Blog Post # 6: Nonfiction Reading Response # 1

Yousef Abou Areda                                                                            Class 811

                                          Nonfiction Reading Response #1

The saying “An Eye For An Eye” is interpreted a little differently from person to person. For the most part, people think it means if someone takes something from you, you should take something of equal value from them. However when you start talking about the death penalty, a very controversial topic, things begin to change. To Kill or Not To Kill by Patricia Smith is a thought- provoking article about the death penalty, and whether it should be allowed in the United States. Recently, the death penalty in the US has greatly decreased, and the government is starting to wonder if the death penalty should be prohibited in all kinds of court cases. The death penalty is used only for the most heinous crimes, however, it’s a punishment that can’t be taken back. You can release someone from jail, but once you kill the criminal, there’s no going back. Given that some people indeed get blamed for crimes they didn’t commit, the death penalty may lead to unjustifiable deaths.  The author demonstrates the negative aftereffect of the death penalty, and why it shouldn’t be used as a from of punishment

            To begin, the author shows how the death penalty is fallacious by providing a first hand account of a victim of the death penalty. She describes how the victim was tortured while he was dying. This leads readers to feel sympathetic, and to see how inadequate the death penalty is. In the article, it states, “ Everyone watching the execution of Clayton Lockett last April instantly knew something was wrong. Lockett was strapped to a gurney in the death chamber of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary and had been given an injection when he started kicking, twitching, and then writhing and moaning in agony” (paragraph 1).  The author uses “loaded” words such as writhing, moaning, and agony leads readers to feeling sympathetic about the victim. This is one of the primary ways the author conveys her message. Most readers, like myself, felt bad for this man that had to be tortured in such a horrible way. The quote portrays the author’s bias that the death penalty is unjust, and is too ruthless of a punishment. The author goes on to explain how more victims such as Joseph R. Wood, which took nearly 640 gasps (2 hours) to die by the lethal injection, used to paralyze and stop the heart of victim (Paragraph 3). To sum up, the author uses first- hand accounts of victims who were tortured to convey that the death penalty is too gruesome of a punishment, and should be banned

            In addition, the Patricia Smith depicts that the death penalty should be banned due to significant problems such as racial bias, and victims that turned out to be innocent after they’d received the death penalty. She uses sources such as Barack Obama to get her point heard. In the article, it says, “ ‘We have seen significant problems- racial bias, uneven application of the death penalty… situations in which there were individuals on death row who were later discovered to have been innocent because of new evidence’ said President Barack Obama” (paragraph 13). Patricia Smith illustrates why capital punishment is defective. She shows that some of the people that receive the death penalty are innocent, and people can be killed just because of racial bias. She does this by quoting the most trustworthy leader in America, President Barack Obama. Obama is the leader of the country, and if he claims that capital punishment is wrong, then most people will go according to his judgment and concur with him. Another way the author shows that capital punishment is injustice is explaining that the death penalty is truly irreversible. In recent years, DNA shows that since 1973, 144  death-row inmates have been exonerated (paragraph 21). These are significant issues because they all illustrate how people have gotten the death penalty, were innocent, and the punishment can’t be reversed.

            Furthermore, Patricia Smith proves that capital punishment is immoral because by killing people, your contradicting your own argument because your punishing them by doing the same mistake they made. She conveys this by explaining protests that occurred outside the US Supreme Court in 2008. In the text, it says, “WHY DO WE KILL PEOPLE WHO KILL PEOPLE TO SHOW THAT KILLING PEOPLE IS WRONG” (Paragraph 14). The author wants the readers to know that capital punishment is wrong because were punishing people with the same crime they committed. There are different ways to punish, such as jail for life. It gives a new viewpoint to others that think that the death penalty should be allowed depending on the crime. All in all, it opens up other reader’s minds that are still confused about which side to side for.

            In retrospect, this article has changed my viewpoint of capital punishment. I used to go by the quote “An Eye For An Eye”, which I interpreted as if someone takes something from you, you should take something of equal value from them. I was like most people, and thought that if a person committed a really bad crime, they deserved the death penalty. After reading this article, I have decided that under no circumstance should the death penalty be a form of punishment. I think a lot of people in the world still don’t realize that by killing people that kill, its teaching others that killing is okay. People that are innocent get the death penalty all the time. The biggest issue with the death penalty is that it’s irreversible. On top of that, most people are tortured to death in the process. Overall, capital punishment is a very controversial topic that is open to many viewpoints.