Essay on Article Analysis: O'Sullivan's View of the Death Penalty

The “Does the death penalty bring closure to a victim’s family?” article shares how this family believes that the death penalty does not necessarily bring closure, but it brought relief. I feel that providing two different perspectives will cause the audience to be open to my findings and have questions that I will later address in the paper. At the end of the introduction, I will share my ethos on the topic. While I do not have a lot of ethos I can share that I, like the readers, want to understand the topic more as I am now a tax payer and if the U.S. should still use this form of

Often, when a criminal is sentenced to the death penalty for committing a murder, people begin to question the legality and morality of it, and try to defend or attack it. One of the first few things that come to mind when people try to defend the death penalty is the statement, “an eye for an eye,” or the principle of lex talionis, meaning we treat people the way they have treated others (Textbook, 538). Although this argument is well-backed up, it does not always prove to be the best principle when determining the type of punishment, one deserves. Stephen Nathanson, an abolitionist to the death penalty, discusses this idea in his article “An Eye for and Eye,” specifically within his argument stating that equality retributivism does not justify the death penalty and that it should be rejected (Textbook, 539). Equality retributivism, which is the idea that we penalize criminals with punishments that are equal to their crimes, serves as a great principle for some crimes but not all. I find this statement, along with Nathanson’s argument, to be true because not all crimes can have a punishment equal to it. Throughout this paper, I will discuss Nathanson’s argument, some objections raised, and lastly, whether the objection succeeds or not.

In “The Death Penalty” (1985), David Bruck argues that the death penalty is injustice and that it is fury rather than justice that compels others to “demand that murderers be punished” by death. Bruck relies on varies cases of death row inmates to persuade the readers against capital punishment. His purpose is to persuade readers against the death penalty in order for them to realize that it is inhuman, irrational, and that “neither justice nor self-preservation demands that we kill men whom we have already imprisoned.” Bruck does not employ an array of devices but he does employ some such as juxtaposition, rhetorical questions, and appeals to strengthen his argument. He establishes an informal relationship with his audience of

Why is the death penalty used as a means of punishment for crime? Is this just a way to solve the nations growing problem of overcrowded prisons, or is justice really being served? Why do some view the taking of a life morally correct? These questions are discussed and debated upon in every state and national legislature throughout the country. Advantages and disadvantages for the death penalty exist, and many members of the United States, and individual State governments, have differing opinions. Yet it seems that the stronger arguments, and evidence such as cost effectiveness, should lead the common citizen to the opposition of Capital Punishment.

The debate on whether or not the death penalty should be abolished has been ongoing for quite a long period of time. While there are those who believe that the death penalty does not serve its intended purpose, proponents of the same are convinced that the relevance of the same cannot be overstated and hence it should not be abolished. In this text, I examine the arguments for and against the death penalty.

He maintains his stand on capital punishment even though he voices his concerns. The reader is easily able to see that he remains in favor of the death penalty as well as easily able to see why. His choice of words paired with the examples given make his point of view more understandable all while keeping a tone that makes the reader feel more comfortable while addressing such a grim subject. The author is able to use these rhetorical strategies in such a way, not only does he successfully open the reader to his opinion, he makes them think more about their own stand on the subject that is full of

The topic of death penalty is highly controversial and debated on in American society. The death penalty has put many convicted murderers and criminals on the government. Using death sentence as a punishment for extreme crimes portrays America in a negative way. Although the death penalty brings justice to violent criminals, I argue that the death penalty is immoral and financially crippling the United States.

Muhlhausen clearly states that capital punishment is non-discriminatory and helps prevent murders; however, it would be extremely beneficial for him to add one more premise to increase support of his stance. If Muhlhausen were to include another reason followed by further support, it would make it even more difficult for the opposition to refute his position. Also, in order to make a variety of well-rounded appeals, it would be in Muhlhausen’s best interest to place a few strong cases of pathos. For example, he could consider adding a short personal account of a family or individual who feels as if they have been positively affected by the death penalty, giving justice to a loved one. This would help trigger emotional feelings of Muhlhausen’s audience, allowing his argument to have pathos, ethos, and logos. Adding another premise and a few emotional appeals would improve Muhlhausen’s already valid

In the United States, the use of the death penalty continues to be a controversial issue. Every election year, politicians, wishing to appeal to the moral sentiments of voters, routinely compete with each other as to who will be toughest in extending the death penalty to those persons who have been convicted of first-degree murder. Both proponents and opponents of capital punishment present compelling arguments to support their claims. Often their arguments are made on different interpretations of what is moral in a just society. In this essay, I intend to present major arguments of those who support the death penalty and those who are opposed to state sanctioned executions application . However, I do intend to fairly and accurately

The death penalty is a very controversial topic that has been the top of discussion for years around the world. It is a topic that many individuals feel very strongly about. Christopher Hitchens, a political journalist in Washington D.C., writes an essay entitled “Scenes from an Execution” in which it is clear that he is against it. To get his views across in the essay, he uses light humor rather than very serious scenarios directed toward it, although it is a very serious topic. Instead of ranting about opinions, Hitchens writes about his experiences and how others as well as himself were affected. He uses rhetorical devices such as ethos, logos, and pathos to attack capital punishment.

The death penalty is the ultimate punishment. There is no harsher punishment than death itself. This nation, the United States of America, is currently one of fifty-eight nations that practice the death penalty, if one commits first-degree murder as of 2012. People that believe in the death penalty also believe that it will deter murders. In this paper I will argue that the death penalty does not deter criminals and that this nation should outlaw the practice.

The death penalty, or capital punishment, has always been a topic of much debate in the United States. There are those who support it and those who oppose it, and each side has their fair share of points being made, backed by supportive evidence. The topics range from the morality of this punishment, including the methods of execution as well as fairness issues in regards to sex and race. The first issue that will be addressed is in regards to the death penalty working to prevent violent crimes.

In the essay, “A cruel and unusual kingdom”, by Leonard Pitts Jr. columnist for the Miami Herald, effectively argues that the use of the death penalty in the United States is inhumane, irrational and goes against American values. Though Pitts overall maintains a strong argument, writing style, and voice, he purely targets a supportive audience as he doesn’t include clear common ground nor a refutation of the other bias.

If we examine some arguments presented from both sides, opponents of the capital punishment claim that executing someone is nothing more than an immoral, state-authorized killing which undervalues the human life and destroys our respect for our government which itself says that killing is wrong. But the supporters of the death penalty think that certain murderers

The article What Will Doom the Death Penalty by Daniel LaChance is discussing the issue of capital punishment and how to successfully get the death penalty abolished by trying a different strategy than what is most commonly used. LaChance an assistant professor of Law at the University of Emory his view of the death penalty is expressed as “an intolerable affront to human dignity” (1), LaChance is displaying the fact that he is extremely passionate towards his views on capital punishment. The first argument of the article is the support for capital punishment has greatly declined throughout the year, many would think the decline is because of the emotion factors that are present with capital punishment but in reality has more to do with the whole process. At a certain time capital punishment was wanted by Americans because of an increase in violent crimes in the mid-1960s it was easy for Americans to want justice and not in LaChance's words “time off for good behavior”(3). This option of punishment than was what Americans were looking for but had a massive downfall that would later lead it to its failure.