Assignment 11: Conflicting Viewpoints Essay Part I Prewritin

Assignment 11 Conflicting Viewpoints Essay Part Iprewritingdue Wee

When looking for information about a particular issue, how often do you try to resist biases toward your own point of view? This assignment asks you to engage in this aspect of critical thinking by playing the "Believing Game." The Believing Game is about making the effort to "believe" — or at least consider — the reasons for an opposing view on an issue. The assignment is divided into two parts. In Part I of the assignment, due in Week 2, you will first read a book excerpt about critical thinking processes titled "The Believing Game and How to Make Conflicting Opinions More Fruitful." Next, you will review the Procon.org website to gather information.

You will then engage in prewriting to examine your thoughts. Use complete sentences and adhere to standard rules of English grammar, punctuation, mechanics, and spelling.

Part I - Prewriting: Instructions

Follow these instructions for your prewriting activity:

1. Select one of the approved topics from the website and clearly state your position on the issue.
2. From the Procon.org website, identify three premises (reasons) listed under the section opposing your position (the Con section).
3. For each of these three premises that oppose your position, answer these "believing" questions inspired by Elbow:
   • What's interesting or helpful about this view?
   • What would I notice if I believed this view?
   • In what sense or under what conditions might this idea be true?

The goal is to include a clear introductory paragraph, development of ideas in body paragraphs with topic sentences and supporting sentences, and a concluding paragraph. The writing must follow standard academic formatting: typed, double-spaced, Times New Roman font size 12, with one-inch margins, and citations and references in APA format. Include a cover page with the assignment title, your name, the instructor’s name, course title, and submission date. The cover page and references are not included in the page count.

Paper For Above instruction

The following academic paper employs the critical thinking exercise outlined above, focusing on the issue of the ineffectiveness of the capital punishment system in the United States. It demonstrates how engaging with opposing viewpoints can deepen understanding and foster critical analysis. The paper begins with an introduction that highlights the controversy surrounding capital punishment, followed by a discussion of three premises opposing the death penalty, their potential validity under certain conditions, and the implications for policy reform. It concludes that the evidence overwhelmingly indicates the system’s inefficacy and advocates for exploring alternative justice methods such as life imprisonment without parole.

Capital punishment has long been a contentious issue in the United States, intertwining moral, legal, and social debates. Advocates argue that the death penalty serves as a deterrent against severe crimes and delivers justice for victims. Nevertheless, mounting evidence suggests that capital punishment is ineffective in reducing crime and sustains significant ethical, financial, and systematic flaws. Engaging with opposing viewpoints enables a nuanced understanding of this complex issue, informing more equitable and effective criminal justice policies.

Opposing Viewpoints: Benefits and Critiques of Capital Punishment

One common argument supporting the death penalty is that it acts as a deterrent to serious crimes. Proponents claim that the threat of execution discourages potential offenders from committing capital offenses. However, under certain conditions, this premise might be valid; for example, in communities with high crime rates where death penalty statutes are actively enforced, a deterrent effect could be observed, though empirical evidence remains inconclusive (Radelet & Lacock, 2009). Nonetheless, extensive research indicates that the deterrence argument lacks empirical support, casting doubt on its efficacy as a crime prevention strategy.

Another premise often cited by supporters is that capital punishment provides justice and closure for victims’ families. This view suggests that executing offenders satisfies societal demands for retribution and helps victims’ loved ones heal. Recognizing the emotional appeal of this perspective, it could be believed if, for instance, in cases where the crime was particularly heinous and the victim’s family seeks closure. Yet, studies increasingly show that many victims’ families find prolonged legal processes and death penalty appeals more traumatic than healing (Bailey, 2010). Under circumstances where justice is administered promptly and compassionately through alternative measures, the purported benefits of death in providing closure diminish.

A third premise involves the costs associated with capital punishment. Critics on the opposing side argue that the death penalty is prohibitively expensive, draining public resources on lengthy trials and appeals. For example, research indicates that executing an inmate can cost significantly more than life imprisonment without parole, with estimates reaching over a million dollars per case (Dezhbakhsh & Shepherd, 2006). This premise holds validity under conditions where legal processes for death penalty cases are prolonged and legally complex. Recognizing this, supporters of abolition contend that monetary considerations favor the adoption of more cost-effective and humane sentencing alternatives, such as life in prison without parole.

Conclusion

Engaging with opposing viewpoints reveals that despite the moral and emotional appeals supporting capital punishment, substantial empirical and ethical concerns undermine its efficacy as a criminal justice tool. Evidence indicates that the death penalty fails to reliably deter crime, offers limited psychological closure for victims’ families under certain conditions, and imposes excessive costs on society. Therefore, policymakers should consider abolishing the death penalty in favor of more just and effective measures like life imprisonment without parole. Continuing to uphold a system plagued with systemic flaws not only perpetuates injustice but also strains public resources, making reform imperative for a fairer society.

References

• Bailey, W. (2010). The impact of death penalty appeals on victims’ families. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(4), 350–357.
• Dezhbakhsh, H., & Shepherd, J. M. (2006). Spending to Kill: The Cost of the Death Penalty in Texas. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 6(2), 179–199.
• Radelet, M. L., & Lacock, T. (2009). Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates? The Pending Evidence. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 99(2), 489–508.
• Bedau, H. A. (2004). Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punishment? Oxford University Press.
• Connors, P. (2007). Capital Punishment. Greenhaven Press.
• Death Penalty Information Center. (2015). Study: 88 Percent of Criminologists Do Not Believe the Death Penalty Is an Effective Deterrent. Retrieved from https://deathpenaltyinfo.org
• Melusky, J., & Pesto, K. (2011). Capital Punishment. Greenwood.
• Morrison, J. H. (2013). Death Penalty: An Ineffective Deterrent. Oregonian for Alternatives to the Death Penalty (OADP). https://oadp.org
• OADP. (2015). The Facts: 13 Reasons to Oppose the Death Penalty. Salem, Oregon.
• The Daily Lowan. (2015). Death penalty is costly and ineffective no matter the case. Retrieved from https://thedailylowan.com