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, …show more content…
On the topic of the death penalty, she says, “The only reason for a death penalty is to exact retribution. Is there anyone who really thinks that it is a deterrent, that there are considerable numbers of criminals out there who think twice about committing crimes because of the sentence involved?” (p. 553). Here, she brings up a good question: do criminals care about the sentence? Is the death penalty only for the gratification of those who the criminal wronged? Quindlen seems to think so, with her reason being that “the ones [she has] met in [her] professional duties have either sneered at the justice system, where they can exchange one charge for another with more ease than they could return a shirt to a clothing store, or they have simply believed that it is the other guy who will get caught, get convicted, get the stiffest sentence” (p. 553). This makes her claims make more sense: she compares criminals exchanging charges for lesser ones with shirts being exchanged for different ones. It is a form of personal experience: criminals do not fear the justice system in the way we want to believe they do. By using her own experience for this, Quindlen not only furthers her beliefs that the death penalty is useless, but shows her readers why she thinks it is useless. Criminals are not afraid of any form of punishment as is, thus there is no reason to believe they are afraid of the death penalty as …show more content…
She uses an emotional appeal by describing a situation similar to that of Ted Bundy’s victims, an ethical appeal by claiming that those who support the death penalty are just as horrible of people as those who are put to death, and a logical appeal by stating that criminals do not think of consequence, no matter how heavy it is. While Quindlen’s essay is effective, it may not all be that credible. Take her emotional appeal, for example. It gets the point across; however, this could be considered a manipulation. She is using that image in a way that makes the reader angry, which rallies people up behind her views. While it definitely is a way to sway the audience to her favor, it is not a good appeal made. This occurs again during the ethical appeal: she gives no reason why she believes the death penalty is so “inherently immoral.” It is the humane side of the argument, and she does give off a feeling of confidence in her argument, but there is just missing information that is pivotal to her appeal. People may listen and agree with what she has to say, but whereas someone’s argument may have facts to back it up, Quindlen’s does not. There is an effective argument here, but on the downside there is no information to deem it
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.
Many positions can be defended when debating the issue of capital punishment. In Jonathan Glover's essay "Executions," he maintains that there are three views that a person may have in regard to capital punishment: the retributivist, the absolutist, and the utilitarian. Although Glover recognizes that both statistical and intuitive evidence cannot validate the benefits of capital punishment, he can be considered a utilitarian because he believes that social usefulness is the only way to justify it. Martin Perlmutter on the other hand, maintains the retributivist view of capital punishment, which states that a murderer deserves to be punished because of a conscious decision to break the law with knowledge of the consequences. He even goes as far to claim that just as a winner of a contest has a right to a prize, a murderer has a right to be executed. Despite the fact that retributivism is not a position that I maintain, I agree with Perlmutter in his claim that social utility cannot be used to settle the debate about capital punishment. At the same time, I do not believe that retributivism justifies the death penalty either.
The chapter, Church, has the troop hold up in a church for a few days. In the church, the monks take an immediately likely to the troop help with food and weapon cleaning. A few of the soldiers discuss what they wanted to do before the war. The troops learn more about each other and insight into what faith can be to them.
...eter, Richard C. “Death Penalty Information Center” A Crisis of Confidence: Americans’ Doubts about the Death Penalty. 2007. 1-30 Print.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A story of murder, fear, and the temptation of betrayal is one that easily snatches up the attention of audiences. In “A Jury of Her Peers” by Susan Glaspell, the author uses her southern female characters to emphasize the direct relationship between friendship and connection. Her plot circles around the disastrous discovery of their fellow housewife’s marital murder, and the events that unfolded causing their ultimate decision in prosecuting or shielding her from the men in the story. The author implements revealing dialogue with subtle detailing and glaring symbolism to display the coveted friendships among women above other relationships and that the paths they take to secure them stem from inveterate personal connections.
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...
“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,
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 use 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 on the topic of the death penalty. Diann Rust-Tierney is the executive director of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty.
Capital Punishment is a highly controversial topic. It’s not about an eye for an eye or life for a life. It’s about a person with dangerous unlawful activities that deserves to be penalize, and Edward Irving Koch conceives it as well. Edward Irving Koch was a prominent and highly assertive mayor of New York City from 1978 to 1989. Koch practiced law for nineteen years, and that took him to get elected as a district leader; than city councilman, US House of Representative, and then he ran for the mayor of New York City, which comprehends more stressful constituents (handout). Koch wrote an article on the subject of capital punishment, “Death and Justice.” It was published in The New Republic magazine on April 1985. As far as Koch believes it, capital punishment is the only way to save innocent lives when he states, “Life is indeed precious, and I believe the death penalty helps to affirm this fact” (320). Koch is making this statement by exemplifying the value of human life, and what he accepts as true punishment for all those ruthless criminals. The audience of his article were typically skeptic because people can be oppose to it, because they think it’s immoral and government should not be given any rights to dictate human lives. Although people might be oppose to capital punishment, yet Edward Koch makes it sure to dispute oppositional arguments about capital punishment by use of modes of persuasion such as Ethos, Pathos and logos.
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.