When you think of an extreme crime you think of murder. When you think of an extreme punishment you think of the death penalty. Crimes of such severity sometimes deserve an equal punishment and we as a society accept this. However, Supreme Court Justice William Brennan argues that society seriously questions the appropriateness of the death penalty. It is true that over the years since the death penalty was first implemented it has undergone some changes but this does not suggest that we believe that the death penalty is unacceptable.Justice Brennan states his argument as follows:1)If there has been a successive restriction of the death penalty, then society seriously questions the appropriateness of the death penalty today. (implied)2)There has been a successive restriction of the death penalty.(a) Methods of inflicting the death penalty have changed, as have circumstances surrounding executions.(b) Fewer crimes have death penalty, so it is more rarely inflicted. 3) Therefore, society seriously questions the appropriateness of the death penalty today.The order and logic in which he presents his argument is quite reasonable. However, I believe that it is not a sound argument. His first premise implies that because the death penalty has been restricted to more specific circumstances that we think it is unacceptable. This is not true by any means. The death penalty has been restricted to spare those who have committed crimes that are not comparable to murder or rape. In earlier times one could be executed for something as petty as stealing. This is obviously not deserving of the death penalty. The laws were changed when society felt that the punishment did not fit the crime. The second premise suggests that because the methods of inflicting death have changed that we question its appropriateness. The methods have changed, this is true, but it is still being inflicted. The methods have c...
