What does rhetoric have to do with capital punishment? Plenty actually if you want to advance an argument as well as Edward I. Koch has in his compelling essay in support of the death penalty. Koch is introduced by the editors of the book containing his essay as “The feisty, opinionated mayor of New York City…” (handout). The editors continue describing Koch’s character and abilities as they point out that he is politician with a law degree and experience as a lawyer. More specifically that he was a leader for the Democratic Party and then a congressman (handout). Koch was still mayor of New York City in 1985 when he wrote “Death and Justice”. “[The] essay, was first published in the New Republic…” (handout) a liberal American magazine. The readers of the New Republic are primarily democrats and can therefore be assumed in general to be against capital punishment. This situation has Koch in the precarious position of arguing his point contrary to the consensus of his constituents. In spite of this daunting scenario Koch is compelled to produce his essay because he wants to make in clear to his constituents that, even in light of the recently publicized statements by convicted killers that capital punishment is wrong, he [Koch] still supports the death penalty. Koch has opened his introduction with specific and graphic testimony about the statements made by the killers Messrs. Willie and Shaw. I believe that Koch has done a good job of advancing his argument through the use of the modes of persuasion which I will now demonstrate by analyzing his use of ethos, logos and pathos in his writing.
Koch has gained his audience’s attention and now he moves to earn their confidence through his use of ethos in paragraph four. He wants his ...
... middle of paper ...
...shocked or afraid to get involved. The narration is meant to make his audience feel uncomfortable or inadequate, so that they will agree with him that they need help dealing with these types of problems. He has already spelled out the solution for them in the preceding paragraph by saying that giving the power to the state is the civilized thing to do (324). He is hoping that this last burst of pathos will close the deal and that his audience will be bound to agree that the death penalty is necessary to deter crime and mete out justice.
My conclusion will briefly summarize my analysis and will answer the question: Did Koch create a sound argument? Did he persuade me to agree with him? Why or why not?
Works Cited
Koch, Edward I. "Death and Justice." 40 Model Essays: A Portable Anthology. Handout.
English 1A. (Professor Nicole Capps.) Norco College, February 2014.
In the essay “Death and Justice”, Ed Koch, the former mayor of New York City, presents an argument defending the use of capital punishment in heinous murder cases. In advancing his viewpoint on the subject matter, Koch addresses the arguments made by those who oppose the death penalty. This novel approach to making an argument not only engages the reader more in the piece, but also immediately illustrates his balanced understanding of both sides of the argument. Rather than simply presenting a biased or one-sided argument regarding his opinion, Koch explores a full range of issues surrounding the incendiary issue and displays both balance and erudition in expression his opinion on the issue of capital punishment.
In George Orwell’s essay, “A Hanging,” and Michael Lake’s article, “Michael Lake Describes What The Executioner Actually Faces,” a hardened truth about capital punishment is exposed through influence drawn from both authors’ firsthand encounters with government- supported execution. After witnessing the execution of Walter James Bolton, Lake describes leaving with a lingering, “sense of loss and corruption that [he has] never quite shed” (Lake. Paragraph 16). Lake’s use of this line as a conclusion to his article solidifies the article’s tone regarding the mental turmoil that capital execution can have on those involved. Likewise, Orwell describes a disturbed state of mind present even in the moments leading up to the execution, where the thought, “oh, kill him quickly, get it over, stop that abominable noise!” crossed his mind (Orwell.
A Gallup Poll shows that “61% of Americans view the death penalty as morally acceptable” (Muhlhausen 1). Despite this statistic, much controversy revolves around the topic of capital punishment. However, the issue very complicated. Questions related to morality, deterrence, and cost are all part of the debate. Professors David Muhlhausen and Philip Holloway take different stances on the death penalty debate in two articles. David Muhlhausen believes the death penalty should be used, whereas Phillip Holloway thinks capital punishment is not appropriate. A close examination of the rhetorical strengths and weaknesses in these articles reveals that Muhlhausen narrowly creates the more effective argument.
...fe group. His involvement with a Baptist church and association with the Republican Party demonstrates his political and social inclination. The author has a vested interest in the results of the budget debate and is putting in much effort to convince his audiences. By employing Aristotle's three most powerful tools of persuasion i.e. Argument by character (Ethos), Argument by logic (Logos) and Argument by emotion (Pathos) the author makes a strong argument to convince and persuade his audiences.
Choosing to display the use of ethos so early on in the story proves to be a successful tactic on Zach’s part. He is able to simultaneously erase any of the reader’s doubts involving him not being the best choice for speaking about marriage equality while giving reassurance to the audience that he is the right person to talk about this topic.
The question of what is rhetoric and what does it do has been a question since stories were even being recorded. However, now there are multiply different scholars who believe that they understand what rhetoric is and how to use it. For someone to use rhetoric correctly they must first have a definition of rhetoric that either they have made to fit themselves or they find a previous definition that suits them. In order for me to become an improved rhetor and be able to rhetorical discuss and evaluate pieces of literature or speeches like General Douglas MacArthur’s Farewell address, I must first define rhetoric in how I understand it. Rhetoric is the art of persuasive speaking aimed to sway your audience in a direction that has been chosen by the rhetor. The way in which a citizen uses rhetoric can change over time. The need to argue the same problem is invalid so the need to use the same rhetorical situations is invalid. You can use rhetoric in a multitude of different areas within our life however; we must choose to use it for good or for evil. In order for rhetoric to still be used in speech today one of two things must be true. There must either be a Truth in life and rhetoric or the more likely choice, that rhetoric changes throughout time and situations. You are not trying to change someone’s mind about something however; you are trying to convince them that you are also correct. I will be using multiple pieces of works that are defining rhetoric to support my definition and finish by evaluating General Douglas MacArthur’s Farewell Address using my definition of rhetoric.
Rhetoric is something that we use constantly in our everyday life. Unbeknown to us, we have been using the persuasive appeals of pathos, ethos and logos even for the most mundane things. Rhetoric can be seen everywhere in our everyday’s lives in form of media, religion, politics, government propaganda, historic references and social media. We should learn to identify and appropriately use the different categories of rhetoric expressions in an effective manner. Rhetoric is the study of effective speaking and writing in order to convince the audience or the reader. It is sued to convince the audience to think in the same way as the arguer or the presenter.
In Coretta Scott King’s essay, “The Death Penalty is a Step Back”, the readers are shown the author's view of the death penalty and how she supports this stance by using the three rhetorical appeals of ethos, pathos, and logos, to draw the reader in to her paper.
Many that commit crimes are aware of the possibility of receiving the death penalty if sentenced, however many individuals still continue to commit acts of murder. The article is entitled “Why we all should watch executions” and I don’t think Bryjak persuaded readers on why they should watch, but more so on why there should be executions.
Edward I. Koch uses his essay “The Death Penalty: Can It Ever Be Justified?” to defend capital punishment. He believes that justice for murderous crimes is essential for the success of the nation. The possibility of error is of no concern to Koch and if would-be murderers can be deterred from committing these heinous crimes, he feels the value of human life will be boosted and murder rates will consequently plummet (475-479). Koch makes a valiant effort to express these views, yet research contradicts his claims and a real look at his idea of justice must be considered in order to create a fair nation for all.
The one thing about this argument, though, if it were valid, it would not show that capital punishment is never proportionate and just, but only that it is very rarely so. The implication of this argument is not that we ought to do away with capital punishment altogether, nor that we ought to restrict it to those cases of murder where the murderer had warned the victim weeks or months in advance of what he was going to do, but we ought to reexamine the procedure of carrying out this kind of
Throughout the ages, death penalty has always been a controversial topic and triggered numerous insightful discussion. In Kroll’s Unquiet Death of Robert Harris, the writer employs pathos as an appeal throughout the whole article in order to convince the audiences that death penalty is “something indescribably ugly” and “nakedly barbaric”. While Mencken makes use of ethos and logos and builds his arguments in a more constructive and effective way to prove that death penalty is necessary and should exist in the social system.
The article employs several argumentative strategies. For example, first, the article stating Ringo Jr, committing robbery, murdering Dennis Poyser and Jonna Baysinger than illustrating statistic data “ studies of the death penalty have reached a various conclusion about effectiveness in deterring crime” follow by “many years and across states or counties find a deterrent effect “ More than 3,000 counties from 1977 through 1996 found that each execution resulted in 18 fewer murders per county” “ Zimmerman demonstrated that each state execution deters ... 14 murders annually” “study by Duke University and others concluded that from 1994 through 2005, each execution …decrease up to 2.5 murders.” “defendants in child murder cases to be eligible for the death penalty was almost 20% reduction in rates of these crimes” are the deductive supportive argument which supports the article’s conclusion “ Capital punishment does, in fact, save lives.” Also are logically reveal reasoning to support a claim “capital punishment save life” thus it uses argument strategy logos(logical). Other argument strategy article use is pathos ( emotional appeal) in “Life sentences or even death most Americans recognize this principle is just” “That 61% Americans view the death penalty as morally acceptable…supported capital
Americans have argued over the death penalty since the early days of our country. In the United States only 38 states have capital punishment statutes. As of year ended in 1999, in Texas, the state had executed 496 prisoners since 1930. The laws in the United States have change drastically in regards to capital punishment. An example of this would be the years from 1968 to 1977 due to the nearly 10 year moratorium. During those years, the Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment violated the Eight Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. However, this ended in 1976, when the Supreme Court reversed the ruling. They stated that the punishment of sentencing one to death does not perpetually infringe the Constitution. Richard Nixon said, “Contrary to the views of some social theorists, I am convinced that the death penalty can be an effective deterrent against specific crimes.”1 Whether the case be morally, monetarily, or just pure disagreement, citizens have argued the benefits of capital punishment. While we may all want murders off the street, the problem we come to face is that is capital punishment being used for vengeance or as a deterrent.
The controversy between whether criminals who have committed heinous crimes should be charged with the death penalty has been debated worldwide. Putting people to death, judged to have committed certain extremely abhorrent crimes, is a practice that has been around for a long time. However, in the later half of the twentieth century, it has become a controversial issue. As a supporter of the death penalty, I believe that it is essential part of the criminal justice system to deter crime. There are several reasons it should be in effect including: proof that capital punishment does deter crime that would warrant this sentence, retribution for heinous crimes, and the morality of punishing someone who has committed a crime so horrendous.