David Lat Death Punishment Analysis

Executions Should Be Allowed
Public executions should be established to heightened accountability and strengthen awareness through visual connection.
To a large majority of us the idea of public executions and especially those televised instantly evokes vivid images of horrific and dehumanizing accounts of the destruction of human life. The Death Penalty topic alone is enough to conjure up a great deal of controversy from both sides of the argument, but another form of it appeared in an essay published in 2011 in The New York Times. The authors of this controversial piece were Zachary Shemtob and David Lat. The issue was whether executions should be televised. Both authors are well versed in matters of law and legal issues. Shemtob teaches Criminal Justice and Lat is a former prosecutor.
The authors begin by mentioning an opposition to their argument by one of the defense attorneys who argues against public viewing of his client’s execution. They proceed to grasp the reader’s attention by illustrating the attorney’s displeasure and sensitivity as displayed by “It’s a horrible thing that Andrew D. Young had to go through,” and it’s not for the public to see that” (.53) This strategy of

emotional appeal utilized by Shemtob and Lat provides the foundation to defend and support their claim by the incorporation of “We respectfully disagree. Executions in the United States should be made public” (.53)
The authors further engage the reader by the use of ethical and logical reasoning as pointed out by “Yet a functioning democracy demands maximum accountability and transparency. As long as executions remain behind closed doors, these are impossible. “The people have the right to see what is done in their name and with their tax dollars.” (53) The incorporation of deductive and inductive reasoning is employed by the writers in using example of real events as described with the analogy that “There is a dramatic difference between reading or hearing of such an event and observing it through image and sound” (.54)
The use of inductive reasoning is shown by “This is obvious to those who saw the footage of Saddam Hussein’s hanging in 2006 or the death of Neda Agha-Soltan during the protests in Iran in 2009” (.54) The declaration by the authors is emphasized in “We are not calling for opening executions completely to the public-conducting them before a live crowd-but rather for broadcasting them live or recording for future release, or on the Web or TV” (.54) This approach reflects the thesis and supports the authors’ claim through logical reasoning.
Utilization of emotional appeal, establishment of credibility and authority of topic by the authors are substantiated with descriptive and vivid imagery of the condemned men’s final moments.

The confirmation of credible and authoritative sources such as the medical expert’s affidavit and information reported by the Atlanta Journal Constitution are components of the essay that add validity and sustenance to Shemtob and Lat’s argument. Inductive reasoning is again used to explain to the reader that although executions are performed in the same manner on different individuals patterns of violent effects are not present as acknowledged by “Mr. DeYoung although executed in the same manner as Roy Blankenship who exhibited violent signs in death did not exhibit the same signs”

(.54)
The writers’ use of moral and ethical strategy to reaffirm their position is noticed in “Voters should not have to rely on media accounts to understand what takes place when a man is put to death.”(54)
Shemtob and Lat proceed to repeat the use of inductive reasoning by example by expressing a strong point to the reader in validation of their argument as argued by “When he was an Illinois senator, President Obama pressed for the videotaping of homicide interrogations and confessions. The most serious penalty of all surely demands equal if not greater scrutiny” (.54) While the authors do recognize sufficient opposing viewpoints such as stated “State lawyers argue that making Mr. DeYoung’s execution public could raise safety concerns,” and that broadcasting executions could have a numbing effect”(54), they continue to support their main idea and sustain their thesis by the use of inductive reasoning as depicted in the statement “While rioting and pickpocketing occasionally marred executions in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, modern security and technology eliminate these concerns”(.54) Shemtob and Lat also use inductive reasoning as clarified in “Yet this seems overstated. While public indifference might result over time, the initial broadcasts would undoubtedly get attention and stir debate” (.54)
Some readers of this essay may view the authors as reflecting somewhat of an unsympathetic tone towards the condemned and their families. This is evident as voiced in “But this is beside the point; the defendant is being executed precisely because a jury found his crimes so heinous that he deserved to die.” Although this may very well be the sentiment of the majority of individuals the authors’ bias and lack of objectivity is prevalent therefore rendering this essay to be not as strong as it could have been. A true democracy and civilized society requires a well-informed public about the pros and cons of publicized executions.