In the editorial “The Innocent on Death Row,” the board argues that the death penalty should not be legal. This article presents a strong argument for the end of the death penalty with clear assertions and effective rhetorical techniques. To support their conclusion the board tells the story of two men who were exonerated after spending thirty years in prison for a crime they did not commit. Days after the rape and murder of eleven year old Sabrina Buie, half-brothers Henry Lee McCollum and Leon Brown confessed to the crime. Not only were their confessions made under pressure without parents or an attorney present, but the prosecution failed to present multiple pieces of evidence to the defense lawyers, DNA evidence that proved McCollum and Brown were not responsible for the murder. In fact, the DNA belonged to a Roscoe Artis, who was a suspect all along and was convicted of a similar crime just weeks later. The board also uses rhetorical techniques to persuade the reader to agree with the opinion presented in this article. For example, the main rhetorical device used is pathos, an appeal to the reader’s emotions. By telling the story of two young men whose lives have been metaphorically taken away, and almost literally, the board shows that the justice system is flawed and there’s no guarantee that everyone on death row is actually guilty, this …show more content…
makes readers stop and think about how humane the death penalty is if innocent people are being killed. Another device used in this report is rhetorical questions.
At the end of this article the board poses the questions, “How many more [innocent people] remain on death row today? Can the American people be assured that none will be killed by the state?” This serves to put the thought in reader’s heads that maybe many more people on death row are innocent. Using this device the board hopes that after reading this article people will question their own viewpoints on this issue, consider the repercussions of the death penalty, and perhaps even share the article and start a discussion about it with their friends and
family. Personally, I think this article makes a good argument for the end of the death penalty. The board has a good premise and good support for that premise in the form of a recent news story that agrees with their conclusion in an unmistakable way. Their use of pathos is very persuasive as an appeal to readers’ emotions. Pathos is a strong technique and a safe bet at getting the reader to agree, assuming in this case that the reader doesn’t want to see innocent lives lost in a very preventable way. The rhetorical questions the board uses at the end of the article are also a compelling device, leaving the reader wondering how many people on death row have stories like the one told in the article. Overall, the board’s premise and use of rhetorical devices serves to make this argument a strong argument.
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.
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.
Is the death penalty fair? Is it humane? Does it deter crime? The answers to these questions vary depending on who answers them. The issue of capital punishment raises many debates. These same questions troubled Americans just as much in the day of the Salem witch trials as now in the say of Timothy McVeigh. During the time of the Salem witchcraft trials they had the same problem as present society faces. Twenty innocent people had been sentenced to death. It was too late to reverse the decision and the jurors admitted to their mistake. The execution of innocent people is still a major concern for American citizens today.
In an average year about 20,000 homicides occur in the United States. Fewer than 300 convicted murderers are sentenced to death. But because no more than thirty murderers have been executed in any recent year, most convicts sentenced to death are likely to die of old age (1). Nonetheless, the death penalty looms large in discussions: it raises important moral questions independent of the number of executions (2).
In 1976, the Death Penalty of Execution was reinstated in the United States by the U.S Supreme Court since then over 1,394 people have been executed, out of those people 1 out of 25 are innocent (Death PenaltyFacts). In the articles, “Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life by Koch” and “The Death Penalty by Bruck” both agree on how it is possible that the government could be wrong about a case as well as how the execution is handled in the public’s eye.
In an age long past, there was a Greek philosopher named Aristotle. Aristotle believed there were three parts, or appeals, to every argument made by man: logos, ethos, and pathos. In modern time, these are known as logical, ethical, and emotional appeals. These appeals support a person’s argument and determine whether or not their argument is effective or completely lost on their audience. These can be applied to any argument, and in this case, the topic of debate is the death penalty. For Anna Quindlen, the side she is on is clear: she does not support the death penalty even remotely, and is willing to speak for her case. In an essay written by Anna Quindlen, the argument made detests the death penalty and gives effective logical, ethical,
The death penalty debate in the U.S. is dominated by the fraudulent voice of the anti-death penalty movement. The culture of lies and deceit so dominates that movement that many of the falsehoods are now wrongly accepted as fact, by both advocates and opponents of capital punishment. The following report presents the true facts of the death penalty in America. If you are even casually aware of this public debate, you will note that every category contradicts the well-worn frauds presented by the anti-death penalty movement. The anti-death penalty movement specializes in the abolition of truth.
Murder, killing, fatality, and mortality: all words that are associated with the disgrace that is the death penalty. Debated for decades, the death penalty continues to be a prominent topic for discussion across the United States. In 1977, the Death Penalty was reinstated by the use of lethal injection. Now, each state has their own take on the death penalty and on how its rules should apply to the criminal, of whatever crime they have committed, in said state. Have you ever thought about what a death sentence is? If you sentence a man to death for committing a murder aren’t you just a murderer yourself? These questions are frequently argued over, and there is always going to be two sides arguing: pro or anti-death penalty. Although many American’s believe that the death penalty is necessary for people who have done terrible things, the pros of not having the death penalty surpass the cons with factors such as money, mental issues, cruel and unusual punishment, as well as the possibility of wrongful convictions.
Presently, a driving ethical debate in the United States is the decision to embrace or abolish the death penalty. This debate is notable because it impacts several different segments of society. Capital punishment can prove to be beneficial to our community because practicing the death penalty, both appropriately and efficiently, can produce advantageous results. Consider the amount of government money being hemorrhaged into the justice system; as well as, the poignant...
Capital punishment is the most severe sentence imposed in the United States and is legal in thirty-eight states. The death penalty is a controversial subject, especially because the U.S. is the only western democracy to retain this consequence (Scheb, 518). I personally believe that the death penalty is a valid sentence for those who deserve it. Some believe it is not constitutional, but those who face this penalty are clearly suspect of a savage offense and therefore should be at a loss of certain rights. The arguments don’t end there once one considers that “the controversy over capital punishment becomes more heated when special circumstances arise” (Sternberg, 2). This issue brings up more arguments against the death penalty because of the constitutionally protected ban on cruel and unusual punishment which is protected by the Eighth Amendment. There have been nearly 15,000 executions that have taken place in America, the first in 1608 with the death of Captain George Kendall (Siegel, 410). Most of these were sentenced to death because of their own action of killing others. However, more and more crimes are now able to be punishable by death. This is the result of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which “dramatically increased the number of federal crimes eligible for this sentence” (Scheb, 520). Even so, the federal government has yet to put someone on death row for a non-homicidal case. The arguments for and against capital punishment are lengthy and strictly opinionated, but are also important to see the evolution of our society as the majority view changes and new influences come about.
“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.
The numbers are disturbing. Innocent people are becoming victims of the United States judicial system by its overlooked imperfections. A former president of the American Bar Association (ABA), John J. Curtin Jr., said it best when he told a congressional committee that “Whatever you think about the death penalty, a system that will take life must first give justice. Execute justice, not people.” Though some of the innocent death row inmates have managed to escape their execution, there are numerous others who are unable to overturn their sentence through appeals. Many cases of innocence go unheard and result in the unfortunate fatality of an innocent bystander. When the death penalty in 1972 was ruled unconstitutional in Furman v. Georgia, the Justices expected that the “adoption of narrowly crafted sentencing procedures would protect against innocent persons being sentenced to death”. But the chances that innocent persons have been or will be executed remain astoundingly high (Bedua 344). The United States justice system was formed on the premise that it should protect society’s general well being from any harm. Processes and procedures...
Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in the United States in 1976, 138 innocent men and women have been released from death row, some who came minutes from being executed. To execute an innocent person is morally reprehensible; this is a risk that should not be taken. Around 120 of the roughly 3,000 inmates on death row in America are not guilty. In contrast, no system can produce results which are 100% certain all the time. To add on to that, the majority of those wrongfully sentenced to death are likely to languish in prison and never be freed. Regardless, the number of false convictions among the death sentenced have been particularly hard to estimate over the years. What makes the studies possible is that data on the potential need for extornerarion from death penalty cases come to light more often than it does for other types of criminal proceedings. Only about 13 percent of death row exonerations have resulted from DNA testing. People need to realize that the death penalty is too risky. 120 of 3,000 inmates might not seem like a lot, but these are human lives being taken away. Letting someone’s life lie in the hands of capital punishment should not be a risk everyone should let
The death penalty has been an ongoing debate for many years. Each side of the issue presents valid arguments to explain why someone should be either for or against the subject. One side of the argument says deterrence, the other side says there’s a likelihood of putting to death an innocent man; one says justice, retribution, and punishment; the other side says execution is murder itself. Crime is an unmistakable part of our society, and it is safe to say that everyone would concur that something must be done about it. The majority of people know the risk of crime to their lives, but the subject lies in the techniques and actions in which it should be dealt with.
“Innocent till proven guilty”, a common mantra that many court officials state as they enter the courtroom. However, is it truly so? Though those indicted are guaranteed a fair trial, the aftermath of certain cases are second-rated. The persisting argument of whether the death penalty should be exercised or abolished has become a controversial topic that plagues many minds. While some may state that the death penalty should be practiced, others would state otherwise. As one of the few countries that still carries out capital punishment, the United States should abolish the death penalty because it dissipates our nation’s wealth, has proven to deter crime rates, and presents gender bias.