The issue surrounding one punch laws has been arisen in the news recently, and has therefore sparked many to contemplate the laws put in place by the Victorian government surrounding this issue. Michelle Kleinert’s opinion piece for a petition justifies the reason as to why the laws should be changed in both an antagonistic and reasonable but firm tone. The headline ‘Stop. One Punch Can Kill’ is supported with a logo, the headline and logo are intended to draw the reader in and reinforce the idea. Kleinert’s contention is to change the laws surrounding one punch deaths, she supports her argument with evidence of failed convictions, a statement affirming that we can no longer watch our loved ones being killed or sustain horrendous long-term …show more content…
injuries and the use of reason and logic to appeal to the premier of Victoria. The accompanying photograph depicts a man punching towards the camera with what appears to be with a great deal of force, in which, represents the brutality of one-punch assaults that Kleinert is protesting against. Michelle Kleninert begins her petition in a strong manner, intending to draw her readers in and create interest.
Kleniert uses strong language and appeals to the fear of her audience using examples of ‘ridiculously low minimum sentences’. She uses four examples all of which killed individuals with one punch and received extremely short sentences. These examples support Kleniert’s argument and explicates how the system is failing, they appeal to the audience and reinforces Kleniert’s idea that the law must change.
Kleninert continues to build her case that the laws surrounding one-punch assaults through techniques of appealing to the emotion of her audience. Kleninert uses statements that emotionally affect her audience by using inclusive language ‘we can no longer watch our loved ones being killed’ this statement appeals to the audience by including them in the argument and making them feel as though this particular issue affects them on a more personal
…show more content…
level. During the second part of the petition Kleinert’s tone changes, she adopts a more reasonable tone and uses reason and logic, as her target audience is now the premier of Victoria. In the first half of the petition Kleinert uses strong language, inclusive language and appeal to emotion and fear to draw her audience in intended to create interest and draw in the reader, however, in the second part of the the piece Kleinert has drawn in her audience, therefore, she is able to change her tone to appeal to the premier of Victoria. Klerinert uses reason and logic to appeal to the premier of Victoria, with the use of statement not unlike, ‘complacency is no longer acceptable, nor is lack of vigilance is reviewing the criminal justice system’. The accompanying photo depicts a man punching which what appears to be a great deal of force, this with the use of blurring the image to create a deception of movement within the photograph.
The main focus of the photograph is the fist, as it is the only element the that is not blurred, this is intended to reinforce the main contention of the author as the photograph has been designed to encourage the audience to focus on the fist. Kleinert chose to use this particular photograph in her option piece as it is intended to shock the audience, it supply’s the audience with the deception of what being the victim of a ‘one punch’ would look
like. Michelle Kleniert’s petition piece concerning One Punch Laws addresses the issue surrounding the minimum sentencing. She calls for the general public and the premier of Victoria to take action against this issue. Kleniert supports her argument with evidence of failed convictions, a the use of inclusive language and appeal to emotion to connect with her audience on a more emotional level and the use of reason and logic to appeal to the premier of Victoria. Kleniert uses an accompanying photograph that depicts a man punching towards the camera in which, represents the brutality of one-punch assaults that Kleniert is protesting against.
Therefore, this case plays on the idea that, when an individual feels his or her life to be in danger, self-defence is accurate. In the case of Ms. Lavallee, both reasonableness and ethics were questioned. Since Ms. Lavallee is a victim of battered woman syndrome, when she pulls the trigger at that life-threatening moment, cannot be understood except in terms of the cumulative effect of months or years of being brutally abused. Overall, this case is an exceptional example of how self-defence comes to play within the criminal justice system. It is important for the law to revaluate cases for a better understanding of the balance of inclination over pain. For instance, although Lavallee was thinking that her life was in danger with action she committed, there is reason and story behind her crime. When the case is viewed from this perspective, it becomes clear that the battered woman’s knowledge of her partner’s violence was so profound that she knows the extent and nature of the violence beforehand, which allowed her to determine that this time it was different, and would probably result in life threatening
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.
We could execute the miscreants within a day... It would work... But we won’t make drunk driving a capital crime for one simple reason. It would be wrong” (“Torture Might Work”). By correlating one controversial topic with a seperate one, the author captures the reader’s attention and gets him or her thinking.
In “Bring Back Flogging,” Jeff Jacoby, a journalist, argues why the current criminal justice system in America is not effective or successful. As a solution, he suggests that America should bring back the old fashioned form of punishment, flogging, once used by the Puritans as an alternative to imprisonment (198). This article originally appeared in the op-ed section of the Boston Globe. Therefore, the primary audience of this article is people who want to read arguments about controversial topics and have probably read some of Jacoby’s other articles. His argument that the current criminal justice system is not working is extremely convincing. He appeals to pathos and uses statistics to prove that thesis and to persuade the audience. However, he provides no reason why corporal punishment is the best alternative to imprisonment and never offers any other options. Additionally, he does not make an effort to explain why corporal punishment would be more effective or successful than imprisonment. Thus, in “Bring Back Flogging,” Jeff Jacoby successfully informs his audience of the dangers and problems with imprisonment by using verbal irony, appealing to the emotion of pity, incorporating logical
Different countries have been known to deal with crime in different ways, some believe that we (Americans) should deal with criminals in a more serious and physical manner. In the article “Rough Justice A Caning in Singapore Stirs Up a Fierce Debate About Crime and Punishment” by Alejandro Reyes, it talks about how we should have more severe and physical punishment inside and outside of the U.S. After a teenage boy vandalizes a car in singapore. While in the editorial “Time to Assert American Values,” the writer attempts to persuade us and into thinking that the teenage boy, Michael Fey should not have been caned after vandalizing a car. After carefully analyzing the two texts, the reader realizes that the article “Rough Justice” has the
A society that presumes a norm of violence and celebrates aggression, whether in the subway, on the football field, or in the conduct of its business, cannot help making celebrities of the people who would destroy it. Unfortunately, such acts of rampage have become a prevalent factor in the Canadian culture. As a result of endless media coverage, Canadians now are constantly bombarded with numerous images of violence. Many of which often portray a victim avenging their opponent by means of force. Thus, indoctrinating a nation of individuals to believe that it is only through aggression that problems can be resolved. Rather than being punished for acts of violence, those who commit such offenses are often praised for their “heroism”. In addition, the success of films like The Godfather, Gladiator, and Troy further aid in reinstating the fact that we live in a society that praises violence. Furthermore, this ideology allows for individuals to partake in violent acts with little or no backlash from ones community. However, when an individual strays away from the “norm”, they are likely to then be viewed as a deviant. Such cases of rejection within a society, are often seen in the portrayal of serial killers. Although our society tends to condone violence when it is directed towards a specific individual(s), it does not allow the killing of innocent bystanders. Instead, crimes that are targeted against a number of people over a long period of time, entail the harshest forms punishments under the law. Sadly, in executing the law for said crimes, those in charge often face much public scrutiny. Such occurrences were apparent in the faulty murder investigations of Canada's most notorious serial killer Robert Pickton. This is due to the ...
Whenever an author is creating an argument, they must appeal to whatever grabs his or her selected audience’s attention. When given the topic of Michael Fay, an 18 year old American citizen who was punished in Singapore for vandalism by being caned, two sources appealed to their audience in two contrasting ways. In “Time to Assert American Values,” published by The New York Times, the author tries to capture his or her audience by stirring up emotion. In “Rough Justice: A Caning in Singapore Stirs up a Fierce Debate about Crime and Punishment,” Alejandro Reyes presents factual evidence throughout the entire article to support his claims. After carefully analyzing both texts, it is apparent that Alejandro Reyes gives a more convincing and sufficient argument due to his use of indisputable facts.
A society that presumes a norm of violence and celebrates aggression, whether in the subway, on the football field, or in the conduct of its business, cannot help making celebrities of the people who would destroy it, (Lapham, 1985). Unfortunately, such acts of rampage have become a prevalent factor in the Canadian culture. As a result of endless media coverage, Canadians now are constantly bombarded with countless images of violence. Many of which often portray a victim avenging their opponent by force. Thus, indoctrinating individuals to believe that it is only through aggression that problems are resolved. Rather than being punished for acts of violence, those who commit such offenses are often praised for their “heroism”. In addition, the success of films like The Godfather, Gladiator, and Troy further aid in reinstating we live in a society that praises violence. Furthermore, this ideology allows for people to partake in violent acts with little or no backlash from ones community. However, when an person strays away from the “norm”, they are likely to then be viewed as a deviant. Such cases of rejection within a society, are often seen in the portrayal of serial killers. Although our society tends to condone violence when it is directed towards a specific individual(s), it does not allow the killing of innocent bystanders. Instead, crimes that are targeted against a number of people over a long period, entail the harshest forms punishments under the law. Sadly, in executing the law for said crimes, those in charge often face much public scrutiny. Such occurrences were apparent in the faulty murder investigations of Canada's most notorious serial killer Robert Pickton. This is due to the fact that, the negligence of the Vancou...
This paper will be focusing on the controversial issue of mandatory minimum sentences in Canada. There has been much debate over this topic, as it has quickly become implemented for the sentencing of drug offenders, drug-related crimes and banned firearm offences. I will argue that every case that comes through the criminal justice system is different and deserves a fair trial with a sentence that is not already determined for them. There have been many cases where the judge has no discretion in the sentence due to the mandatory minimum sentences pre-determined for the case, no matter what the aggravating or mitigating factors were. I will argue that the mandatory minimum sentences in Canada should be reduced or eliminated as they result in very few positive outcomes for the offender and society, increase recidivism rates, are very expensive, and in many cases are detrimental and unjust. Throughout this essay I will discuss two main cases that represent an unjust sentencing outcome due to the mandatory minimum sentencing laws. I will stress how it should be the discretion of the judge to individualize the sentences based on the offender’s mitigating factors, aggravating factors and background. Leroy Smickle is the first case discussed through the essay, which ended with the judge striking down the mandatory minimum sentences in Ontario due to the possession of a loaded gun. Robert Latimer was also a highly controversial Canadian case about a father who killed his mentally disabled daughter out of compassion to end her severe suffering. I will be using many academic articles throughout this essay to give empirical support to the overall argument.
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.
The purpose of this research paper is to prove that criminal law in America has failed to provide a defense that adequately protects women suffering from Battered Women's Syndrome. Battered Women's Syndrome, or BWS, is a very complex psychological problem facing criminal courts today and has caused great debate on whether or not it should even be allowed in the courtroom. Although the syndrome has been given more consideration as a warranted issue by society, those who create our laws and control our courtrooms, have not developed a defense that sufficiently protects these women. United States courtrooms, instead of protecting battered women, have put these women on trial and found them guilty of murder.
Now that we have seen the shortcomings of two popular views of violence, Coady proposes his positive account; namely, that we ought to adopt a restricted definition. He begins with a dictionary definition (physical force with intent to damage/injure another), but he then observes that this is too restrictive and that we ought to include some psychological considerations. A restricted definition, Coady argues, is less morally loaded than the other two views given that it allows us to call an act a violent one without being committed (at least not as committed as the other views) to a certain ethical
... did not have a history of troubled behavior or personal connection to the victim, were capable of being involved in such a random, yet passionate act of violence. Virk was a ‘punching bag’ for the internal anxiety or frustration these girls faced, which essentially leads back to parent’s inability to detect these issues and societies failure to provide support for these girls. The autopsy reports showed that Virk would have most likely died solely from her head injuries from the severe beating she took, essentially making every person present that night underneath the bridge responsible for Virk’s death. Although female violence has been on the rise, the media did play an essential role in creating fear of female violence in Canada. While the story of the murder of Reena Virk is both ruthless and alarming, not many similar cases have occurred in the past 17 years.
These authors want us also to see the little girl as the main focus point of the picture and see the amount of pain she is showing us emotionally.
Offenders are protected today by both the rule of law, ensuring that all offenders are treated equally, regardless of their age, sex or position in the community, and due process, which ensures that all offenders are given a fair trial with the opportunity to defend themselves and be heard (Williams, 2012). Beccaria’s emphasis on punishment being humane and non-violent has also carried through to modern day corrections. It is still the case today that offenders must only receive punishment that is proportionate to the crime they have committed and the punishment is determined by the law. The power of the judges and the magistrates to make decisions on punishment is guided by the legislation and they do not have the power to change the law (Ferrajoli,