Ethos Pathos And Logos

Scheindlin explains the flaws that mandatory sentences have and how their impact effect people and the community. She uses pathos, logos and ethos to expand and back up her claim of the negative effects of these laws.

Retire federal judge Scheindlin expressed her dislike of the minimal sentences laws that she was required to carry out during her career. She gave countless reason why the laws caused more harm than good to those these laws affected. She used a man named Fabre to explain how these unfair law negatively affected people and those around them. She commented “Fabre’s life was troubled, but he was not a leader, a manager or an organizer of drug sales. Nor was he the source of any of the drugs he peddled — in fact, he didn’t even

The multiple use of logos in this quote expands her reasoning on how the minimal sentences laws hinder the rehabilitation of a petty criminal. Fabre was no kingpin and making him serve a five-year sentence will not stop the real drug dealers from distributing drugs to the community. Fabre harsh minimal sentence and many others petty criminals were used as an example to deterred future criminal from committing crimes. Scheindlin quoted on the tactic of using fear to stop crime “if this effect was real, my fellow judges and I would have seen narcotics arrests and prosecutions decline over the years. They never did. No young man on the street was ever deterred from criminal activity by the sentence given to a buddy”. She realized that one of the main reasons that the minimal sentences were put in place was to stop future crime, but the laws weren’t having an effect on people's decisions on committing crimes. Separating Fribre from his family and giving him a sentence of five years gave him a reason to hate the government and its workers. Fribre will be sent to a facility filled with

Elected officials must strengthen public schools (regardless of Zip code); reach out to addicts, rather than abandon them; and partner with low-income communities, rather than ignore them”. She talked about two organizations that were made to come up with solutions to social ills within a community to help people better their lives and avoid the harsh minimal laws that were being enforced. Scheindlin uses these two institutions credibility to show that things are being done to reverse the effects that the minimal sentences law had on people. For example, if a child’s father was sentenced to jail for a petty crime, the child may follow in his/her father’s footsteps because they wouldn’t know better. This is when one of these institutions steps in in order to avoid making another criminal. Scheindlin uses her colleagues input to further her point on the unfair system. Most agreed that what the minimal sentences were doing were inhumane. She uses the institutions and her colleagues who are in a respectful profession to persuade people to understand what these laws are doing