Nadani Jawahir

Professor Moser

Composition of Individual & Society

16 September 2020

Rhetorical Analysis of Four Sources on Death Penalty

 

Introduction 

         In the Op-ed article, “Should We Abolish the Death Penalty?” Jeremy Engle informs the reader about the wrongful doing of the death penalty and putting someone on death row. The article informs us that the US is one of the few 56 nations in the world that still practice capital punishment and we should end it. The residence of California had many opportunities to vote and abandon the death penalty, but they chose to ignore it. The author states that the cons of the death penalty are high cost. Racial disparities, wrongful convictions, and also why does society have the right to take a life if we are trying to be better and cause less crime.

       In the Court Case, ‘In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436 (1890)’ by the Supreme Court informs the reader about the known execution in New York State. That of William Kemmler in 1890. He was the first person to be executed with the developed electric chair for murdering his wife with a hatchet. The case informs the reader about the history of the death penalty and the concept of electrocution by electricity. In 1860 the law was passed for hanging as a form of execution followed in 1890 by execution by an electric chair then 1995 by lethal injection and was discontinued. Back to Kemmler’s case, his form of execution which was by electric chair came about when a dentist witnessed an intoxicated man died rapidly and without a hitch after walking into an exposed electric power line.     

       In the New York Times article, “Does Death Penalty Saves Live? A New Debate ” by Adam Liptak, the author is informing us studies show us that execution safe lives. For each criminal put to death, studies say 3 to 18 murders are prevented. The author informs us that the pros of the death penalty eliminate the crime rate and conviction rates also, murder rates tend to fall as executions rise. The cons of the death penalty are one execution cost more than $1 million so instead of spending it on killing one person devote the money to something else like crime prevention and it will prevent more murders. Some of the author’s second sources stated that they would stand for the death penalty because it would eliminate the crime rate and prevent murders. Another few seconds source stated that they oppose the death penalty because it takes a lot of money and instead of spending that money, one execution uses it for something else.

        The Washington Post article, “The Death Penalty is Unworthy of America” by the Editorial Board, is informing the audience that the death penalty is less used, less popular, and unnecessary in America. The author informs us in the article that every year less and fewer people are being executed, and states across America are abolishing the death penalty so why can’t the U. S in general put an end to it. The author is concluding that it is a new time period, and he expects the U.S to be a better place for everyone, but it is not because the death penalty is still in action and was recently used in 2019. He claims that crimes are wrong to commit, but we are not making it any better by killing the convict because among them can be innocent. 

 

Rhetorical Situation

        The author felt the need to write about racial injustice in the Op-ed article because society does not embrace it enough to raise awareness and solve the issue. By talking about racial injustices, people can think about them and reflect upon society.  This is a great way to start to change. In the article, he talks about a man named Kevin Cooper who was wrongly convicted of four brutal murders, and later on, evidence showed that he was framed by San Bernardino Officers.

        In the court case, the Supreme Court felt the need to address the concept of execution by the electric chair to the readers because this concept was an idea from a dentist. This shows that any common person is capable of attributing powerful ideas and making these thoughts to come true.  

      The author felt the need to talk about the cost of the death penalty in the New York Times article because instead of spending millions of dollars on murder, it would be beneficial to spend it on more important issues in the world. The author also felt the need to include the statistic about the prevention of murder to inform readers that if a murderer is set to a death penalty, the crime rate will lower because that murderer would never be able to commit any more crimes after his death. 

            The author of The Washington Post felt the need to inform us about the recent exoneration conducted in Texas by The Trump Justice Department to show us how our government system failed to help every individual and get justice in the right way. In the article, the author states “Two more death-row inmates were exonerated in 2019. That makes 166 exonerees since 1973.” (Editorial Board) The author included this in the article because he felt the need to inform us that we’re still stuck in the past and instead of the government making the country a better place and be the bigger person they are just killing people which makes them a criminal as well. 

 

The Purpose 

      The Op-ed article aims towards the California citizens to vote for the abandonment of the death penalty. In the article, it states “California voters have rejected an initiative to abolish the death penalty and in 2016, they narrowly approved Proposition 66 to help speed it up.” (Engle)  Over the past three decades, the state of California had the opportunity to vote and abolished the death penalty but they refused to do so. The purpose of this article is to show that the death penalty is a chosen punishment by the people. It shows the cruelty of the people because even though they have the right to abolish this procedure, they chose to ignore the issue.

     The case aims to highlight the history of the death penalty in New York from 1860 to 2008 and the first exoneration using the electric chair and how harsh the treatment is for people to conduct it. In the case, the author states  “Witnesses reported an awful smell of burning flesh and singeing hair, and blood vessels beneath Kemmler’s skin burst and bled.” (Supreme Court).   The purpose of the author including this in the case is to show how inhumane the process is and to make others witness and conduct it, that is like giving them satisfaction.  

        The purpose of the NYT article is to show the economical side of capital punishment. The article portrays that to carry out the death penalty a lot of the costs are involved. Sometimes it even takes millions of dollars for capital punishment to be completed. The article states “A single capital litigation can cost more than $1 million. It is at least possible that devoting that money to crime prevention would prevent more murders than whatever number, if any, an execution would deter.” (Liptak) This piece of quote from the article shows that performing one single exoneration costs more than a million, and we should spend that money and do more meaningful methods to prevent crime. The purpose of this article is to make readers aware of the millions of dollars the death penalty requires. It allows the audience to think about how millions of dollars can be used for the better good and for a better purpose than to kill murderers. As criminals and murders can be punished and handled via different methods. 

            The purpose of The Washington Post article is to inform the readers that exonerating criminals is the same as committing the crime because instead of making it better, we’re making it worse. The government is making it worse because they focus more on the crime that the convict committed more than why he/she committed it. The author is saying yes, justice should be served but in a healthy way, and to prevent more crime focus more on an individual mental health.  In the article, it states “at least 19 of the 22 prisoners who were executed this year had one or more of the following impairments: significant evidence of mental illness; evidence of brain injury, developmental brain damage, or an IQ in the intellectually disabled range; or chronic serious childhood trauma, neglect, and/or abuse.” (Editorial Board) The author’s purpose for including this in his/her article is to inform us that these prisoners are suffering mentally and the system is making it worse by just killing them. The author’s purpose in general for the article is to inform society that we should focus more on the prison system and guide the prisoners in the right way instead of killing them.    

 

The Audience

          For all three sources, the audience is the people of the US, for the Op-ed article it was mostly focused on the people of California for them to abolish the death penalty because the states are the highest for using the death penalty as a form of punishment. As stated in the op-ed article, “Three out of four nations in the world know better and are doing better…They’ve abolished the death penalty. It’s time California join those ranks.”(Engle) As shown in the quote, the author is informing the people of California that they should abolish the death penalty. The court case focuses mostly on the states that have not already abandoned the death penalty because in 2008 Governor David Patterson issue an executive order for all form of the death penalty to end and the types of equipment to be removed from facilities but, only the New York State followed the order. The NYT article focuses more on high political readers and researchers because they mostly have a saying in everything and they can make a change to society. I concluded that it is aimed at high-end people because most of the author’s interviewees were either political leaders or researchers from Harvard University. The WP article focuses on the political system and society because the author wants us to make the country a better place and in order to do that and prevent less crime focus more on individual health, make prison a place where you can reform and not suffer.    

 

The Genre

          The genre of the article by Jeremy Engle is an opinion article because right above the title it stated “Student Opinion.” Also, the author kept using terms like ‘I think,’ ‘I know’ and ‘I believe.’ The genre of ‘In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436 (1890)’ is a court case, and this can be concluded because it is a famous case that started the death penalty by electrocution. On the information site, it refers to ‘The U.S Supreme Court’ a couple of times, for example, it stated “Kemmler’s appeal of the new method reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld electrocution as a constitutional form of punishment.” (New York) From this, you can conclude that the court was involved and it was a court case. The New York Times article source leans toward the journalism and research genre because in the article it states multiple facts and research to inform the reader. In the article the author refers a lot to studies and factual evidence lot for example it states, “The studies, performed by economists in the past decade, compare the number of executions in different jurisdictions with homicide rates over time…”(Liptak) From this you can tell that it is a research and journalism source because it is performing factual evidence to inform us. The genre of the WP article is opinion based, this can be concluded by in the article it states “Opinion by Editorial Board”

 

The Stance

           The author’s stance in the Op-ed article is against the death penalty and wants every state to abolish it. The US is among the fifty-six nations that still practice the death penalty as a form of punishment, and the author argues for it to end because it is unjust and it is not a fair form of punishment. Capital punishment is also observed to be mainly used for minority inmates, such as Hispanics and African Americans. The author states,  “I know people think an eye for an eye, but if you rape, we don’t rape…And I think if someone kills, we don’t kill. We’re better than that” (Engle). This is the main moral of the argument as it portrays that if the fire is fought with fire, it only grows. The author also seems to support the idea of rehabilitation because punishment is meant to change people for the better, it is not meant to reinforce abuse. To be able to better society and the people in it, people need to be guided for the better. 

           The stance of the court case is for every form of execution to be abolished because it is cruel and unjust. In the case it informs the reader that the first form of execution was hanging and it was decided that it was not cruel enough for punishment and the use of the electric chair was conducted but was, later on, replaced with a lethal injection. The wardens of the prison do not condone this type of behavior because they believe that capital punishment was inequitable and not a deterrent.  He noted that barely 1 in 80 killers was executed, and stated, “Did you ever see a rich man go the whole route through to the Death House? I don’t know of any.” Rich people don’t die, they have an easy way out and most of the people that are being executed are poor and minority and their form of treatment is unfair. Also, making the warden conduct this type of execution can traumatize and scar them for life. 

           In the NYT article, the author argues that instead of spending millions of dollars to kill a murderer, it would be better to use that money to prevent crimes in our society. As he states, “Capital punishment is very expensive..so if you choose to spend money on capital punishment, you are choosing not to spend it somewhere else” (Engle). Although he acknowledges that the death penalty prevents 3-18 murders, according to studies, he continues to argue that if the money spent on the death penalty were spent on people and neighborhoods, their safety would be insured, and crime rates would decrease long term. Thus, Engle stands for the death penalty not to exist as it produces unnecessary costs. 

       The author’s stance in The Washington Post article is the death penalty should be abolished and we should focus more on prison reforming the prisoners instead of killing them. In the article, it states “life without the possibility of parole is a better penalty for murder than death.” (Editorial Board) This quote concludes that the author believes that parole is better than murdering a prisoner and there should be more ways to serve justice other than killing. The author also states, “the death penalty is expensive, unfairly implemented and unworthy of a justice system that strives for equal application of the law. Yet even if it could be applied fairly, state-sponsored killing would be unworthy of a nation founded on the principle of individual dignity” (Editorial Board) This concludes that the money spent on killing an individual should use on making the system a better one by implementing plans and ways to help an individual deal with their mental problems, leave them in the right path and reform them.

 

 

Works cited

“New York.” Death Penalty Information Center, 1 Nov. 2018, deathpenaltyinfo.org/state-and-federal-info/state-by-state/new-york  Accessed 13 Sept. 2020  

Liptak, Adam. “Does Death Penalty Save Lives? A New Debate” Tony-Silva.Com, 2007, http://tony-silva.com/download/deathpenaltystudy-nyt.pdf  Accessed 13 Sept. 2020 

Engle, Jeremy. “Should We Abolish The Death Penalty?”. New York Times, NYT.Company, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/learning/should-we-abolish-the-death-penalty.html.  Accessed 13 Sept. 2020 

Board, Editorial. “Opinion | The Death Penalty Is Unworthy of America.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 1 Jan. 2020, www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-death-penalty-is-unworthy-of-america/2020/01/01/1b0be1c6-2c05-11ea-bcd4-24597950008f_story.html.  Accessed 24 Sept. 2020