ETHOS:

How well do you build credibility, trust, and likability with a wide audience.

I first established my likability in my first paragraph, by acknowledging the other side of the argument, and saying that they have a great reason to not support the death penalty – I thought that was very fair. I also but my trust by being very creditable throughout my paper, I used very informed articles on the death penalty, and always cited them, also, I included multiple sources that shared the other side of the isle.

Do you cite and quote your sources appropriately? DO you introduce their credibility before citing evidence and claims from them?

I did cite and quote my sources appropriately, I also always made sure to introduce who they were and how they were credible BEFORE quoting them.

Are all of your cources credible?

I would say all of them are pretty credible, maybe there is one that is not as credible as the others.

Is your solution ethical?

I think my solution is pretty ethical, where we live in a time where we cant say certain things without offending someone, society should just loosen up about a lot of things in my opinion.

Do you appeal to a wide audience? Do you address and concede to at least one opposing view or reasonable conclusion that differs from your own?

I think I do appeal to a wide audience in my paper. My first body paragraph is the opposing view because I wanted to get it out of the way and have the rest of the paper be why I think the death penalty is right. SO yes, I do concede to at least one opposing view.

Is the essay mostly your own conclusions drawn from your experience and research?

I did draw my opinions on what I gathers from researching, my opinion is backed up throughout my paper from credible sources.

Logos:

How well does your message appeal to logic, reason, and (plenty of) evidence and support

My argument appeals to reason by in one example in my paper. The case I talked about to show what happens when someone is sentenced to life in prison, and why he should have been put to death instead, so he didn’t end up killing more innocent people. Any logical person can pick up my paper and read it and get where i’m coming from, whither they agree with what I have to say or not, but the goals is to convince them by the end of the paper.

Are all of your claims backed with enough evidence to persuade a critical audience?

I would say mostly all of my claims are backed enough with evidence to persuade a critical audience. Only if they want to change their mind, but if they don’t, there is no way I can win them over throughout the paper.

Is your solution practical and specific? Do you provide evidence that your solution could work?

I would say my solution could have been more specific. I do give evidence on why it would work throughout the paper.

Does the order of your paper logically (and persuasively) move from one idea to the next? Do your claims build upon each other in support of your thesis and solution?

I would say the order of my paper works perfect, and it is very logical. I also feel like it is very persuasive in the effort as well. All of my claims build upon each other in support of my thesis, and in the end my solution.

Do you avoid fallacies and contraditions?

For the most part I tired really hard to avoid certain fallacies and I mostly tried not to contradict my self, because the issue I picked was very easy for me to go to the other side in circumstances.

Pathos:

How well do you appeal to your audience’s emotions in an ethical way? How well do you inspire your audience to take positive action for the well being of the broader community?

I would say towards the end is when I started to use pathos, because really no one in the class can be negatively affected by the death penalty. So at the end is when I said do we want our kids and grand kids to know that they can commit crimes and not be put to death for them. I would have to say my paper is definitely lacking some pathos.

Do you appeal to shared values you have in common with your audience(s)? Which ones?

I would say I do this a little bit at the start of my paper, but not really beyond that.

Do you avoid exaggeration and vague, emotionally manipulative language?

Yes I do avoid emotionally manipulative language, because I don’t want to appeal that close to some of the fallacies.

Do you show empathy and respect for your audience?

I would say I did show both empathy and respect for my audience. I said that people who don’t believe in the death penalty have the right to do so because of their personal beliefs, and I could not attack their personal beliefs, so I appealed to them through empathy.

Do you appeal directly to your classmates with a call to action they could participate in?

I do not present a call to action that my class mates could directly participate in, its more of like a personal beliefs that they should change if you will.

Yes, I do have enough evidence to support each of my claims and evidence. Critical thinking is required to tie the evidence to what I am writing in the paper, being I dont provide a hole lot of statistics. I am following the PIE structure.

Brett Guillaume

Janel Spencer

WRT 101S

21 November 2019

The Moral Issue of The Death Penalty

“The death penalty honors human dignity by treating the defendant as a free moral actor able to control his own destiny for good or for ill; it does not treat him as an animal with no moral sense, and thus subject even to butchery to satiate human gluttony” (Fein 1). After everything boils down, the death penalty is a moral issue we have today as a society. The death penalty, also known as “capital punishment,” is the process by which convicted crimals are excuted by a governing authority. Many states within the United States have chosen to ban and outlaw capital punishment. In fact, many countries have completely abolished the death penalty for an abunidence of fair reasons and concerns. Since 1800, the number of nations that have abolished the death penalty has grown. To me, as an individual in society, this concerns me. The supreme court has made multiple rulings on capital punishement, on if it violates the Eighth Amendment or not, as of reasontly, the Supreme Court has ruled that capital punishment is constitutional. When it’s all set and done, society has a hole has many concerns about the death penalty, fairly so, but the death penalty also has it benifits, if done with humane killing, such as ensureing that those who commit first-degree murder recieve punishment appropirate to their actions. Also, it drastically reduces the chances that a convicted killer will have the opportunity to kill again. To resolve this issue, I suggest lethal injection as the only form of capital punishment, as it is the most humane. I also suggest that capital punishment is only to be used in extreme sircumstances, no being put to death for petty crime.

Most of the discussion surrounding the death penalty is for moral reasons, more so religious beliefs instead of personal beliefs. John Dear, a Juesuit Priest from the Society of Jesus, who reported on an article called, “Abolish the Death Penalty Now!”, wrote, “we, like Jesus, should feel free to side with the condemned, forgive those who hurt us, who injure or kill those we love, and in this way put an end to wheel of violence that keeps going around” (1). Dear is conceading that the death penalty isnt moral, because Jesus would want us to forgive and not wish death on other individuals. However, based on the constitution of the United States of America, the death penalty has been proven to be ethical in regards to the Eigth Amendment which states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” In other words, Judges do have the right to inflict the death penalty if they believe it is the only way. Individuals must look beyond the moral issue of the death penalty, just like I have, and think of the Constitution. The Constitution is what makes our country the greatest country in the world, and without having the option of the death penalty, it would only take away freedom. Justice Scalia, of the US Supreme Court, wrote in an article titled, “God’s Justice and Ours,” wrote, “In my view the choice for the judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation, rather than simply ignoring duly enacted, constitutional laws and sabotaging death penalty cases. He has, after all, taken an oath to apply the laws and has been given no power to supplant them with rules of his own” (1). 

Works Cited

Bowman, Jeffrey, and Tracey M. DiLascio. “Counterpoint: The Death Penalty Is Necessary.”

Points of View: Death Penalty, June 2019, p. 3. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=26612346&site=pov-live.

Issitt, Micah L., and Heather Newton. “Death Penalty: Overview.” Points of View: Death Penalty, June 2019, p. 1. EBSCOhost,search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=22841133&site=pov-live.

Jackson, Bruce, and Diane Christian. “How They Argue Now for the Death Penalty.” CounterPunch, vol. 19, no. 7, Apr. 2012, p. 1. EBSCOhost,search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=75173159&site=pov-live.

Pearce, Matt. “Counterpoint: Defending the Death Penalty.” Points of View: Death Penalty, June 

2019, p. 6. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=12437718&site=pov-live.

Although I concede that people don’t believe in the death penalty because of religious reasons, I insist that it is humane because it is not torture. I must say I am fairly religious my self, and I must admit, I hated the death penalty before. However, as I matured and grown, I realized that I believe that lethal injection is very humane, compared to something like the electric chair, or even a shoot out. I think that as long as it is humane, it is ok from me. If a murder commits a terrible act of murder, they should be meet with death, but not torture, because that it self would be very inhumane.

Sympathetic- Are they dying peacefully. distorted people helped him support his argument. For because if they sit in jail they waste more tax payer dollars. Spend more on prisons then in school

Neutral- Yes on interest in the topic. No info on the death penalty. They don’t really care, as long as it is humane.

Hostile- No one should die, every one should have forgiveness. No experience. Religious. Proof for humane death.

In-Class Writing: Write a summary of your conversations and what you learned (especially if anything surprised you).

I learned that my class mates are very surprised that I support the death penalty. May of my classmates oppose the death penalty because of moral and religious beliefs. Before, I agreed with my classmates, but over time I have grown to support the death penalty, but only in regards to serious murder cases and only lethal injection. I also agreed with my classmate on her argument in her paper that the prison system sets people up to fail and that it is inhumane. She found it surprising how I supported her argument but I was also for the death penalty. I also learned that many of my classmates were neutral on the topic, most of them were neutral because they didn’t know much information on the topic, and it just didn’t apply to them. I will have to convince most of my class mates to 1) agree with my rare statement and 2) convince them that they should care.

For the example Essay:

I. Introduction

i. Hook

II. Body Paragraph 1

i. Back ground

ii. Claim

iii. Call to action

III. Body Paragraph 2

i. Claim

IV. Body Paragraph 3

i. Claim

V. Body Paragraph 4

i. Background

ii. Claim

IV. Conclusion

i. Thesis

For my Essay:

I. Introduction

i. Hook sentence

ii. General information

II. Paragraph Number 2

i. Background information

III. Paragraph Number 3

i. Argument

ii. Evidence

iii. Explain

iv. Counter-Argument

IV. Paragraph 4

i. Claim

ii. Evidence

iii. Explain

V. Paragraph 5

i. Claim

ii. Evidence

iii. Explain

VI. Conclusion

i. Thesis

ii. Call to action for the rest of the class

How They Argue Now for the Death Penalty: The article discusses the existence of death row (DR) and the quarantine of death row inmates, specifically, in Texas. The article states that there is no difference between the death row prisoners and the other prisoners.

Counterpoint: Defending the Death Penalty: The article presents an argument defending the death penalty in the United States. In the article, justice is only achieved when a crime is met with the proper punishment. For certain crimes, the only just punishment is the death penalty. Capital punishment ensures that murderes never murder again, and provides justice for murder victims and their families. Capital punishment is a certain deterrent for those who need to be deterred the more: the murderers of our society. Life sentences gives them a chance to be free again, when the death penalty insures that they will never be free again.

Death Penalty: Overview: The death penalty is also know as “capital punishment,” according to the article. The United States continues to prompt the death penalty, but many states have out lawed it. Debates over the legal, moral, ethical, and economic ramifications of the death penalty are still ongoing.

Counterpoint: The Death Penalty Is Necessary: The article argues that the enforcement of the death penalty in the United States is aimed at punishing a criminal and not the deterrence of all crimes. The author also explores the debates fought over the death penalty. The author then goes on to explain the history of the death penalty. The article lastly notes that an ultimate crime should be given an ultimate punishment.

“Defend” your argument using three fallacies, one of each type (emotional, ethical, and logical). You can write out your fallacy or create a meme or comic if you’d like to get more creative with it. Post your work to your blog & share with your classmates.

Argument: The Death Penalty should still be practiced today

Fallacy for Emotional Argument:

Band Wagon: All the other states are banning the death penalty, so why isn’t your state banning the death penalty.

Fallacy for Ethical Argument:

Ad Hominem Argument: Everyone who believes the death penalty should be abolished is crazy, and they are all just too soft

Fallacy for Logical Argument:

The death penalty has been around since the beginning of time So why ban it

Does the death penalty affect our nations morals?