Essay - Death and Justice
Here's my latest draft of a rhetorical analysis paper written on the essay by Edward I. Koch. We were assigned to read Koch's essay, critique the writer's effectiveness while using various appeals, then give an overall grade of the piece.
My first draft is sort of embarrassing but enough to complete the assignment. That shouldn't be the way to go about writing a paper, but (excuse inserted here). The last paper I submitted "Invasion of Privacy" received an o.k. review. This one is definitely going to need some work. But, hey, with my brand new internet connection, I should be pull off a work of art. ; ) Hehe.
Christian Hammond
February 15, 2005
Rhetorical Analysis #1, Draft #1
Can it be said that capital punishment saves lives? Edward I. Koch, in his article “Death And Justice” argues that this is true. Koch, using common techniques to influence readers, suggests that killers be dealt with in this tried and true eye-for-an-eye form of punishment.
Koch opens his article quoting convicted murderers Robert Lee Willie and Joseph Carl Shaw, both in the last moments of their lives plead for the justice system to put a stop to the endless cycle of killing. Using simple logic, Koch argues that the sudden changing of the killers’ moral character is not a result of remorse for the victims, but rather a selfish attempt to save their own lives from the killing hands of the justice system. Koch effectively uses these quotes to suggest to the reader that a killer might have thought twice about his/her own actions if the death sentence were an inevitability
Having served 22 years in various public service positions including: district leader, councilman, congressman, and mayor; Koch uses these various titles in favor of gaining the reader‘s trust. By appealing to ethos, Koch, is able to invite the reader to more openly consider his views than those of the opposition that may not have the general public’s main interests at heart.
Before continuing with the main body of his article, Koch makes well of reassuring the reader that he has carefully considered opposing views and has put much thought into forming the ideas that support his argument. Koch does this by saying the following:
Because I support the death penalty for heinous crimes of murder, I have sometimes been the subject of emotional and outraged attacks by voters who find my position reprehensible or worse. I have listened to their ideas. I have weighed their objections carefully. I still support the death penalty (448).
This statement appears to be an attack on persons having views other than those of Koch’s. He has taken the first swing and has perhaps made a hasty generalization by labeling the opposition as irrational and violent in nature. However, he does this tactfully; gaining sympathy from the reader and is careful not to dwell on his unfortunate encounters with the voting public.
Koch moves on to offer the most common points of argument that those opposing capital punishment offer as reasons to abolish the practice. Listing these topics in a point-by-point format, he, in essence, turns his article into a forum discussing what the reader may have been predisposed to feeling and the reasons why he believes there is a need for this form of ultimate punishment. Laying out the article in this fashion helps to align his idea of society’s well being and highlights the lack of insight to those ideas that differ from his.
While opponents to the death penalty describe the act as “barbaric”, Koch, however, seems to casually dismiss the tales of prisoners’ pain and agony of supposed mishaps during the administering of capital punishment. Koch’s dismissal of sympathy for these killers certainly reaffirms that he sees nothing wrong with the necessary means to eradicate society’s all too common atrocities.
Once again attempting to appeal to the reader’s logic, Koch introduces an analogy of comparing the death penalty to radical efforts to cure the dreadful disease - cancer. At first, one might be taken aback by the comparing of apples and oranges, but he saves the analogy by admitting its imperfectness. His suggestion that, “The disease is injustice”(449) implies that he sees capital punishment as the only means to deter those who may perhaps one day commit murder. This goes well with his assertion that “If we create a society in which injustice is not tolerated, incidents of murder… will diminish” (449).
Koch, while recalling a study performed by M.I.T. in 1970, states that more people were likely to die from homicide by living in a large city within the United States than a soldier would be to die in combat during World War II. His use of a credible source, such as the likes of M.I.T., is very effective in pointing out statistics that support his claim. This, all-the-while, is very appealing to the reader’s sense of trust.
Using an excellent bit of oppositional research, Koch cites Adam Bedau, a highly regarded person amongst the anti-capital punishment community. Bedau, who had studied the 7,000 executions from 1893 to 1971, was unable to find any account of an innocent person being executed by mistake. This is very damning for the opposition, considering that this point of argument is disputed by a voice forefront to the anti death penalty movement. Koch might be accused of appealing to the reader‘s ignorance by choosing not to suggest that innocent lives have been lost; it’s simply yet to be discovered.
Koch introduces Kant, Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Montesquieu, and Mill as “the greatest thinkers of the 19th century” (451). These philosophers, throughout their time, have agreed that natural law indicates that man has the right to end life in an attempt to uphold justice. Obviously, by associating these philosophers with his views, Koch is attempting to bring validity to the views he presents.
Explaining the differences of rights between the private individual and those of the state, Koch does extremely well. He brings into comparison the likes of a kidnapper versus those of the jail system. Society has given government the power to hold criminals against their will; hopefully, preventing the violator from causing more harm. He proposes as well, that it is society that has given the state power to put to death those that have committed cold-blooded murder.
Indicating that the private individual collectively makes society brings the decision to protect our lives from violent criminals back into the hands of the individual. It is up to the reader to determine the price of justice and how much one is willing to give up in order to trust government to make the right decisions regarding capital punishment. Koch does well to put the true gist of the subject in to view by stating “When we protect guilty lives, we give up innocent lives in exchange” (452).
Edward I. Koch’s article is a well thought out and is a well constructed piece. He engages the reader respectfully even though attempting several acts of persuasion. His essay, overall, is effective and could perhaps encourage opposition to capital punishment to reconsider the views one possesses. Koch deserves a high amount of credit for this short article and for appealing to the general public’s best interests. This article, after taking format, techniques and composition into consideration, deserves an A.
My first draft is sort of embarrassing but enough to complete the assignment. That shouldn't be the way to go about writing a paper, but (excuse inserted here). The last paper I submitted "Invasion of Privacy" received an o.k. review. This one is definitely going to need some work. But, hey, with my brand new internet connection, I should be pull off a work of art. ; ) Hehe.
Christian Hammond
February 15, 2005
Rhetorical Analysis #1, Draft #1
Can it be said that capital punishment saves lives? Edward I. Koch, in his article “Death And Justice” argues that this is true. Koch, using common techniques to influence readers, suggests that killers be dealt with in this tried and true eye-for-an-eye form of punishment.
Koch opens his article quoting convicted murderers Robert Lee Willie and Joseph Carl Shaw, both in the last moments of their lives plead for the justice system to put a stop to the endless cycle of killing. Using simple logic, Koch argues that the sudden changing of the killers’ moral character is not a result of remorse for the victims, but rather a selfish attempt to save their own lives from the killing hands of the justice system. Koch effectively uses these quotes to suggest to the reader that a killer might have thought twice about his/her own actions if the death sentence were an inevitability
Having served 22 years in various public service positions including: district leader, councilman, congressman, and mayor; Koch uses these various titles in favor of gaining the reader‘s trust. By appealing to ethos, Koch, is able to invite the reader to more openly consider his views than those of the opposition that may not have the general public’s main interests at heart.
Before continuing with the main body of his article, Koch makes well of reassuring the reader that he has carefully considered opposing views and has put much thought into forming the ideas that support his argument. Koch does this by saying the following:
Because I support the death penalty for heinous crimes of murder, I have sometimes been the subject of emotional and outraged attacks by voters who find my position reprehensible or worse. I have listened to their ideas. I have weighed their objections carefully. I still support the death penalty (448).
This statement appears to be an attack on persons having views other than those of Koch’s. He has taken the first swing and has perhaps made a hasty generalization by labeling the opposition as irrational and violent in nature. However, he does this tactfully; gaining sympathy from the reader and is careful not to dwell on his unfortunate encounters with the voting public.
Koch moves on to offer the most common points of argument that those opposing capital punishment offer as reasons to abolish the practice. Listing these topics in a point-by-point format, he, in essence, turns his article into a forum discussing what the reader may have been predisposed to feeling and the reasons why he believes there is a need for this form of ultimate punishment. Laying out the article in this fashion helps to align his idea of society’s well being and highlights the lack of insight to those ideas that differ from his.
While opponents to the death penalty describe the act as “barbaric”, Koch, however, seems to casually dismiss the tales of prisoners’ pain and agony of supposed mishaps during the administering of capital punishment. Koch’s dismissal of sympathy for these killers certainly reaffirms that he sees nothing wrong with the necessary means to eradicate society’s all too common atrocities.
Once again attempting to appeal to the reader’s logic, Koch introduces an analogy of comparing the death penalty to radical efforts to cure the dreadful disease - cancer. At first, one might be taken aback by the comparing of apples and oranges, but he saves the analogy by admitting its imperfectness. His suggestion that, “The disease is injustice”(449) implies that he sees capital punishment as the only means to deter those who may perhaps one day commit murder. This goes well with his assertion that “If we create a society in which injustice is not tolerated, incidents of murder… will diminish” (449).
Koch, while recalling a study performed by M.I.T. in 1970, states that more people were likely to die from homicide by living in a large city within the United States than a soldier would be to die in combat during World War II. His use of a credible source, such as the likes of M.I.T., is very effective in pointing out statistics that support his claim. This, all-the-while, is very appealing to the reader’s sense of trust.
Using an excellent bit of oppositional research, Koch cites Adam Bedau, a highly regarded person amongst the anti-capital punishment community. Bedau, who had studied the 7,000 executions from 1893 to 1971, was unable to find any account of an innocent person being executed by mistake. This is very damning for the opposition, considering that this point of argument is disputed by a voice forefront to the anti death penalty movement. Koch might be accused of appealing to the reader‘s ignorance by choosing not to suggest that innocent lives have been lost; it’s simply yet to be discovered.
Koch introduces Kant, Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Montesquieu, and Mill as “the greatest thinkers of the 19th century” (451). These philosophers, throughout their time, have agreed that natural law indicates that man has the right to end life in an attempt to uphold justice. Obviously, by associating these philosophers with his views, Koch is attempting to bring validity to the views he presents.
Explaining the differences of rights between the private individual and those of the state, Koch does extremely well. He brings into comparison the likes of a kidnapper versus those of the jail system. Society has given government the power to hold criminals against their will; hopefully, preventing the violator from causing more harm. He proposes as well, that it is society that has given the state power to put to death those that have committed cold-blooded murder.
Indicating that the private individual collectively makes society brings the decision to protect our lives from violent criminals back into the hands of the individual. It is up to the reader to determine the price of justice and how much one is willing to give up in order to trust government to make the right decisions regarding capital punishment. Koch does well to put the true gist of the subject in to view by stating “When we protect guilty lives, we give up innocent lives in exchange” (452).
Edward I. Koch’s article is a well thought out and is a well constructed piece. He engages the reader respectfully even though attempting several acts of persuasion. His essay, overall, is effective and could perhaps encourage opposition to capital punishment to reconsider the views one possesses. Koch deserves a high amount of credit for this short article and for appealing to the general public’s best interests. This article, after taking format, techniques and composition into consideration, deserves an A.
posted by Puddin' at 10:30 PM
0 comments
