George Orwell’s “A Hanging”, set in Burma in the late 1920’s, tells his experience as a police officer witnessing a specific execution. Throughout his career on the police force, Orwell was an ardent retentionist, someone who supports capital punishment for certain crimes. However, this execution revealed to him the brutality of capital punishment, causing him to shift to abolitionism, the thought that capital punishment should be abolished. After quitting his job as a police officer, he wrote this story to show the heinous reality of capital punishment. Using the dialogue and mannerisms of the characters in this story, Orwell conveys his abolitionist message through the prisoner, the superintendent, the guards, and the dog. The prisoner …show more content…
However, his strongest technique is personal and expert testimony. As a police officer in Burma, his opinion is considered an expert opinion. However he also witnessed this and many other executions, therefore his experience also qualifies as personal testimony. Both of these techniques are considered strong techniques for a formal argumentative essay. Orwell also uses two major points concerning capital punishment in his story. The first is the sociopolitical argument, meaning it risks ending the life of an innocent person. This argument is obvious when the prisoner starts chanting “Ram!”(101) because in his religion, if a person can say that before death, he is still a good person. Orwell’s other and main reason for why capital punishment should be abolished is the ethical argument, meaning there is no justification for taking a human life. He states his opinion when he says, “I saw the mystery, the unspeakable wrongness, of cutting a life short when it is in full tide”(101). Through this statement, he confirms his claim that no matter what crime a person commits, they do not deserve capital punishment. This is the most argumentative quote in the entire story, for it is the only place that Orwell directly states that capital punishment is
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.
The essay begins by drawing forth images of Puritan punishment. He cites two instances of punishment, which were particularly torturous and radical in nature. He then draws a comparison between this inhumane punishment and imprisonment by stating with irony that, “Now we practice a more enlightened, more humane way of disciplining wrong doers: we lock them up in cages.” His use of the word “cages” was an attempt to vilify the enclosurement of human beings and to compare this treatment of human beings, to the caging of other animals. Although his position is clear from the first glance at the title, he poses us with a dilemma, he immediately denounces his acceptance of imprisonment with his use of irony and at the same time he proposes a solution which he has radicalized. This early attempt at discounting imprisonment by comparing it with an extreme form of the punishment he is proposing, simply leaves the reader with a negative feeling towards both forms of punishment rather than bolstering his view.
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.
Argumentative Essay on Capital Punishment in Australia Capital punishment is barbaric and inhumane and should not be re-introduced into Australia. Although capital punishment has been abolished, the debate on this topic has never abated. When a particularly heinous crime is committed, this debate arouses strong passions on both sides. Many who advocate the abolition of capital punishment consider the death penalty to be cruel and inhuman, while those who favor of punishment by death see it as a form of just retribution for the gravest of crimes. Determining whether Queensland should re-introduce capital punishment as a sentence will be the focus of this assignment.
Orwell starts off his story by sharing that with us. “I was hated by large number of people, the only time in my life that I have been important enough for this to happen to me.” (181) Its only when there’s a time in need do they express appreciating. Hating his job because of certain beliefs. “…I had already made up my mind that imperialism was an evil thing…” So why did he shoot the elephant? He knew it was wrong, in fact he had a plan on what to do in order not to kill it. “The crowed would laugh at me. And my whole life, every white man’s life in the East was one long struggle not to be laugh at” He deffinaly felt the pressure of the crowd. “It was an immense crowd, two thousand at the least and growing every minute” In order for him to seem as he done the right thing even though in his heart he knew was wrong, he did it, he shot the elephant. He didn’t even shoot to kill, the poor guy was at a suffering state. He justified his action with the elephant’s wrong doing, killing a man. Orwell had lack of integrity to himself, but for the town’s people, he did what was in his jobs nature. And policemen need integrity to serve the law, even if its ageist your own
In the article “The Penalty of Death”, written by H. L. Mencken, utilitarian principles are used to cover up for a system that wants results. All of the reasons that Mencken gives as justifications do not give concrete evidence of why the death penalty should continue as a means of punishment. The article states, “Any lesser penalty leaves them feeling that the criminal has got the better of society...” This statement alone demonstrates how he believes the death penalty brings justice and satisfaction to the people. Mencken creates the points he makes in his article in order to give society a way to make the death penalty seem less intrusive on moral principles and more of a necessary act.
A police officer in the British Raj, the supposedly 'unbreakable'; ruling force, was afraid. With his gun aimed at a elephant's head, he was faced with the decision to pull the trigger. That officer was George Orwell, and he writes about his experience in his short story, 'Shooting an Elephant';. To save face, he shrugged it off as his desire to 'avoid looking the fool'; (George Orwell, 283). In truth, the atmosphere of fear and pressure overwhelmed him. His inner struggle over the guilt of being involved in the subjugation of a people added to this strain, and he made a decision he would later regret enough to write this story.
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 “Shooting an Elephant” writer George Orwell illustrates the terrible episode that explains more than just the action of “shooting an elephant.” Orwell describes the scene of the killing of an elephant in Burma and reveals a number of emotions he experienced during the short, but traumatic event. Effectively, the writer uses many literary techniques to plant emotions and create tension in this scene, leading to an ironic presentation of imperialism. With each of the realistic descriptions of the observing multitude and the concrete appeal of the narrator’s pathos, Orwell thrives in persuading the audience that imperialism not only has a destructive impact on those being governed under the imperialists’ oppressive power, but also corrupts
In “Bring Back Flogging,” Jeff Jacoby, a journalist, argues why the current criminal justice system in America is not effective or successful. As a solution, he suggests that America should bring back the old fashioned form of punishment, flogging, once used by the Puritans as an alternative to imprisonment (198). This article originally appeared in the op-ed section of the Boston Globe. Therefore, the primary audience of this article is people who want to read arguments about controversial topics and have probably read some of Jacoby’s other articles. His argument that the current criminal justice system is not working is extremely convincing. He appeals to pathos and uses statistics to prove that thesis and to persuade the audience. However, he provides no reason why corporal punishment is the best alternative to imprisonment and never offers any other options. Additionally, he does not make an effort to explain why corporal punishment would be more effective or successful than imprisonment. Thus, in “Bring Back Flogging,” Jeff Jacoby successfully informs his audience of the dangers and problems with imprisonment by using verbal irony, appealing to the emotion of pity, incorporating logical
“I had never realised what it means to destroy a healthy, conscious man.” After reading and understanding George Orwell’s feelings through his experiences in his essay “A Hanging.” We come to realize that George Orwell, a visitor from the European establishment, gets the opportunity to participate in the execution of a Hindu man. The author is degraded by what he has witnessed and experienced, and decides to share his feelings with the rest of the establishment through his writings.
Jacoby starts his essay by providing a background history on flogging by relating the punishment to crimes that would be insignificant in today’s society. He claims that imprisonment has become an “all purpose punishment” used for violent and nonviolent crimes alike (193). Citing a plethora of facts and research, Jacoby argues that the prison system is ineffective and too costly. To support his claim he advocates for a system of public humiliation and degradation to deter lower class criminals from becoming repeat offenders. Jacoby realizes that flogging’s “crimes of the day” are not our crimes, but maintains that flogging would be effective in current society and not any more brutal than being caged (194).
According to Orwell his freedom was destroyed when he took on the role of the tyrant. His job was that of a sub-divisional police officer in Lower Burma. A crisis arose in which he was faced with a hard decision to make. An elephant had gone on a rampage in the village and had destroyed countless huts and killed a man. When Orwell came upon the elephant it was clear to him that it had calmed down and that the elephant would cause no more harm to anyone. Orwell was faced with a decision: he could either shoot the beast or wait until his master came to get him. However, this decision was made much more complicated. Orwell was surrounded by two thousand Burmans who, as Orwell said, “were watching me as they would watch a conjurer about to perform a magic trick.” Although the Burmans were all underneath him and subject to him, he was very concerned about what they thought he should do. He was so concerned in fact he concluded that he had to do as they wished of him.
Every writer has that one special quirk that keeps readers coming back for more. Whether it is the humor or the characters, most authors carry their quirks from story to story. In “Shooting an Elephant,” George Orwell describes his experience of shooting an elephant. In “A Hanging,” he describes the emotions that run through him as he watches the hanging of a prisoner. Both essays have similar key ideas that identify Orwell as a writer. The results of pride and power contribute to the themes that connect his essays and identify Orwell as a descriptive writer.
Capital punishment is now illegal in many countries, like the United Kingdom, France and Germany, but it is also legal in many other countries, such as China and the USA. There is a large debate on whether or not capital punishment should be illegal all over the world, as everyone has a different opinion on it. In this essay, I will state arguments for and against the death penalty, as well as my own opinion: capital punishment should be illegal everywhere. Firstly, many believe capital punishment should be reinstated in the United Kingdom because of the financial cost of prisoners. Annually, it costs about £26,978 per prisoner when they are in jail.