Alan Keyes vs Barack Obama Debate on the Death Penalty - Case Study Example

In response to a question from Carlos Hernandez, Barrack Obama and Alan Keyes express their standpoints on the death penalty along with abortion. Despite their different points of view on whether abortion and the death penalty are synonymous in that both entail taking away human life, they both come to a conclusion that the death penalty may be necessary for certain circumstances.

            Keyes's premise is that abortion and capital punishment, though both involve taking human life are at different levels of scale of morality. He is categorical that abortion is intrinsically and objectively wrong and sinful, but capital punishment is subject to prudential judgment, and it is not necessarily a violation of moral right. Keyes, in what can be seen as a contradiction of his earlier statement that the death penalty is not intrinsically a violation of moral right, argues that putting a boundary between loss of life through abortion (innocent life) and loss of life through capital punishment (guilty life) is both a violation of moral cannon and destruction of the important basis of human law and this is tantamount to gross disrespect to human life.

            The premise of Mr. Obama on the death penalty is outright. He states that the death penalty is essential in certain situations such as terrorism, heinous crimes, and violence against children. In such situations, Mr. Obama advocates the death penalty but its application ought to be fair and uniform. He also buys Keyes argument that the death penalty and abortion are two separate issues.

            I believe Mr. Obama makes a more valid argument than Keyes. Mr. Obamas Premise is clear, that the death penalty is expedient in some circumstances, and his conclusion is that it ought to be applied fairly and uniformly. I agree with Mr. Keyes's argument, though, partially. From his argument, it’s clear that he also appreciates the death penalty in some circumstances, same as Mr. Obama. However, I find his conclusion fallacious when he says that putting a distinction between death through abortion and death in form of capital punishment amounts to total disrespect of human life. In my opinion, the distinction between innocent life and guilty life is warranted. If Mr. Keyes agrees that capital punishment is not necessarily wrong as circumstances might dictate, then I do not see any problem with putting a boundary between innocent life and guilty life. I agree with both leaders' assertions that the death penalty and abortion are two matters of different weights as far as morality is concerned.