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. Bruck begins his essay by refuting all of Koch arguments and then goes onto stating his reasons. Then he uses transitional sentences, “Those of us…the difference between the death penalty in theory, and what happens when you actually try to use it,” to transition into arguing about varies cases to back his reasons. Furthermore, he indicates that mental illness is a factor when a person commits a crime. He makes a reference to the Middle Ages when he states that “Since the Middle Ages….prohibited the execution of anyone who is mentally ill to understand what is about to happen to him and why.” He makes this reference to illustrate that the laws of the middle ages in dealing with person who is mentally ill is far better than our laws of now even though the Medieval time was a barbaric age. Bruck then transitions into asserting that the execution of innocents could and would occur. He supports his reason by mentioning Roosevelt Green wrongful ex... ... middle of paper ... ...uasion by the use of varies cases to support his argument. He mostly employs techniques such as juxtaposition, rhetorical question, and pathos and logos to strengthen his argument. However, his lack of use of an array of techniques makes his essay come short. In addition, when he states that “these are just the tiresome facts” he disregards his whole argument before that sentence by making it seem like his argument is irrelevant. Moreover, he fails to mention to his readers that he is a lawyer and also does not mention his cases which would have given him an authoritative position far better than Mayor Koch to state his view on the subject of death penalty. However I do agree with in saying that justice does demand that we punish murderers but not by execution but rather by imprisonment in which their bad conscience would become their enemy and tormentor for life.
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.
What does rhetoric have to do with capital punishment? Plenty actually if you want to advance an argument as well as Edward I. Koch has in his compelling essay in support of the death penalty. Koch is introduced by the editors of the book containing his essay as “The feisty, opinionated mayor of New York City…” (handout). The editors continue describing Koch’s character and abilities as they point out that he is politician with a law degree and experience as a lawyer. More specifically that he was a leader for the Democratic Party and then a congressman (handout). Koch was still mayor of New York City in 1985 when he wrote “Death and Justice”. “[The] essay, was first published in the New Republic…” (handout) a liberal American magazine. The readers of the New Republic are primarily democrats and can therefore be assumed in general to be against capital punishment. This situation has Koch in the precarious position of arguing his point contrary to the consensus of his constituents. In spite of this daunting scenario Koch is compelled to produce his essay because he wants to make in clear to his constituents that, even in light of the recently publicized statements by convicted killers that capital punishment is wrong, he [Koch] still supports the death penalty. Koch has opened his introduction with specific and graphic testimony about the statements made by the killers Messrs. Willie and Shaw. I believe that Koch has done a good job of advancing his argument through the use of the modes of persuasion which I will now demonstrate by analyzing his use of ethos, logos and pathos in his writing.
The death penalty, a subject that is often the cause of major controversy, has become an integral part of the southern justice system in recent years. The supporters and opponents of this issue have heatedly debated each other about whether or not the death penalty should be allowed. They back their arguments with moral, logical, and ethical appeals, as seen in the essays by Ed Koch and David Bruck. Although both authors are on opposite sides of the issue, they use the same ideas to back up their argument, while ignoring others that they don’t have evidence for. Koch and Bruck’s use of moral, logical, and ethical persuasion enhance both of their arguments and place a certain importance on the issue of the death penalty, making the readers come to the realization that it is more than just life and death, or right and wrong; there are so many implications that make the issue much more 3-dimensional. In dealing with politics and controversial issues such as capital punishment.
Early societies were based on a simple code of law: "an eye for an eye
It's dark and cold, the fortress-like building has cinderblock walls, and death lurks around the perimeter. A man will die tonight. Under the blue sky, small black birds gather outside the fence that surrounds the building to flaunt their freedom. There is a gothic feel to the scene, as though you have stepped into a horror movie.
Edward I. Koch uses his essay “The Death Penalty: Can It Ever Be Justified?” to defend capital punishment. He believes that justice for murderous crimes is essential for the success of the nation. The possibility of error is of no concern to Koch and if would-be murderers can be deterred from committing these heinous crimes, he feels the value of human life will be boosted and murder rates will consequently plummet (475-479). Koch makes a valiant effort to express these views, yet research contradicts his claims and a real look at his idea of justice must be considered in order to create a fair nation for all.
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.
Is the death penalty the wrong or right way to go? Edward Koch wrote an article “death and justice” which was regarding capital punishment. In this article, it explains what Edwards views were towards the death penalty. Edward explains that the death penalty could have saved lives. Edward used common techniques such as logos and pathos appeals to influence his readers to suggest that killers should have dealt with this form of punishment.
“How the Death Penalty Saves Lives” According to DPIC (Death penalty information center), there are one thousand –four hundred thirty- eight executions in the United States since 1976. Currently, there are Two thousand –nine hundred –five inmates on death row, and the average length of time on death row is about fifteen years in the United States. The Capital punishment, which appears on the surface to the fitting conclusion to the life of a murder, in fact, a complicated issue that produces no clear resolution.; However, the article states it’s justice. In the article “How the Death Penalty Saves Lives” an author David B. Muhlhausen illustrates a story of Earl Ringo , Jr, brutal murder’s execution on September ,10,
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.
Christopher Bennett a criminal law and philosopher wrote “Considering Capital Punishment as a Human Interaction” which focused on different viewpoints of the death penalty. Through the years the phrase an eye for an eye would meet the criteria for which the death penalty could be used for. In this journal, social control is the foundation of which the paper is written on. Social control is focused on deterrence which means if there is a force of punishment that is severe enough it will deter those from committing such an act. Surprisingly the death penalty had relatively low deterrence and as a result death row has harbored many inmates. Of those incarcerated there has been innocent people convicted. The article broke down the idea of the death
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.”
“The case Against the Death Penalty.” aclu.org. American Civil Liberties Union, 2012. Web. 12 Feb. 2013
Crime is everywhere. Wherever we look, we find criminals and crime. Criminals have become a part of our daily lives. Does this mean we let them be the darkness of our society? No, definitely not. Eliminating crime and criminals is our duty, and we cannot ignore it. Getting the rightly accused to a just punishment is very important. Some criminals commit a crime because they have no other option to survive, but some do it for fun. I do not advocate death penalty for everybody. A person, who stole bread from a grocery store, definitely does not deserve death penalty. However, a serial killer, who kills people for fun or for his personal gain, definitely deserves death penalty. Death penalty should continue in order to eliminate the garbage of our society. Not everybody deserves to die, but some people definitely do. I support death penalty because of several reasons. Firstly, I believe that death penalty serves as a deterrent and helps in reducing crime. Secondly, it is true that death penalty is irreversible, but it is hard to kill a wrongly convicted person due to the several chances given to the convicted to prove his innocence. Thirdly, death penalty assures safety of the society by eliminating these criminals. Finally, I believe in "lex tallionis" - a life for a life.
“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.