Analysis Of David Penberthy's Let The Penalty Fit Crime

David Penberthy’s article ‘Let the penalty fit crime’ (2016) argues in support of a new plan, thought up by the nurses union, to deny treatment to violent drunk people who terrorise hospital emergency rooms. He also claims that this zero-tolerance plan could be used to resolve other violence related issues in Australia. Penberthy presents some strong points in his article but his failure to include all viewpoints on this issue and to consider any possible negative outcomes of these plans weakens his arguments and makes them sound biased rather than well rounded and thorough.
Penberthy uses the personal experiences of medical staff to strengthen his argument; however, by purposefully not including any viewpoints of patients being refused treatment

his article is also biased. Penberthy has traditionally structured his inductive arguments, backing up his claims with evidence and moving smoothly from point to point. The viewpoints of the nurses and bystanders in the hospital emergency departments are discussed and Penberthy includes quotes from their personal experiences, thereby strengthening his argument by allowing the reader to sympathise with the nurses and bystanders. However, Penberthy fails to include or even consider this plan from the viewpoints of the patients being denied treatment and the people targeted in his examples of this zero-tolerance plan being used to aid other violence related issues. The one sided view of this article severely lowers the appeal to ethos.
Another point Penberthy fails to consider is the possibility of negative outcomes from the zero-tolerance plan. Denying people treatment has its risks. A misdiagnosis could lead to a death or permeant disablement of someone, leaving the hospital emergency departments liable. Not including the potential negative outcomes of this plan also lowers the appeal to ethos and makes the article read biased.
Penberthy uses strong appeals to logos and pathos throughout his article to further his argument and relies less on appeals to ethos.

He begins his article with a very visual description of hospital emergency rooms on a Friday or Saturday night and also includes his own personal experience as evidence: ‘The scene outside the emergency department looked like the tail end of a rock festival, with people spewing in the carpark and, inside, others arguing with security and shouting at the nurses about the length of the wait.’ (Penberthy 2016, p. 68). The scene he sets has strong appeals to pathos as the text is rich in vivid descriptions and Penberthy uses this to set the tone of the argument. Penberthy further backs up his claim with social worker Les Twenyman’s, own first-hand experience of drunken gang violence in Footscray’s emergency department a few day prior to Melbourne’s CBD being terrorised by African gangs (Penberthy 2016, p. 68). Twenyman’s experience appeals to logos and pathos as the visual descriptions and emotionally loaded language cause the reader to feel concerned about the issue and it addresses their morals of right and wrong. For example, ‘One young man, bleeding from the mouth, was spitting blood on the hospital floor…’ (Penberthy 2016, p. 68). Penberthy continues to use these appeals to logos and pathos throughout the article in an attempt to make the reader agree with his views. Relying less on appeals to ethos pulls the article away from being an

analysis on the issue and pushes it towards being an argument in which Penberthy wants his audience to agree with his opinions.
Penberthy’s use of language and sentence structure helps him direct his argument to his intended audience and ensures he presents strong persuasive points.

Throughout the article Penberthy uses a lot of slang words, mainly typical Australian slang, such as ‘yobbos’ and ‘spewing’ (Penberthy 2016, p. 68). This may appeal to the general audience the article is aimed at, however; it may also make the article less appealing to anyone in an authorial position as the slang makes the argument present more like a rant than a structured case. Penberthy also makes use of an active sentence to begin paragraph three, ‘We are seeing similar incidents right across Australia, and many medical staff now bear the psychological and even physical scars from encounters with the very people they are trying to assist.’ (Penberthy 2016, p. 68). This opening sentence bluntly explains just how bad the issue is and the article changes tone from here as it discusses the issue from the hospital emergency departments’ point of view. Penberthy also makes use of another active sentence to bring forward his own examples of how the zero-tolerance plan could be used in other violence related issues: ‘As a member of White Ribbon, I would never begrudge a cent being spent on fighting domestic violence but there is something so desperately unimaginative about using the dead hand of a tax grab as the immediate source of revenue.’ (Penberthy 2016, p. 68). He then continues with suggesting that the penalties for

domestic violence should be increased instead of taking money from tax payers to fight this issue. Penberthy’s use of language and sentence structure helps his intended audience better understand his argument and to present his own examples on how the zero-tolerance plan can resolve other violence related issues in Australia.
Overall Penberthy’s arguments are structured well, moving from one point to the next, but fails to consider important aspects including opposing viewpoints and outcomes to this plan. His constant appeals to pathos and logos help the reader to see the issue from Penberthy’s perspective but do not make up for his lack in appeals to ethos. The use of slang words helps the article appeal to the general audience it is aimed at, but appeals less to those in an authorial position as it does not sound well structured. The article includes valid points but reads biased which pulls it away from being a well-considered analysis of the issue and more of a presentation of Penberthy’s views on the subject.