Analysis Of In Our Names By Lesly K Gunter

“In Our Names”: Rewriting the US Death Penalty by Kimberly K. Gunter theorizes that the idea of who deserves the death penalty is largely dictated by external factors including literacy, socioeconomic status, education, and exposure making certain classes and groups of people more prone to receive the death penalty. I theorize that the death penalty is biased leaving certain people and classes of people more likely to receive a sentence of death and that the sentence of death should be based on a more algorithmic method that factors in the same elements for each person to be placed on death row. “In Our Names”:Rewriting the US Death Penalty by Kimberly K. Gunter contrasts the US death penalty to different levels of creative/freestyle

This is seen in the article where she states “ we remind ourselves that literacy isn’t just a storehouse of knowledge but a kind of action and that dis-course isn’t printed in text alone , but also a way of being in the world, the ideological nature of all discourse is apparent moreover if we look at literacy as a social action but it is a social call to action. (Gunter, K) Ethos is used as a means of convincing an audience via the authority or credibility of the persuader, be it a notable or experienced figure in the field or even a popular celebrity. (Examples of Ethos, Logos, and

The article goes on to state that as part of the course work people from outside the class are interviewed and their viewpoints of the American death penalty heard and recorded. Pro death penalty and anti death penalty viewpoints were heard from attorneys, correction officers, psychologists, theology scholars, and ministers. Gunter states that she and her students “abandoned the insinuation of academia as an ivory tower and took to the streets which was essential to the scrutiny of the American death penalty.” *5 People from all races, socioeconomic statuses, and educational backgrounds were interviewed. There were as many different opinions as there were interviewees. Attorneys from both sides of the capital punishment debate were interviewed with one stating “If you are going to kill somebody in the country, don’t be poor.” *6 This opinion was promptly opposed by an Assistant District Attorney who went on to describe the crimes that those on death row had committed. The more people that were interviewed and surveyed the more they began to realize that the American death penalty was filled with