The Death Penalty by David Bruck

1121 Words3 Pages

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 supporters of capital punishment such as Mayor Koch. Bruck begins his essay by refuting all of Koch arguments and then goes onto stating his reasons. Then he uses transitional sentences, “Those of us…the difference between the death penalty in theory, and what happens when you actually try to use it,” to transition into arguing about varies cases to back his reasons. Furthermore, he indicates that mental illness is a factor when a person commits a crime. He makes a reference to the Middle Ages when he states that “Since the Middle Ages….prohibited the execution of anyone who is mentally ill to understand what is about to happen to him and why.” He makes this reference to illustrate that the laws of the middle ages in dealing with person who is mentally ill is far better than our laws of now even though the Medieval time was a barbaric age. Bruck then transitions into asserting that the execution of innocents could and would occur. He supports his reason by mentioning Roosevelt Green wrongful ex... ... middle of paper ... ...uasion by the use of varies cases to support his argument. He mostly employs techniques such as juxtaposition, rhetorical question, and pathos and logos to strengthen his argument. However, his lack of use of an array of techniques makes his essay come short. In addition, when he states that “these are just the tiresome facts” he disregards his whole argument before that sentence by making it seem like his argument is irrelevant. Moreover, he fails to mention to his readers that he is a lawyer and also does not mention his cases which would have given him an authoritative position far better than Mayor Koch to state his view on the subject of death penalty. However I do agree with in saying that justice does demand that we punish murderers but not by execution but rather by imprisonment in which their bad conscience would become their enemy and tormentor for life.

Open Document