To the editor:

Brian Coovert argues in support of the death penalty in his column “Death penalty where it belongs.”

I often do not like the strategy writers use to form their arguments.

I believe Coovert did an excellent job with a very controversial topic. He did not try to bully the reader into seeing the issue from his viewpoint.

He presented the issue in a fair and unbiased manner.

I agree with Coovert and feel the death penalty has a place in our society.

Coovert makes his position known concerning the death penalty early in the article stating he supports the philosophy of an eye for an eye.

Then, instead of jumping in with numerous facts and reasons why his beliefs are right he goes on to address some of the arguments against the death penalty such as the violation of human rights and the possibility of sending innocent people to their death.

Concerning the issue of human rights Coovert cannot see why prisoners should have rights. He realizes the idea of executing prisoners is unpleasant but individuals on death row committed horrible crimes against innocent people.

If one wants to address the issue of human rights maybe people should look at the rights the prisoners on death row robbed from their victims.

The victims won’t have to worry about their rights being violated since they would be dead. Meanwhile, the victim’s family is left trying to pick up the pieces and deal with a nightmare.

I find it ridiculous to hear people argue for prisoner’s rights. Whatever happened to the idea that one should think about the consequences of his or her actions before they act?

If the people in prison thought about this maybe they wouldn’t be where they are.

Another major issue brought up against the death penalty which Coovert addresses is the possibility of an innocent person being executed.

I feel Coovert shows remarkable maturity by acknowledging the criminal justice system is not perfect and mistakes have been made despite including research from Yale stating 85 people have been exonerated from death row.

I agree nothing is as valuable as human life and cases of this nature need to be handled with extreme caution.

However, Coovert feels the death penalty will benefit from improved DNA testing by alleviating people’s fear of executing an innocent person. Many of the cases in which innocent people were executed happened before DNA technology.

Other individuals on death row have even been cleared because of DNA testing.

Clearly DNA testing is valuable and with the advancement of technology there will be virtually no disputing the innocence or guilt of an individual.

Coovert argues his point remarkably well while staying in a very reasonable and professional manner. This shows he is not hostile and just running his mouth about this issue. Coovert’s statistical information and references to well known people show he researched the subject he writes about and it adds to his credibility as a writer.

Also, the fact that Coovert brought up key points from both sides of the issue show he is not trying to coax the reader into supporting his side.

He makes valid points and backs them up with reasoning, which again shows he took time to think about what he wrote.

Overall, I feel Coovert did an excellent job forming a very well written argument and I applaud him for that.

Marcus Jones

Freshman

Horticulture