Alan Parker uses various cinematic techniques to communicate ideas of capital punishment being a flawed system to the audience in his 2003 film, The Life of David Gale. Parker incorporated techniques such as camera movement, characterisation, symbolism, foreshadowing and juxtaposition to influence and shape the audience’s beliefs on capital punishment. Such techniques were evident throughout the film, in a number of significant scenes. These scenes include Gale’s Debate with Governor Hardin, the scene where the audience is introduced to ‘The David Gale Death House and Museum’ and finally when Constance learns of 17 year old Betty Sue Johnson’s execution. It was these scenes in particular that persuaded me to look at capital punishment from another point of view. Throughout Gale’s initial interview with Bitsy the audience is returned to this time of his debate on capital punishment with Governor Hardin on local TV Program ‘The Batter’s Box’. Hardin is characterised as a calm yet often muddled character. This is presented to the audience when Gale quotes Hardin saying “What did Ghandi say about that? The old law of an eye for an eye leaves us all blind.” Hardin disagrees with Gale stating that it’s “fuzzy liberal thinking”, this is when the audience learns that Hardin actually quoted this in a previous campaign. Showing the audience Hardin has contradicted himself in a bid to defend capital punishment. Gale however is characterised as an intelligent yet hot headed man. This is shown through the way he refutes Hardin’s arguments easily until he essential let his ego get in the way and became carried away. This scene is particularly crucial in understanding Gale’s motivations. Towards the end of the debate Hardin asks Gale to “Nam... ... middle of paper ... ...n eye for an eye leave us all blind”, an idea presented earlier during Gale’s debate in relation to the general rule of capital punishment “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. In conclusion The Life of David Gale is a powerful anti-capital punishment film. Parker uses various camera angles to convey emotions of the characters, characterisation to assist the audience in understanding the characters various motivations and juxtaposition and symbolism to persuade the audience in believing that capital punishment is a flawed system. These three particular scenes are crafted by Parker to cause his viewers to think differently about capital punishment. Personally Alan Parker’s various techniques made me re-think my opinions on capital punishment, now believing that innocent people can be wrongfully convicted and the system only fuels hatred, continuing the cycle.
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.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS Introduction: Throughout this discussion, I will debate and analyse the ideas I have collected from my research. My discussion is separated under sub headings which will allow me to form a better understanding of how capital punishment is viewed, which will help me in reaching a possible answer to my question. Firstly, I am going to be discussing two very well known case studies. Case studies: The two case studies I have picked to focus my research on are: Derek Bentley who was the last man executed in Britain along with Ruth Ellis who was the last woman executed in Britain.
In George Orwell’s essay, “A Hanging,” and Michael Lake’s article, “Michael Lake Describes What The Executioner Actually Faces,” a hardened truth about capital punishment is exposed through influence drawn from both authors’ firsthand encounters with government- supported execution. After witnessing the execution of Walter James Bolton, Lake describes leaving with a lingering, “sense of loss and corruption that [he has] never quite shed” (Lake. Paragraph 16). Lake’s use of this line as a conclusion to his article solidifies the article’s tone regarding the mental turmoil that capital execution can have on those involved. Likewise, Orwell describes a disturbed state of mind present even in the moments leading up to the execution, where the thought, “oh, kill him quickly, get it over, stop that abominable noise!” crossed his mind (Orwell.
Capote shows the effect of childhood on the killers and if the death penalty is fair. Capote gives the killers a voice to show their humanity by giving childhood accounts of their lives. He questions the justice of is the death penalty fair, and if inherent evil is a product of childhood or society. Is it nature or nurture? Capote gives a look into the minds of the killers and the nature vs. nurture theory.
In the essay “Death and Justice”, Ed Koch, the former mayor of New York City, presents an argument defending the use of capital punishment in heinous murder cases. In advancing his viewpoint on the subject matter, Koch addresses the arguments made by those who oppose the death penalty. This novel approach to making an argument not only engages the reader more in the piece, but also immediately illustrates his balanced understanding of both sides of the argument. Rather than simply presenting a biased or one-sided argument regarding his opinion, Koch explores a full range of issues surrounding the incendiary issue and displays both balance and erudition in expression his opinion on the issue of capital punishment.
Edward Koch, who was former mayor of New York, wrote an article about one of the most controversial talks called the death penalty. This controversial topic questions if it is right to execute a person for a crime committed or if it is wrong. He made the point that the death penalty is good, in order to conclude that murderers should be punish with this penalty. He was bias in most of the passage, yet he tried to acknowledge other people’s opinion. In this article, Koch gives his supports to the idea to convict a murderer with death penalty by using a tone of objectiveness, shooting for the individuals who opposes his position to be the audience, and have a written form of conviction for the audience.
takes the form of “an eye for an eye”, meaning that the offender should be punished by an act of
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.
Employing pathos and logos, Baude gives an explanation for why the death penalty is flawed as he tells the tale of a man on death row. Baude claims “.Judgments, right or wrong. This concern with concepts such as finality, jurisdiction, and the balance of powers may sound technical, lawyerly, and highly abstract. But so is the criminal justice system. Law must provide simple answers: innocence or guilt, freedom or imprisonment, life or death.”
...hould need to know more. The argument of justice is so strong and decisive that this one argument is enough to introduce the death penalty (Anderson 26).” The movie Dead Man Walking portrays the life of a man living on death row. However, I disagree with some of the concepts the movie presents. I believe that the death penalty has great advantages in which the movie disagrees with. All in all the death penalty eliminates the harmful people in our world and saves the innocent.
...l punishment as a just and morally sound method of justice. After all, "An eye for an eye" seemed to be a rationale that many embraced as fair. Now there is an era of closer examination of what is truly just and morally ethical, as well as economically sound. A consequence needs to be fair, humane, and effective. Does capital punishment meet these criteria? There are compelling reasons to change the system we have blindly acclaimed. Hopefully we are in the process of implementing a new way of dealing with an age-old dilemma.
An Eye for an Eye was written by Stephen Nathanson. Mr. Nathanson, like many, is against the death penalty. Mr. Nathanson believes that the death penalty sends the wrong messages. He says that by enforcing the death penalty we “reinforce the conviction that only defensive violence is justifiable.” He also states that we must, “express our respect for the dignity of all human beings, even those guilty of murder.”
The capital punishment has been cited as a reasonable sentence by those who advocate for retribution. This is essentially when it comes to justice so that people take full responsibility for their individual actions. Studies have proved that the decision to take away life of a person because they committed a certain crime serves to perpetuate the crime in question. It also serves to enhance the progress of organized and violent crime. It has been noted that various flaws in the justice system has led to the wrong conviction of innocent people. On the other hand, the guilty have also been set free, and a plethora of several cases has come up when a critical look at the capital punishment has been undertaken. Killers hardly kill their victims deliberately, but they probably act on anger, passion, or impulsively. In this regard, it is not proper to convict them exclusively without
Have you ever wondered why people are so interested to learn about the suffrage of others? Over twenty-five years, the population of prisoners has nearly sextulped. Reaching about 1.7 million since 1996, which is almost equal to the population to Houston, Texas, the fourth largest city in the nation (Elliott Currie). All we focus on is how they did it? and why? In other words, many people interpret crime as entertainment, and don’t think about the negative effects taking place in the world or even more that individual. In some cases the innocent are being accused of unlikely punishment but how do they determine? Considerably, the death penalty has been the topic of discussion these past years. This so called “penalty” is becoming the prime consequence in most cases. I think that the use of the death penalty as punishment is wrong because of the psychological effects it has on prisoners, time spent on death row in cases of innocents, and the costly outcome.
“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” is how the saying goes. Coined by the infamous Hammurabi’s Code around 1700 BC, this ancient expression has become the basis of a great political debate over the past several decades – the death penalty. While the conflict can be whittled down to a matter of morals, a more pragmatic approach shows defendable points that are far more evidence backed. Supporters of the death penalty advocate that it deters crime, provides closure, and is a just punishment for those who choose to take a human life. Those against the death penalty argue that execution is a betrayal of basic human rights, an ineffective crime deterrent, an economically wasteful option, and an outdated method. The debate has experienced varying levels of attention over the years, but has always kept in the eye of the public. While many still advocate for the continued use of capital punishment, the process is not the most cost effective, efficient, consistent, or up-to-date means of punishment that America could be using today.