Rhetorical Analysis Of Scott Turow's To Kill Or Not To Kill

In his article “To Kill or Not to Kill”, Scott Turow tries to convince the audience advocating the capital-punishment system in Illinois to inspect its fairness and efficacy. He tackles this issue because he provides that the system is defective. Even though he goes back and forth from favoring the capital punishment issue to rejecting it, he clearly states his penalty opposition, supporting it with powerful examples, factual data, and a metaphor. To appear moral, credible, and knowledgeable, the author uses his scholarly tone, demonstrating his respectable position. He, as a lawyer and “one… members of a commission appointed by Governor”, had to present his position on the law during the reforms of the capital punishment system in Illinois. Building his ethos, he says:

For example, Turow illustrates that even people, who show anger towards the hideous crimes, still criticize the punishment, questioning the government capacity to distinguish between the innocent and the guilty. Furthermore, “in the last decade the murder rate in states without the death penalty has remained consistently lower than in the states that have had executions.” (Turow 2003) He includes that to show that the system is faulty and not essential because it doesn’t discourage criminals. Also, he points to the fact that Illinois, which has a capital penalty, has a higher death rate than Michigan, which doesn’t apply the penalty law, even though both of them have similar racial makeup, income levels, and population arrangement between cities and rural areas. Moreover, he argues against the belief that “death penalty saves money, because it avoids the expense of lifetime incarceration”, (Turow 2003) He notes the high costs of capital litigation. So, Turow uses factual data and informed opinions as convincing logical appeals because they coax people into thinking that they don’t need the