Capital Punishment: Society's Self Defense by Amber Young is an essay that agrees with capital punishment, citing reasons such as self-defense, lack of care in preservation of life, freedom is more important than freedom itself and the possibility of a guilty person being freed rather than an innocent person being convicted. All the reasons are given to strengthen the thesis of the essay: “Just as a person is justified in using deadly force to defend himself from a potential murderer, so too does society have the right to use deadly force to defend itself and its citizens by those who demonstrate a strong propensity to kill." The statement in this essay attempts to state that just as a person is able to defend himself with deadly force against a criminal such as a murderer, a nation should be able to use deadly force such as the death penalty and punishment capital to get rid of first degree murderers like Ted Bundy who pose a threat to society with the chaos they cause. The statement is qualified by the phrase “whenever the opportunity and urgency arises.” The author sees no mercy for first degree murderers who take the lives of others, therefore, whenever a first degree murderer is convicted, it should be right for him or her to receive the capital punishment. The exception offered to the author's assertion is that "the burden of proof in a criminal case is on the government and guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt." This goes on to state that the court rarely prosecutes those who are innocent, and innocents who are wrongfully prosecuted without guilt being proven beyond a reasonable doubt are an exception to the requirement. The rest of this article will focus on the reasons, what makes them valid and relevant, the evidence supporting the reasons, as well as the objections and rebuttals to these reasons. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay According to the author, “the most legitimate and strongest reason for capital punishment is not punishment, retribution, or deterrence, but simply society's right to self-defense.” What makes this reason relevant to the claim is that the claim compares a person defending themselves from a murderer with deadly force to a nation or society defending itself from a murderer with capital punishment, and overall makes capital punishment seem like some sort of self-defense. defense. However, the reason is not necessarily good. Although a person can defend himself from a killer using deadly force, he is only one person and does not have many other options society has myriad resources, institutions, personnel, and authorities that it can use to spare lives and ensure that first-degree murderers like Ted Bundy remain imprisoned for life. As the author stated, “many prisoners would rather die than languish in prison." If this is true, then it is more beneficial for a prisoner to learn his lesson through imprisonment and rehabilitation than to have his life taken at the mercy of someone else. The evidence provided by the author is that “many people will readily or reluctantly admit their willingness to use deadly force to protect themselves or their families from a killer,” which once again leads to the objection of people and nations which aren't really comparable when it comes to self-defense. Furthermore, the author can provide the rebuttal: “Society has the right to expect and demand that its government forever ward off thosepeople who have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to move around society, even on a limited basis, without commuting chaos. First-degree murderers, like Bundy, who hunt down and kill their victims without premeditation and malice, must be permanently removed from society as a matter of self-defense.” The second reason given by the author is that "few in our society do so to the point of believing that life is sacrosanct, that its preservation is necessary above all else." The author believes that society does not consider the preservation of life significant and gives examples such as soldiers giving their lives for freedom, prisoners preferring death to life in prison, and thousands of people dying in traffic accidents. This reason attempts to justify the statement by stating that few in today's society care about the preservation of life, implying that there would be no one who would truly care if first-degree murderers were executed. However, again, that's not necessarily a good reason. Although it is stated here that the preservation of life is not too important a thing in society, it is precisely because of the love and care that society has for life and its preservation that there is controversy and opposing sides on capital punishment . If more credible resources and statistics were provided to support this reason, it would be a good reason. The third reason given by the author: “In our society, which was literally founded and supported on the principle that freedom is more important than life, the argument that it is somehow less cruel and more civilized to deprive someone of freedom for the rest of his life or his life rather than ending that life seems empty.” This motif relates to the statement because it states that freedom is more meaningful than life and establishes the relationship by saying that if given the choice, prisoners would choose death over life in prison. Unfortunately, this is another reason that is not good. Although the author claims that our society was literally founded on the principle that liberty is more important than life, she repeatedly contradicts herself by also stating that “the American Constitution places neither life nor liberty with a higher value than the other” . Some of the evidence and rebuttals provided by the author for this reason are: "Patrick Henry, who would later be instrumental in adopting the Bill of Rights into the United States Constitution, is most famous for his provocative American revolutionary statement 'Not I know what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” Although Patrick Henry was a significant and notable historical figure, his stance on freedom and the prisoners of our present society, as well as the first degree murderers like Ted Bundy's position on freedom and independence, are completely different. When Patrick Henry spoke these words he surely did not imagine that today's prisoners like Ted Bundy would gain freedom over death. Keep in mind: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a custom essay The final reason The claim made by the author is that “in our system the chances of a guilty person being freed are many times greater than that of a innocent person be convicted." This reason attempts to strengthen the claim by implying that if a person is found guilty, since it is so difficult to convict them, then they must most likely be guilty, thus deserving whatever punishment comes their way. A person who is convicted in the United States must pass.