irredeemable. The editor effectively demonstrates his expert knowledge on capital punishment subject by recapping the history of aggravating factors and how that now takes a big part in the death sentence.
The conviction of first degree murder is no longer enough to sentences a person to death. The defendant and the crime must also exhibit so-called “aggravating circumstances” in order to be “death eligible” The law now demands that a Jury find at least one aggravating factor to sentence someone to death. (loc401) The editor effectively proves his expert knowledge on lethal injection as he talks about the lethal injection now dominating all other methods of execution, because there is no bodily mutilation, no disfgurement, no delay, no odor, and apparently no ain.
An opponent of the death penalty can no longer argue that the death penalty is unconstitutional because it is cruel and unusual punishment. The editor effectively expresses his professional opinion stating that “There is doubt that widespread adoption of lethal injection in The United States and because of this method of execution during the past quarter century has helped preserve and protect the death penalty. The editor effectively points out his point of view on death sentence procedures in particular Texas.
In Texas the Jury must base the sentence on the probability that “the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society. ” The author goes on by mocking the idea by saying, “How a Jury is able to make such predictions, on which their choice of punishment depends, is a mystery. ” The editor effectively points out his point of view on the capital punishment procedures in particular Florida.
Florida is one of a few states in the United States where Jurys sentencing decision is merely but an dvisory; and the trial Judge is empowered to decide the sentence by reference to whatever considerations he or she deems appropriate regardless of whether they are defined by statutes as aggravating circumstances. The editor effectively point out that from his personal knowledge and experience, that the abolishment of capital punishment as a natation is inconceivable without a change of heart, mind, and most importantly personnel in the court.
One of which not many studies have been conducted on. Families of murder victims are among the most fervent supporters of the death penalty. They often use the press and political channels to agitate for the serious thought to whether families are helped or harmed by the process, especially when it is long delayed. Does watching the perpetrator die help the families reach closure, or does the frustrated hope of execution in the face of endless appeals keep psychological wounds open, sometimes for decades? “(pg. ) Louis P. PoJman (For) Philosopher