Dr. Diane Chardon
13 April 2014
Rhetorical Analysis of “Capital Punishment: Society’s Self Defense” Capital punishment is not a topic for the faint of heart. Whether or not society should accept capital punishment is a seriously difficult discussion to have. No two people have the same amount opinions on capital punishment and that is why it can be a very hard task to convince people one way or the other. Amber Young’s “Capital Punishment: Society’s Self Defense” argument is a powerful one that most definitely could sway anyone from the opposing party. Her aim is to convince the general public that capital punishment is acceptable because it is society’s self-defense against harmful people. She uses many …show more content…
This rhetorical strategy helped push Young’s view on capital punishment. Persuading the reader to see that the death penalty is the only way that this hurt and sadness will end is crucial.
A main rhetorical strategy that was used along with pathos was the real life anecdotes that Young mentions. Young tells the story of Georgeann, “a pretty …. honor student, a cheerleader, and Daffodil Princess in high school” or the girl murdered when Ted Bundy escaped from prison, “twelve-year-old Kimberly Diane Leach”. Ted Bundy “dumped her strangled, broken body in an abandoned pig barn.” These are real crimes and stories about real women. Young using these real life anecdotes reaches out to her readers and grabs their attention. If capital punishment could keep a man like Ted Bundy, who was real and committed real life horror stories, off of our streets forever then why wouldn’t the public pursue its legality? Also Young brings to her argument some real life anecdotes from the people on the other side stating that, “In fact, many prisoners would prefer to die than to languish in prison. While some might still want to read and expand their minds even while their bodies are confined, for those who are not intellectually or spiritually oriented, life in prison would be a fate worse than death.” When Young states that even the prisoners would rather be dead, that would persuade those readers who are opposed to the death penalty purely because of the belief that it is
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
The Reverend Jesse L. Jackson Sr., the former presidential candidate, writes “Legal Lynching The Death Penalty And American’s Future”. Jesse L. Jackson, Sr., wrote this book in the company of his son Jesse L. Jackson, Jr., a United State congressman from Illinois since 1995, and Nation writer Bruce Shapiro a contributing editor at National and a national correspondent for Salon.com, and the professor at Yale University. In this book Jackson’s keep his moderated argument about the death penalty. There are nine chapters in this book, each chapter tackle a different facet of the argument. This book describes the history of the death penalty, myths, lies and deterrence, bureaucratic nightmare involving defense lawyers sleeping at trial, “A Question of Innocent”, “Deathly Numbers: Race and Geography of Execution”, “False Closure: Victims Rights Versus Vengeance Rights”, “Social of Executioners” and “The Death Penalty and American’s Future: Moratorium and Beyond. Authors begin with the proposal of a moratorium and could lead to the eventual cessation of capital punishment.
The death penalty is a controversial topic in the United States today and has been for a number of years. The death penalty was overturned and then reinstated in the United States during the 1970's due to questions concerning its fairness. The death penalty began to be reinstated slowly, but the rate of executions has increased during the 1990's. There are a number of arguments for and against the death penalty. Many death penalty supporters feel that the death penalty reduces crime because it deters people from committing murder if they know that they will receive the death penalty if they are caught. Others in favor of the death penalty feel that even if it doesn't deter others from committing crimes, it will eliminate
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
Truman Capote’s In Cold Blood presents a striking argument within the text; was the trail for Edwards and Hickock air and objective? After thoroughly researching and interviewing the convicts as well as the case, it was evident that Capote strongly opposed the death penalty given to Perry and Dick. Capote depicts the unjust trial taken upon the convicts, evoking sympathy from the audience without sacrificing the objectivity of the book. He effectively demonstrates strong usage of rhetoric to prove his argument.
Garibger, Gail..”On Punishment and Teen Killers” SpringBoard:English Language Arts Ed. Betty Barnett. Tampa: College Board, 2015. 91-92. Print.
There are always two sides to an argument, but different people have different opinions on which side is right and wrong; as a result, we can compare a debate or argument as of a coin, due to the fact that it has two sides. When it comes to the topic of judicial system in America, most of us will readily agree that it needs to be reformed. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of who will step forward and make changes to the court system. Whereas some are convinced that no one is going to do anything about it, others maintain that the government will be the savior by making the changes. In the introduction of Just Mercy: A Story of Justice And Redemption, by Bryan Stevenson -an American lawyer, social justice activist, founder and executive director of the Equal Justice Initiative, and a clinical professor at New York University School of Law- Stevenson emphasizes that people are not being treated fairly in the judicial system of America. The book was written to give readers a close up look on mass incarceration and extreme punishment given in America. Convincing the readers is not easy, except if the author uses strategic techniques such as ethos, pathos, and logos. It is even more tough if the topic is sensitive and debatable as this one. Stevenson used these three techniques in a variety of different ways to convince the readers.
In "A Hanging," George Orwell utilizes the rhetorical appeals of pathos and ethos in historical context to convince the audience that the unjustifiable execution of a person is not only barbaric, but unethical. This is successful because of his sensitive word choice and sympathetic tone.
Humans are conditioned to believe that murderers deserve punishments decreed by the justice system, with their days numbered, meaning to be spent in misery, as they wrongfully extinguished the lives of others. However, while murder is never acceptable, it is necessary to analyze the story, often rooted in trauma, of how a murderer came to be, which naturally can evoke compassion within the reader. Truman Capote’s In Cold Blood provides a look at a man who had a troubling childhood and adult life, ultimately arousing sympathy for Perry Smith. Perry lived through a hard childhood, and was deprived of many things every child should receive. Although Perry is portrayed as a cold hearted killer, readers can still find sympathy in their hearts for him.
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.
For years, politicians have been passionately debating the subject of the capital punishment, which has only served to create more divisions within our society. It is an extremely sensitive subject, and one that inspires strong emotions in both directions. Like abortion, gun laws, and the war on terrorism, capital punishment is an issue on which everyone is never likely to agree.
Capital punishment is used predominantly for, but not exclusively to, the crime of murder. This employs the “eye for an eye” sort of belief system that has been in use for hundreds of years. This type of thinking is backed by a principle that was a key point in Machiavelli’s “The Qualities of a Prince.” Machiavelli contends that “it is much safer to be feared than loved.” This is a mindset that is shared with those who support the death penalty. This is because if one knows that they will die if they perform a certain act, they will generally be unwilling to perform that act. People who use even the slightest bit of logic and reasoning could reach the conclusion that it is better to use the threat of death to keep potential murderers from killing innocent victims than to abolish capital punishment and sacrifice innocent lives.
Capital punishment has been around for many years as a way of executing criminals. Despite what most believe, capital punishment is not functional in the American society. Defenders of the death penalty often claim that the execution of criminals will teach others not to do bad, initially decreasing crime rates. Unfortunately, statistics prove that thought to be wrong. Capital punishment also has great flaws. For example, many innocent people have been put to death because of capital punishment. There also is no consistency. Two of the same crimes can be convicted in two different states and the consequences with be different for both offenders. The death penalty shows to be
In Stephen Bright’s article, “The Death Penalty as the Answer to Crime: Costly, Counterproductive, and Corrupting” Bright asserts that capital punishment does not work because it is racially biased, the quality of the lawyers and attorneys supplied by the state to poor defendants is unfair, and that the law system currently in place does not accomplish its true goals. Bright defends his claim with logos and ethos by examining the opinions of judges and district attorneys, and by describing experience within the fields of human rights and law himself in order to persuade the reader to take up more cases for those on death row. Given the language used in this article Bright is writing to an audience with intermediate to professional experience within the field of law, and a willingness to adopt a new idea on the constitutionality behind the death penalty.
Capital punishment is the execution of a perpetrator for committing a heinous crime (homicide), and it is a hotly debated topic in our society. The basic issue is whether capital punishment should be allowed as it is today, or abolished in part or in whole. My argument is that: