After analyzing Ernest Van Den Haag’s case study ‘In Defense of the Death Penalty’, and Hugo A. Bedau’s ‘The Case Against the Death Penalty’, I have conflicting feelings contradict my own analysis. Ernest Van Den Haag breaks down the pros and cons of the death penalty and uses retributivism to justify death penalty and capital punishment, while Hugo A. Bedau’s article is about the inconsistency in capital punishment and in particular on the abolition of practice. Each article states key positions that make my feelings conflicted between both sides, Bedau backs up that the majority of people persecuted fight through several trails after a long period incarcerated with life sentenced to death end up guilty. (Bedau, 243) Van Den Haag key positions reflect in the retributivist statement, “eye for an eye”. (Van Den Haag, 231) I believe in both sides, and in my own opinion there is no solution for middle ground.
In Van Den Haag’s article the argument in ‘Miscarriages of Justice’ in a way corresponds to Bedau’s article. Van Den Haag states a study made by Hugo A. Bedau and Michael Radelet found 7,000 people were executed in the United States and 25 were innocent. Van Den Haag believes even though it is a misfortune for the guilty lives lost due to false accusations in their case, does not by far compare to the innocent lives they have saved from incarcerating all the 6,975 who were a threat to society and already harmed innocent people. (Van Den Haag, 233) In Bedau’s article the argument in ‘Capital Punishment Is Irreversible’ research shows that in 1990 four cases each year people that are convicted of murder are innocent. He describes many cases that prove the innocent people are rescued before their death sentence, he believes someone’s life can be taken away but not given back. (Bedau, 243) Overall I find Van Den Haag most convincing because even though there were 25 innocent people executed in the study, it does not compare to the lives killed by the