Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The topic of the death penalty is one that has been highly debated throughout history. In the Intelligence Squared debate, Barry Scheck and Diann Rust-Tierney argue for the notion of abolishing the death penalty while Robert Blecker and Kent Scheidegger argue against abolishing the death penalty. Diann Rust-Tierney and Barney Scheck uses logos and ethos to debate against Robert Blecker and Kent Scheidegger who masterfully manipulate ethos and pathos for their case. Diann Rust-Tierney and Barry Scheck are well qualified in the topic of the death penalty. Diann Rust-Tierney is the executive director of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. Her debate partner, Barry Scheck, is a professor at the Cardozo School of Law. However their This causes her strongest statement to lose logos and ethos. Rust-Tierney and Schneck also bring heavy doses of pathos and logos as they question the same question William Baude poses: “Yet what if someone goes through every possible procedure and after all is said and done still claims to be innocent? What if another court were to actually find him innocent?” (Baude, 20). 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.” (Baude, 21). This quote provides details of why the finality in the decisions regarding death may not accurately represent the justice the accused deserves. It augments the ultimate overarching point made by Scheck and Rust-Tierney that we should not determine One of their strongest points came from the pathos of justice that comes from putting criminals such as the DC Sniper, who killed several innocent people, to death. Blecker also uses pathos to argue the death penalty is a step above locking people away in a semi-comfortable state for life especially in the cases where the killer is well behaved and avoids most high security lockdown prisons. This creates a feeling of need for justice in many, allowing Blecker to emphasis his point of justice. Another well made and un-countered argument by Scheidegger in his use of pathos when he claims the US shouldn’t abolish it simply to be a “world leader” in lesser punishments. Scheidegger claims those who commit heinous crimes must be served the proper justice. He angrily exclaims “....You hear "Follow Europe 's lead.".... Anders Breivik in Norway set off a bomb outside the parliament building in Oslo, killing eight, then went to an island and killed 69 youths. You know what his sentence was? 21 years in prison, the maximum that Norway
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.
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.
Essentially every paragraph of both essays has some sort of statistic, anecdote, or supposed fact that is used to help each case. To me, the use of logic to back up an argument is extremely helpful in getting one’s point across; personally, I do not respond well to moral appeals as much as I do ethical and logical ones, especially when it comes to matters such as the death penalty. Koch used very reliable sources, such studies done at M.I.T., to affirm his argument that the murder rate in the United States is so high, the death penalty should not only be advocated, but that it is necessary for our criminal justice system. Bruck also used a lot of anecdotal evidence and specific examples of death penalty recipients throughout time, creating a sort of “face to face”, more personal appeal to the reader. This allowed the audience of his essay to, in a way, come in contact with the very people who were against the death
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.
In Coretta Scott King’s essay, “The Death Penalty is a Step Back”, the readers are shown the author's view of the death penalty and how she supports this stance by using the three rhetorical appeals of ethos, pathos, and logos, to draw the reader in to her paper.
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.
Tierney, Diann Rust. “Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished?” The New York Times Upfront, 07, Oct. 2013 :22
Although the flaws of death penalty are lucid, they are often times over looked by society. Innocuous people have been ruled to death based upon mistaken eyewitness testimonies, mistaken identity, and false confessions through coercion. Former Governor of Illinois George Ryan was a staunch proponent o...
In any justice system that is flawed and allows bias in certain cases, the death penalty should not be used as a means of punishment because of its irrevocable nature. When I came across Sarah Hawkins’ article regarding the case of Karla Faye Tucker, I was surprised to see the manifestation
Mappes, Thomas A., Jane S. Zembaty, and David DeGrazia. "The Death Penalty." Social Ethics: Morality and Social Policy. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012. 105-53. Print.
One of the most repetitive and controversial topics discussed in the criminal justice system, is the death penalty. Capital punishment has been a part of our nation’s history since the creation of our constitution. In fact, as of January 1st, 2016, 2,943 inmates were awaiting their fate on death row (Death Penalty Information Center). Throughout my life, I have always been a strong advocate for the death penalty. During the majority of my undergraduate degree, I was a fierce supporter of capital punishment when discussing the topic in classes. However, throughout many criminal justice courses, I found myself in the minority, regarding the abolishment of the death penalty. While debating this topic, I would always find myself sympathetic to the victims and their families, as one should be, wanting those who were responsible for heinous crimes to
When someone is legally convicted of a capital crime, it is possible for their punishment to be execution. The Death Penalty has been a controversial topic for many years. Some believe the act of punishing a criminal by execution is completely inhumane, while others believe it is a necessary practice needed to keep our society safe. In this annotated bibliography, there are six articles that each argue on whether or not the death penalty should be illegalized. Some authors argue that the death penalty should be illegal because it does not act as a deterrent, and it negatively effects the victim’s families. Other scholar’s state that the death penalty should stay legalized because there is an overcrowding in prisons and it saves innocent’s lives. Whether or not the death penalty should be
“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.
Punishment takes various forms, but the decisive end of life arouses the emotions of all, not just those directly affected, to dispute the ethics of capital punishment. At the core of the controversy, two educated assessments are made; abolitionists attempt to prove that the death penalty is unnecessary and unjust, while its advocates proclaim the opposite. Avid abolitionist Jack Greenberg writes in his article “Against the American System of Capital Punishment,” that not only does the current system fail to deter but it is enforced unfairly because of the bias infesting our courts. Ernest van den Haag counters this belief with his article, “The Ultimate Punishment: a Defense,” which shifts the focus away from deterrence, stating that it is not a beneficial argument for either side. Haag also argues that “justice is independent of distributional inequalities” (Haag, par. 7)
Ethics and morality are the founding reasons for both supporting and opposing the death penalty, leading to the highly contentious nature of the debate. When heinous crimes are com...