Death Penalty8 misc26, Miscellaneous, College Term Papers.com


		Data Bases
		• Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism?

		Links
		• Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com

		Free Essays
		• Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers

Search Lots of Essays

Back to Subjects - Miscellaneous

Death Penalty8 misc26

Death Penalty8 misc26 The Death penalty has been a controversial subject since the beginning of time. People are concerned about the morality of the death penalty thus making it a debatable subject. Because of this, James Freeman, columnist for USA Today, decided to write an editorial on the subject of “Does America need the death penalty?” While being a writer for USA Today, one would think that he would effectively use the appeals of rhetoric (ethos, pathos, and logos), but in fact he does not and concludes with a poorly writing argument. One problem James Freeman’s editorial faces is through the use of its ethos. Basically, the only credibility he shows is the fact that he writes for the USA Today. He uses statements such as, “I’ve struggled with the death penalty…” and “My first reaction was probably typical – Fry the bastard!” These statements make the reader think, as a reader, that he is not at all confident with his argument. Freeman is forthright in telling us that he has a problem deciding where he actually stands. “Frying the bastard,” is what he is trying to stop, isn’t it? The writer’s style and voice as he discusses his analysis is the only effective use of ethos in the argument. As a reader, it was very interesting to read his essay because the author sounds interested in discussing the topic. This style of writing is very informal, which adds to its ease in reading. This is an excellent writing style because he makes his essay most interesting. Pathos is a huge factor that plays an important role in writing arguments. The writer of this piece does an excellent job of emotionally connecting with the reader. The problem that the author has is that he affects the reader in the opposite way. When I first read, “I was preparing to write this column last week when I read about the released convict who dragged a 6-year-old Jake Robel to his death along five miles of Missouri highway,” I could only cringe and feel for the boy and his family. This man was 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 Freeman’s 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 doesn’t seem too logical to let someone out of prison so that he can go murder little kids. In Freeman’s 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 LA’s 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. Freeman’s 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 rate low, but fails to support his suggestions. He suggests cutting taxes but fails to explain who will pay for the various crime-prevention programs and who will pay for an increase in prison sentences. If there are going to be people in jail for longer amounts of time, who pays for them to live? Do we start charging criminals for staying in jail? Another point the author mentions is imprisonment for life, but he fails to mention the fact that life in judicial vocabulary means twenty years. As discussed in my essay, the author failed to successfully use the three appeals of rhetoric. He wasn’t very creditable to his job; he doesn’t seem to know what exactly his stance is. Emotionally he appealed to the opposite of his so-called view. Also, Freeman does not balance his writing and does not give reasons his plan is logical. All of these factors made his column in the USA Today a ghastly example of rhetoric. Bibliography:

Word Count: 892