Dear Anna Quindlen,

I have read your essay “Execution” concerning the death penalty and whether or

not it should be permitted in our legal system, and although your essay is well written and

thoroughly supported I have a few concerns with your statements. You have addressed numerous

controversial topics and efficiently refuted multiple claims; however, there are apparent

confutations that go against your argument. The death penalty is necessary in society to attempt Commented [1]: Semi Colon.

to remove the sources of violence and theft in our country and to compel people through fear not

to commit crimes.

One of the key points in your essay is the idea that the death penalty’s only

purpose is for retribution (perhaps more specifically explained as the satisfying of indignant

anger) instead of viewing it as a way to eliminate a direct root of unwarranted brutality. Those

who have committed extreme felonies mercilessly do compel others to seek retribution for those

who have been wrongly assaulted, but there is more to the death penalty than emotionally driven

justice. The death penalty can be used, and should primarily be used, to ensure the safety of the

citizens of the United States, especially for those who are unable to defend themselves against

their aggressors. By killing those who have committed crimes multiple times and show no signs

of guilt or room to better themselves, a safer environment is created for the people. Prisons may

be used to hold criminals instead of enacting the death penalty on them, but at what cost? Prison

is considered perhaps one of the most vile places on this earth, and the increasing overpopulation

and constant demand for more prisons to be built is steadily creating a substantial dent in the

economy. It is arguable that, in some ways, enacting the death penalty on someone instead of

forcing them to live through a life sentence in prison is a twisted form of generosity.
 Fear is an emotion that has been commonly used to sway crowds of people one

way or another, and is one of the most effective persuasion tactics to date. By having the death

penalty as an incentive not to commit any heinous crimes, people will feel terrified of the

consequences laid out for them. Nearly all humans fear death: The unknown territory could hold

an immeasurable amount of horrors. Ted Bundy, a man who had raped, kidnapped, and assaulted

over thirty girls was given the death penalty back in 1989. In the trials leading up to his

execution, he repeatedly made up faulty excuses for the sake of trying to save his own life. Even

him, a renowned inhumane killer, feared death enough to try to do everything in his power to

prevent it. Criminals, and potential criminals, would be terrified enough of the death penalty to

stop themselves from committing crimes that could end up with them being sentenced to death.

Numerous people may argue that enacting the death penalty on a criminal is inhumane and falls

under the “cruel and unusual punishment” category of the United States Constitution, but often

times the “cruel and unusual punishment” is a method of simply injecting a drug into the

criminal’s bloodstream and having them die peacefully in their sleep. The criminal feels

relatively little to no pain as they pass on, and death is near instant.

Although I did not directly address a few of the topics you had discussed in your

essay, I hope I provided an adequate amount of information for you to see my side of the death

penalty and how it could benefit the United States as a whole. Having the death penalty as a

viable option for felons could save thousands of lives, if not more, at the cost of a few lives that

have taken countless others. I hope you take my words into consideration.

Respectfully,

Kristina Daily