Analysis Of The Article Against The Death Penalty

In an article in favor of the death penalty titled , Mr. Death Penalty and in an article against the death penalty titled, Why the Death Penalty Needs to Die; they both have logical fallacies hidden in their statements. It ranged from hasty conclusion, false cause, begging the question/loaded question and red herring. All of them have an impact on their viewpoints as well as the credibility of them.

In the article, Mr. Death Penalty by Nora Caplan Bricker she talks about Kent Scheidegger who is one of the most outspoken advocates for capital punishment. In his arguments for being for the death penalty he has many logical fallacies that discredit his argument. In one case he says the death penalty deters criminals. There is no actual proof

Even though there may be a correlation between the two, it does not mean that it 's the primary cause. Scheidegger says it as if it 's a true statement. Therefore, the fallacy being used is false cause because correlation does not equal causation. If he had put it on different words his statement would have been more credible. In another part of the article, he talks about a theory he has to explain the fact that people who kill white victims are a lot more likely to receive the death penalty. Scheidegger says, “Why should anyone be surprised that areas with a high black population elect prosecutors who seek the death penalty less often and form juries that impose the death penalty less often?” (Caplan-Bricker). The fallacy he uses is begging the question. He is asking people to prove to him that his claim is not correct. It is also a loaded question because he says his statement like it is a fact and that he has proof and statistics to back it up. He is just building on an unproven assumption as if it were a fact. Scheidegger also has another logical fallacy in what he has to

Throughout the article he has a few logical fallacies. The first is when he says, “I’m not surprised that the state is so incompetent that it can 't even kill people efficiently.” This logical seems like a both ad hominem and red herring. He is attacking the state 's character as being incompetent as well as leading away from the real issue at hand. Another example is when Gillespie says “I’m sure death costs more in California (everything else does) than in other states” (Gillespie). The logical fallacy being used in his statement is a hasty conclusion. He doesn 't actually know that death costs more in California than in other places but he makes the assumption it does and draws a generalization. Instead he could have just done some research and actually figured it out. Otherwise, leave it out of the argument if he can 't back it up. The last logical fallacy in his article is when he says, “Now matter how despicable murderers can be, the state can make sure we’re safe by locking them up behind bars for the rest of their-and our- lives. That’s not only a cheaper answer than state-sanctioned murder, it’s a more moral one too”