s a convict and was released only to do damage to the world once more. Maybe James Freeman should have written his column about why America needs the death penalty. With the pathos part of the argument the writer should emotionally connect with the reader to make his point more lucid. Instead, the columnist connects emotionally to make his argument seem unreasonable and foolish.James Freemans purpose for writing this column is unclear because of his failure to use logos. He fails to logically appeal to the reader. Freeman tries to make the reader think that eliminating the death penalty is logical when he added the story of the little boy who was dragged to his death by a released convict. This is strikingly similar to the pathos aspect of the paper. It doesnt seem too logical to let someone out of prison so that he can go murder little kids. In Freemans plan, he wants to put the guy back in jail so that he can get out again in about fifteen years and do the same thing to someone else. Another point the writer fails to mention is some disadvantages to eliminating the death penalty. He fails to add balance and reasoning to his column. Thus, eradicating a major key to and excellent logical appeal.Another instance where Mr. Freeman fails to logically appeal to his audience is when he mentions how if criminals knew that they would spend the rest of there life in jail, then they would not commit the crime. He goes on to say how his friend, who grew up in LAs Compton neighborhood, knew criminals who never even thought of the penalty of there actions. If criminals fail to realize their consequences, then how is putting them in jail for life going to stop them. Once again James Freeman makes no logical sense and seems to be confused about his stance.The biggest flaw in Mr. Freemans editorial is the fact that he fails to look at the opposing view. He comes up with good ways to eliminate the death penalty and still keep the crime r...
