Essay 4

The debate surrounding the death penalty, as has been throughly demonstrated in my previous papers, is contentious because it calls into question the sanctity of human life. Even if you agree some actions do, in fact, warrant execution, not everyone agrees that we as a society can morally implement it. Many will put aside moral reservations about their stance in light of financial considerations, citing economic factors both for and against capital punishment. To study exactly how certain lines of thinking influence people’s stances, I selected two articles demonstrating opposite sides of the debate. To be clear, both of these articles are neutral and generally contain facts instead of opinion. The first explains the debate surrounding a man who killed a police officer, and whether or not he should receive the death penalty. The second reports on global trends, which generally show that people are turning against the death penalty. While it is important to keep in mind that these articles contain no bias themselves, they are good examples of the type of reasoning that the two sides use. Generally, those who support the death penalty focus more on pathos and emotion, while those who are against it point more toward logos and logic. I found that the article focusing on logos, the anti-execution piece, to be more persuasive as it’s point didn’t depend on accepting a subjective sense of justice.

When someone does something as heinous as killing an (innocent) police officer, it affects not just that officer and their loved ones, but we as a society. We entrust law enforcement with our safety, and murdering them is depraved because it punishes someone for living their lives in service to the community. Thus, it makes sense that people would see something that heinous as worthy of execution. This sentiment is best expressed in this excerpt from the article. “We have to protect the people that protect us each and every day, and that’s not happening in Massachusetts,” state Rep. Shaunna O’Connell (R-Taunton) said.” (Planas, Crittenden, Sweet, 2018). The people calling for his execution also point to his lengthy criminal record as evidence that execution is warranted. Essentially, they’re taking the high level of respect the public (generally, recent events notwithstanding) maintains for the police, and showing what they believe to be the flip side. When someone who we generally treasure and depend on is harmed, the punishment, as they see it, should be equally severe. This isn’t an inherently logic-based argument, as the crime has already been committed, and evidence generally seems to point toward the death penalty being an inefficient deterrent to crime. It makes no attempt to claim ethos, or bolster the author’s authority. Rather, it draws on the high emotion coming from the death of a cop to make a case. To me, that hurts the credibility of the piece, as it requires acting on emotion rather than making an informed decision. I feel as if the purpose is more to further an agenda than to inform.

The Amnesty article was quite a bit more broad, focusing on the global impact of execution and how its implementation and support has changed over time. Rather than focusing on the ethics of the debate, it draws on facts and figures to explain problems with execution. Generally, it is understood that execution is only supposed to be used for those who have themselves taken a life. In fact, all the papers I have written on this topic thus far have labored under this assumption- that the ethics and morality surrounding execution depend on the person in question having themselves taken a life. However, as this article points out, the reality is quite a bit more complicated and shocking than that. “Singapore hanged eight people in 2017 — all for drug-related offenses, and double the amount in 2016. There was a similar trend in Saudi Arabia, where drug-related beheadings rocketed from 14% of total executions in 2016 to 40% in 2017.” (Amnesty, 2018.) All the deliberating over the ethics of execution shift if there isn’t universal agreement about what warrants death. Additionally, the article points out that the mentality toward the death penalty is often more of a “quick fix” than an actual, reasoned attempt at resolving the issues that can lead to terrible crimes being committed. This plays a bit to ethos, by having the writer themselves point out a flaw in the line of reasoning rather than just drawing on what others have said. However, the article overall sticks to facts and statistics, trying to make an intelligent and reasoned argument about potential logistical flaws in execution.

These two articles present an interesting display of the rationale behind both proponents and detractors of the death penalty. Those who support execution tend to think more emotionally, carrying a higher need for a more potentially abstract sense of justice. Meanwhile, those who think we shouldn’t execute seem more concerned with the implications of potential errors than the actual ethics of the state taking a life. While there is certainly crossover, this dichotomy is important to keep in mind when considering arguments. Ultimately, the logic based anti-execution case was the more convincing article. Relying on tangible facts and evidence is more persuasive than something based on a sense of justice the reader may not share.

Related posts:

This video illustrate how to Find a market where people willing to spend money and how to creat product to resolve their issues or problem. How to use 43things.com to find what people want and creat…