I need help answering the below questions

link : https://www.coursehero.com/u/file/56166763/Stephen-R-C-Hicks-David-Kelley-Readings-for-Logical-Analysis-Second-Edition-W-W-Norton-Co/#doc/qa

Book: Readings for Logical Analysis by Hicks and Kelley (W. W. Norton and Co. 1998) 2nd Edition

case questions for Furman v. Georgia

we can use oyaz

1. In paragraphs 7 to 14, Brennan argues that the death penalty

is being inflicted arbitrarily. The following propositions are

the main premises and conclusions of his argument. Diagram

the argument.

- The use of the death penalty has declined since the 1930s

(in paragraph 8).

- The death penalty is not regularly and fairly applied

(in paragraph 9).

-The death penalty is not used in all cases where authorized

as a punishment (in paragraph 10).

-The use of the death penalty is rare (in paragraph 10).

- The death penalty is being inflicted arbitrarily (in paragraph

11).

- The rarity of the death

penalty is not because of informed

selectivity (paragraph 12).

- Crimes and criminals do not admit of a distinction that

can be drawn so finely as to explain the execution of such

a tiny sample of those eligible (paragraph 12).

-

Assumed premise: If the

rarity of the death penalty were

because of informed selectivity, then we should be able

to draw a fine distinction between the extreme crimes

and criminals for which the death penalty is used and

the less extreme crimes and criminals for which the

death penalty is not used.

2. Using question (1) as a model, diagram Brennan's arguments

for the conclusions that the death penalty is unusually

degrading

to human dignity (paragraphs 2 to 6); that society

disapproves of the infliction of the death penalty (paragraphs

14 to 19); and that the use of the death penalty is an excessive

punishment (paragraphs 20-28).

3. Many people believe that the death penalty is justified because

it serves as a deterrent for potential criminals while also

ensuring that convicted criminals will not commit additional

crimes. In paragraph 27, Brennan concludes that there is

"no

substantial reason to believe that the punishment of death, as

currently administered, is necessary for the protection of

society." Should the burden of proof be on Brennan to prove?

that society will be just as safe if the death penalty is not

used,

or should it be on Brennan's opponents to prove that the death

penalty makes society safer?