Michael Miller T/Th 11:00am Eng 103 Homework for 2/14 579-80 1.

) If the author didnt go on to explain that the analogy is about the injustice and not the death penalty itself, then it would have been invalid. But considering if we dont keep trying ways to convict these offenders effectively, then people will continue to commit these crimes. Just as if we dont search for a cure, cancer will consume more and more lives. He makes a good point because people who know they will die if they murder anyone else tend to think twice about killing others. 4.) I think that he needs to explain more about the discriminatory manner that the death penalty is applied. It is his least backed up idea and he does not give any examples like he does in other reasons. His strongest point for me is the barbaric nature of death penalty. His analogy between cancer and injustice really made me think about it and as I thought I realized that these crimes need to have consequences that make people take them serious. Murder is a terrible crime and we must punish those who commit it. I think he slightly neglects the idea of wasted money that is being used on the people waiting to be executed. Pg 584 2.)People who are wrongly accused because of lack of evidence shouldnt be subjected to death. If we are killing innocent people, how is our system any better than the murderers themselves? One argues that the death penalty in itself isnt helping society because its killing people too. 627 5.) Prejean does not have to remain consistent and reject things like solitary confinement, flogging, and life in prison. Death is the ultimate punishment, there is no lesson learned from it because the person is dead. With the other forms of punishment they are implied to teach a lesson and prevent the same mistake from happening again. Before considering punishing someone, it is important to realize thatpunishment is to be measured out according to the seriousness of the offence (Prejean 624). However, there should be a limit in to which punishment can be measured. Death is the ultimate punishment, but is it the best way to eliminate the problem? I think that other punishments are more morally correct, and those morals should be important within the society. An eye for an eye to me is not the best option. 632 5.) The costs that the author describes are important but not necessarily the most important. The obvious and most important one for me is the waste of money on lawyers, judges, and district attorneys. Each death penalty case costs more than other normal cases because the punishment is so much more intense. People want to fight the sentence, and lawyers look for new ways to prove

innocence. It is a slippery slope and the moral issues that go along with it will always spark new controversy. This leads to millions and millions of dollars being wasted on going back and forth between if it is okay and if it is not okay. The burden on the courts is important but there are many less important issues that have wasted the courts time for just as long. The lack of finality is another important cost because trials end up taking so long to finalize that in the end the point is lost. Waiting 15 years for your family members murderer to get sentenced doesnt make you think justice has been served.