Introduction
The death penalty has always been a hot topic for debate when it comes to legal permissibility as a punishment. The target audience for the given argumentative analysis is policymakers and government officials, which implies there is some knowledge to be expected. Draft thesis: The death penalty, when viewed under the retributive justice framework and as a part of the existing justice system, is an effective deterrent and punishment measure irrespective of impractical and irrelevant restorative justice claims.
Body
Claim 1
Warrant: The current justice system in the U.S. and the world, in general, is primarily retributive, which is why arguments from a restorative framework are irrelevant and impractical.
Data: “Despite the retributive focus of our criminal justice system today, the United States has some foundation in parsimonious practices” (Atkinson, 2018, para. 7).
Claim 2
Warrant: Even if the principles of restorative justice are to be considered, the death penalty is the ultimate form of punishment reserved for cases where no restoration is possible, such as the loss of many lives.
Data: The majority of victims of severe atrocities want to have an option of ultimate punishment imposed on the convict (Adinkrah & Clemens, 2018).
Claim 3
Warrant: The death penalty is an effective deterrent for capital crimes, even if it is not as potent against small cases of ideological crimes, such as radical religious fundamentalists.
Data: Although the data on the subject is not clear and evident, there is an agreement that it has a deterrent effect ranging from a small to a large percentage if not looked at in isolation (Death Penalty Information Center, 2022).
Counterclaim
One might argue that “even when the perpetrator is executed, it is not as though the pain of losing a loved one will suddenly dissipate” (The Crimson Editorial Board, 2022, para. 5). The editorial gets the existing justice wrong by looking at it from restorative perspective, which is not convincing due its irrelevance. The author uses the Straw Man logical fallacy by arguing about easing the pain, which is not the point or purpose of retributive justice. A better and more complete as well as more effective position on the issue is to look at the death penalty within the retributive framework and its deterrent capabilities as an extension of the justice system. The evidence provided in the above claims supports such a form of punishment since they look at the measure as a part of a larger existing framework rather than imposing abstract and irrelevant principles.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the death penalty is an effective deterrent and punishment measure irrespective of irrelevant restorative justice claims when viewed under the retributive justice framework and as a part of the existing justice system. The readers should think about the plausibility and compatibility of capital punishment in accordance with the principles of retributive justice. In addition, policies should reflect the realities of how the current U.S. justice process functions. The claims raised in the given analysis are important because they seek to pragmatically refocus the points of the debate on what is practical and relevant. Many arguments of the opposition to the death penalty seem to forget that the existing justice system is not restorative for the most part, which makes them vulnerable to the Straw Man logical fallacies.
References
Adinkrah, M., & Clemens, W. M. (2018). To reinstate or to not reinstate? An exploratory study of student perspectives on the death penalty in Michigan. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(1), 229-252. Web.
Atkinson, D. V. (2018). A revolution of values in the U.S. criminal justice system. Center for American Progress. Web.
Death Penalty Information Center. (2022). Deterrence. Web.
The Crimson Editorial Board. (2022). The death penalty is wrong. Every single time. The Harvard Crimson. Web.