The Banning of the Last Meal for Condemned People in Texas - Essay Example

The Controversy Analysis The following essay undertakes an analysis of the controversy behind the banning of the last meal for condemned people in Texas and a rhetorical analysis of Hennessey’s and Hlavaty’s articles on the subject. Conventionally, as long as an inmate does not request alcohol or drugs they can receive any food they wish. In Texas, the controversy arose after and inmate by the name Lawrence Brewer who was sentenced to death for murder ordered a huge amount of food but on the day of the execution refused to eat it (Forsyth). This annoyed senator John Whitmore who demanded the last meal should abolished (Jones). When this got to the department of criminal justice, they complied and eliminated to provision of last meal in Texas. By examining some of the various article about the matter, I will discuss what various individuals think about the last meal and the strategies writers have used to strengthen their argument on the subject such as foreshadowing, pathos and logos. In Molly Hennessey’s article, it is evident that the writer wishes to appeal to the readers’ emotion and outrage by describing in vivid detail the quality and quantity of food that was requested by the prisoner as his last meal. The menu which has been described in other quarters as having been enough to feed a family reads like something out of a fives star hotel rather than the content of prison kitchen (Johnson). “two chicken-fried steaks with gravy and sliced onions; a triple-patty bacon cheeseburger; a cheese omelet with ground beef, tomatoes, onions, bell peppers and jalapeños; a bowl of fried okra with ketchup; one pound of barbecued meat with half a loaf of white bread; three fajitas; a meat-lover’s pizza; one pint of Blue Bell Ice Cream; a slab of peanut-butter fudge with crushed peanuts; and three root beers (Johnson). The first thought that comes to one’s mind is how much did it cost to make that much, and that good food? In addition, why would they make so much food simply because a condemned man requested when it is illogical that even he could not have eaten even a quarter of it? The description easily appeals to the reader’s pathos and likely makes them feel a sense of outrage even before they have read the essay. Furthermore, the writer has foreshadowed a scenario where the prisoner either did not finish or refused to eat the food creating anticipation of more conflict. However, this was not the first application of pathos, from a logical point of view, it would be unfair to blame the prisoner solely for what happened after the food was prepared since if they indeed did prepare so much food they would have just been as irresponsible and wasteful as he was being. However, one hardly notices the guilt in the part of the kitchen staff, why? The first thing the writer does is to catalogue the man’s crimes; “Lawrence Brewer, 44, a convicted murderer and self-described white supremacist,” (Hennessey-Fiske) which are already emotionally evocative. Readers will almost automatically find him repugnant and clearly incapable of remorse and undeserving of sympathy making it easy to ignore the mistakes of anyone but him. The writer then tells how the food was prepared and the prisoner went ahead to reject it, here, they do not clarify if the exact amount and quality had been prepared, they only say he refused to ate it which leads to one thinking of how much food was wasted further outraging them. However, a critical reader will notice that in the last part of the easy, the article mentions unreasonable and says, “Brewer requested a pound of barbecue, but received a smaller amount” (Hennessy-Fiske). Putting this to into consideration, it is evident that the writer deliberately exaggerated the amount of food the prisoner wasted while in reality of the food was scaled down removing excesses it may not have been as much. By using exaggeration, and vivid description the reader draws the reader’s attention to the prisoner’s wastefulness. She only describes the flowery tableau the prisoner requested but at no point does she attempt to describe the specific qualities and amounts the prisoner received for which may not have been as much as to warrant the public reaction. The writer is works for the LA times, from this, she establishes a form of credibility which tells her leader that they are about to encounter a wildly researched and well thought out objective text. She has also tried to use ethos and set herself out to look like a credible source by supporting his argument with quotations from authorities in the matter. He Quotes Kathyrne Kase who is an interim director at the Texas Defenders who says that refusing to give death row inmates their last meal is a sign of “lack of compassion for the condemned” (Hennessey-Fiske). On the other hand, she presents the view of the senator who holds that death row inmates such as brewer have in most committed crimes such as murder and they did not give their victims such luxuries; why? He challenges should they be afforded the same. By using the opinion of professionals involved in the controversy, the writer presents herself and an objective and open-minded thinker willing to examine both sides of the argument. Here it is worth noting that although she does not actually use her opinion in the article, the quotations examples and the manner she choose to use covertly tells the discerning reader that she supports the move and does not approve of efforts to oppose it even though she writes about them. This can be made clear if one was to consider the two arguments she juxtaposes; one from the senator and the other the director of Texas defenders. While admitting that both of them sound logical given their originators’ interest in the matter, the senator’s argument is likely to sound more appealing given the background that has been laid so far making the prisoner appear both unremorseful and wasteful. “The fact that Brewer didnt eat it “compounded everything,” Whitmore added, showing that the condemned man had “manipulated the system” by ordering, “More food than a family of four can eat in a week.” (Hennessey-Fiske) The opposing argument on the other hand comes off as weak and even obligational without any “punch” and lacking persuasion. The senator’s argument on the other hand is buoyed the irony lent by its poetic justice. It will more easily appeal to the already outraged audience who will find it hard to sympathize with a racist, murderer and clearly wasteful person. The source of the article and the identity of the writer are very important for her to establish her ethos. As a reporter for the times, she appeals to the reader as someone who is well researched and who must be trustworthy by virtue of the entity she represents. In addition, her third party narration makes her sound aloof; a disinterested party just explain to her readers what she has observed so they can form their own opinion. Nevertheless, from a critical point of view it is evident that from the start she is out to convince those opposing the banning of the last mean to change their minds. In the above illustration when she pits the senator against Kase, she uses the straw man, a common rhetorical fallacy in which one creates a weak version of an opposing argument, which can easily be trounced in the hope that the audience makes a hasty generalization. There are numerous arguments for not banning the last meal, which could include the fact that not all death row inmates are actually killers and in any case, the families may have moved on and forgiven them making it pointless to punish the inmate further by denying him the last meal. However she deliberately choses an unconvincing argument to covertly manipulate her support for the ban. Hlavaty also uses pathos and exaggeration in describing the amount of food which he claims “could have fed a small family and maybe even the grandparents” (Hlavaty). However, like Hennessey, he does not distinguish between the food that was actually cooked and what was initially ordered. He then proceeds to talk about the victims who never had any of the privileges the condemned man is getting with the intention of riling the reader so they may find it easier to support the ban. However, if his argument were pursued to its logical conclusion, the assumption would be that the condemned do not deserve any of the privileges that they denied their victims. There should be no last family visit, a priests or anything aside from a quick unceremonious execution that ensures the condemned suffers emotionally just as their victim did. By only citing the arguments he feels are valid to his particular point of view, the writer loses his capacity to persuade through Ethos since he cannot really claim to be objective when he clearly has an agenda to push forward. The IBT time article on the same subject is however less incline to using pathos, and takes a more logical approach. It argues that “death penalty opponents didnt see it as a big deal in the context of what they call a grossly unjust system” (“Texas Eliminates…”). It posits that people who care most about the death penalty have little concern about whether there is a last meal or not, in fact this is just a trivial affair. Taking account that the bigger question for them is if the intimate lives or dies in the end (Kniffin and Brian). They think the last meal should not be removed since the people defending them were opponents of the death penalty. In this context, the article wants their audience to understand that the last meal is an issue that concerned the convicted and the public opinion on the matter should not matter so much given they have no stake in it. In my opinion, irrespective of the techniques used by the writers to bring out their overt and covert convictions, the manner in which the whole business was carried out was both unfair and disorganized. The last meal has been in place for tens of years and banning it simply because one person abused the privilege is not justified given that many people on death row may have been looking towards that as their last good experience before they died. I recall an experience where we were banned from having water bottles in class since someone used to squirt water at the teacher through a hole on the lid. In the end, those of us who actually benefited from having water in class were punished because of the teacher’s emotional response to the situation. In the same way, it makes no sense for prisoners to be denied their last meal while the senator could have considered other options such as limiting the budget, quantity or quality of food availed to ensure such excesses were prevented in posterity. Work Cited Hennessy-Fiske, Molly. Texas ends last meals for death row inmates. Las Angeles times, 2011. Web. 16 Sept. 2014. Hlavaty, Craig. No fancy last meal for the 500th Texas execution, but the condemned still get a privilege their victims were denied. Hearst Newspapers, LLC, 2013. Web. 16 Sept. 2014. “Texas Eliminates Last Meal for Death Row Inmates.” www.ibtimes.com. IBT Media Inc., 22 Sept. 2011. Web. 16 Sept. 2014. Johnson, Meagan. Texas Eliminates Last Meal Requests After Lawrence Brewers Execution. The Christian Post, INC, 2011. Web. 16 Sept. 2014. Forsyth, Jim. “Fancy last supper requests off the menu on Texas death row.” www.reuters.com. Thomson Reuters, 22 Sept. 2011. Web. 16 Sept. 2014. Kniffin, Kevin M., and Brian Wansink. "Death Row Confessions and the Last Meal Test of Innocence." Laws 3.1 (2013): 1-11. Jones, Michael Owen. "Dining on Death row: last meals and the crutch of ritual." Journal of American Folklore 127.503 (2014): 3-26. Read More