In the article “Abolish the Death Penalty” written by Bill Ryan the chairman of the Death Penalty Moratorium Project presents a solution. He thinks of the death penalty as “horribly expensive, ineffective, and inefficient” (Ryan). Ryan first starts off with a cause and effect moment then continuous to state the problem and his solution. He uses certain words, statistics, and questions to entreaty the readers in order to make them be understanding towards his explanation.
Ryan’s structure first uses the cause and effect format, the cause would be having the death penalty and the effect are the results of having one. He starts off by stating a few facts about how expensive (800 million$) it is to send men and women to death row, this is the
…show more content…
The reform people have thought of is to narrow the range of offenses that qualify for a sentence of death. He uses the words “This looks promising at first” already insinuating it will not work because of the changing arbitrary there is when sentencing someone. He makes a comparison of people in death row and the prisoners in the general prison population being equal, only difference is one is placed on death row, spending taxpayer money and the other is waiting to die in prison with no help from taxpayers money, so basically a certain death row but for free. He expresses that the death row is for people who deem it to be necessary in order to promote social vengeance. This can make a reader feel like they are buying into societal norms, and that it is not okay with humans doing such thing since it is not always right. Ryan then explains how the death penalty is not fair to everyone, murderer that some get sentenced to death row and some do not. He questions if this penalty is really meant for closure he states “Some advocate the death penalty as necessary to provide needed closure to surviving family members who have experienced the unspeakable horror of having a loved family member murdered” (Ryan) Closure is something that is to given to every family as he explains, that many murders are not sentenced to death …show more content…
He brings up how our neighboring states have death penalty and they, “get along quite well without killing their citizens”. This statement persuades us to think like him how we too can achieve such qualities. How we do not have to be hypocrites by limiting instead of advancing in our human rights. His solution is for us, to invest this money in other places. Instead of feeding the money into a killing system, we should give it to families who need effective counseling and support for victims’ families. Ryan is providing different resources that need more funding, and that we the people should help those who need the help because they were only victims instead of spending it on a system that clearly is not function all too
For the most part I agree with the writer idea. I like what the writer said how the justice was served by the court. Kinkl murdered 4 people and attempted 26 murder case, so he deserve 112 years to be in prison. Even though Kinkl has a mental disorder problem, he was a danger to the community and needed to be watched by the government for the public safety. The audience can clearly see what happened on the Kiniakl cause from the court report that is presented.
Which is why he compares Planned Parenthood’s agenda to have the same vein such as public education and privatized prisons. He saw the treatment of the inmates and how abortion has the same style. After Hillary Clinton’s loss during
Jacoby supports his thesis by giving the reader various reasons such as: The criminal justice system imprisons us for everything serious or not serious. If they flog us it they will prevent more prisoners in prison, in our prisons,prisoners are released early and continue to make crimes, it’s more costly to keep the prisoners in cages, prisoners learn to be better prisoners from other inmates and prisons are full and overcrowded. The evidence that Jacoby uses to support his reasons is by using facts, statistics and logical examples. For example, when Jacoby states that, “Imprisonment has become our penalty of choice for almost every offense in the criminal code.” He uses this as factual example reinforces it with another logical example like, “ Commit murder; go to prison.
Third, crimes are more effectively prevented by the certainty of punishment—not by the severity of punishment. Jefferson’s proposed bill, the “Bill on Crimes and Punishments,” for a more humanitarian
Editor Anna Quindlen wrote many articles and essays conveying her opinion toward the death penalty. Such as, “Death Penalty Fails to Equal Retribution” and “Public & Private; The High Cost of Death”. Although Anna Quindlen makes many valuable accusations regarding her reasoning to being opposed to the death penalty, she undermines the real purpose of the penalty itself. The Death penalty, is indeed necessary. Many of the accusations Anna proclaims permit to the emotions of the victims families that have been robbed of their loved one by the said killer.
Rhetorical Analysis Mortimer B. Zuckerman argues that we need to change the way our criminal justice system operates. He explains that there are more prisoners in a cell than the amount it was originally created for. Zuckerman also acknowledges the fact that incarceration rates are extremely high and that the vast majority of prisoners are nonviolent. The author believes that the way nonviolent criminals are dealt with today brings about negative consequences that could easily be avoided (Zuckerman). Zuckerman successfully convinces the reader that reform is needed in the criminal justice system by using several tactics such as eradicating common myths about incarceration, talking about the problem and solution while using logos, and appealing
It is an important issue to be discussed. At this moment it may not directly affect everyone, currently a large percentage of those affected are people in poverty or men of color; but the number of incarcerations has greatly increased over the past “40 years” and may continue to increase in the long run affecting many. Stevenson is trying to raise awareness, informing his audience about the justice system today and how it favors those who are “rich and guilty [rather] than if you’re poor and innocent.” He is trying to raise awareness as to how punishment in the criminal system does not stop at a certain age, and how the death penalty “in America is defined by error.” Through his experiences and efforts he has found a need to bring public awareness as to how unjust the United States criminal system is.
Capital Punishment helps deterrence rates, and cost options for the future, and if the death penalty is inhumane, there will no longer be doubt on whether it is
Although the death penalty in Texas costs about three times more than life in prison without parole, it is reserved as the punishment of robbing another of their rights to life, freedom, and safety (Deathpenaltyinfo). It is a valid question to wonder why we should spare the life of one, opting to provide for all of their basics needs when they without question robbed another of their rights to life, freedom, and safety through murder or another cruel action. The case of Andre Thomas raised questions of whether or not the mentally incompetent should be eligible for the death penalty. Thomas murdered two children and the wife he was separated from, maintaining that the act was dictated by God. Statements by Thomas conveyed that he knew that what he had done was wrong after he had after committing the crime.
In the essay “The Death Penalty Is a Step Back” the author, Coretta Scott King expresses her feelings about capital punishment and states reasons to back up her argument that the death penalty is both a racist and immoral practice. King believes that capital punishment is immoral and illegal, and that it by no means serves as a deterrent for other possible criminals. The author then further talks about how there have been numerous incidents where the mistakenly convicted is put down in the name of American justice. King then argues that by sentencing someone to death, one is assuming that the person convicted is not capable of rehabilitation. The
“It doesn 't deter crime, but merely cheapens human life and gives rise to more murders.” This is one of the many quotes that reflects Truman Capote’s view on capital punishment. In writing his novel, In Cold Blood, Capote’s primary purpose is to convey his opposition towards the death penalty. Through the stylistic elements of rhetorical appeals, diction, and a selection of detail, Capote reveals the attitude he holds against this unreasonable form of justice. Tying into the events of the trial, Capote uses the rhetorical appeal pathos to highlight his point by appealing to the emotions and sensitivities of his audience.
He said he had asked for a review of solitary confinement, declaring that it was "not going to make us safer" to hold an inmate alone in a cell for 23 hours a day. And he condemned prison rape and said it should be treated more seriously. "We shouldn 't be making jokes about it in our popular culture," he said. "That 's no joke."
The first objection is that the death penalty does not "provide a measure of moral desert" (Nathanson). For the second, Nathanson states "it does not provide an adequate criterion for determining appropriate levels of punishment." The main objection is an "eye for an eye", or Lex talionis, and I believe it fails to support equality retributivism and creates punishments that are morally unacceptable. There is no way that
Why death penalty must end ‘’An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind,’’ said Mahatma Gandhi. The execution of someone who has possibly done a crime is an inhuman act. Death penalty is hypocritical and flawed. If killing is wrong, why do we kill when a criminal has done the crime of killing someone? In this essay, I will write why death penalty should end by writing about the violation of human rights, execution of innocent people, the fact that it does not deter crime and money.
Waiting in a prison cell for many years, an inmate in death row doesn’t know when his life will come to an end. This is a law under the U.S. government that is allowed to kill people who have committed a crime that’s grave enough. If someone commits a capital crime, they will be punished legally under the law. Taking a rope to the neck, or charging volts to the brain, it’s what people are fighting against today. Organizations are taking action against the death penalty by researching, publishing, and exposing facts whenever officials want to abuse their power with the law.