Trauma Service Business Plan
September 24, 2013.
WHICH WAY, DEATH PENALTY OR LIFE IMPRISONMENT FOR MURDER CONVICTEES?
This analytical essay implores two antagonistic articles on the best way of punishing those that have been found culpable of murder charges. Tough the two writers are in agreement that orchestrators of capital offences ought to be punished severely, they however fail to agree on the best penalty that should be meted on these criminals. The first article entitled ‘It is time that the death penalty was scrapped from the penal code’ appeared in the ‘New Vision’ of East Africa whereas the second article with the heading, ‘If you don’t respect other peoples’ lives, why should yours be respected?’ is in the ‘Daily Tribune’ of the United Kingdom (Knox, 2009).
It is very apparent that that the author of the first article has among other aims of persuading different governments to completely discard what he calls ‘an out dated and rudimentary’ form of justice when it comes to matters of punishing perpetrators of murder and other heinous crimes. He argues, ‘If we execute a criminal whose passion is to kill, then where is the difference between the said killer and we that are actually killing in the name of justice? This author continues to quip that the society must learn to treat those people that it perceives to be social misfits in accordance with what it believes in and not what these criminals deserve. In this case, the society believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, such a society is bound to respect human life regardless to when and whom this general principle is put to an extreme test.
On the contrary, the writer of the second article has an intention of making the society to understand and see the real need and urgency of retaining and deploying death sentences whenever need arises. To him, death punishment is a necessity rather than a choice when confronted with criminals who have absolutely no regard for the sanctity of human life. For instance, through his heading, he seems to propagate the common notion that ‘an eye for an eye’ when dealing with murder convicts. He continues to argue that sparing the lives of such criminals is not only unfair, but also blunt legitimization of immoral and despicable acts.
The two authors have used different language aspects when delivering their messages. The author of the first article has deployed a number of stylistic features so that he can convince his readers. For example, he uses repetition where some phrases like ‘I believe and it’s our moral obligation’ have been repeated. These language aspects have been used to give his message more weight. He also deploys biblical connotations like ‘doubting Thomases’ and ‘Abrahamic epoch’ this is to underlay the message that there ought to be a paradigm shift on how criminals are handled. In addition to these, he also uses an idiomatic expression like, ‘water under the bridge’.
In his strong quest of convincing his readers on why death sentence is a necessity in a society that is witnessing ever increasing homicide cases and other capital offences, the writer makes use of mockery like when he asserts,’ those advocating for removal of death penalty are living in a world of their own’ he continues to say that the society must be told ‘how the hog ate the cabbage.’ This is an idiomatic expression which means that the society, especially those people that are objected to death sentences, must be told the truth about the relationship between crime and the penalty to those perpetrating these crimes without hiding anything. In addition to this, he uses a simile such as, putting our heads in the sand like the proverbial ostrich’. To him, the society must be in touch with the realities of the time rather than cheap pretence.
Even though there is a stark difference on how the two writers have used language to attain their aims, however there are a number of similar language aspects between them. For instance, the two authors have both used the first person narrative in their works. The use of ‘I’ is across the two essays. Also, the author of the second article, just like the first, has deployed some element of biblical connotation like, ‘..turning the other cheek..” (Sales, 2008).
The world is ridden with a series of murder cases. To reverse this trend, there ought to be a consistent approach when meting any form of justice to those found responsible of commission of these crimes. There are those that believe that death sentence is a gross violation of human rights whereas others have an opinion that whoever kills by the sword shall be killed by the same sword. To deter crimes of this magnitude, there must be a sober debate on the best way forward on how murder convicts are treated
Knox, M. (20 March 2009). ‘Former judge Einfeld gets at least two years jail…all for lying for a
$77 traffic fine’. Sydney Morning Herald (Fairfax Media). Retrieved 20 March 2009.
Sales, L. (29 April 2008). ‘Former prosecutor says he wouldn’t have charged Hicks’. Australian
Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 29 April 2008.