Rhetorical analysis - Essay Example

The writer has clearly set out to convince the audience that the death penalty is wrong and immoral and any justification it may have is overwhelmed precincts on which he demonstrates its thrives. These include racism and the possible incompetence of judge’s prosecutors and juries. Herbert also appeal to the readers logic and commonsense by citing examples of previous supporters of the penalty such as Adam Litpack, who have recently come to change their minds on the same. His description of the death penalty, which is undoubtedly subjective, is aimed evidently at getting the readers emotional support on board.

This is especially with the strong and condemnatory terms …“The death penalty in the United States has never been anything but an abomination — a grotesque, uncivilized, overwhelmingly racist affront to the very idea of justice”. In addition, Judge Stephen who posits that deciding the life and death of individuals is not a task that should be left to a system that has been found to have flaws. The basis of the initial argument is that the police and prosecutor are liable to withhold and tamper with evidence of innocence in order to ensure they get the verdict.

He strengthens his argument by asserting that there have cases where lawyers on whom the defendants lives depend have been drunk or on drugs and as result, innocents have died. Herein he develops his case for banning the practice by opening the reader to the possibility that despite the otherwise viability the penalty, it can result to innocent people dying as one cannot be 100% sure of one’s guilty by making it appear relative to the defenders competence with is also relative to their sobriety, and other circumstances.

The writer also uses retrospective evidence to persuade the reader of the authenticity of his claims in a demonstrative of the effects of racism in the wheel of justice. Moreover, he cites cases in the past when prosecutors racism was openly practiced, he gives the example of a judge who says he was once told if he ever put “a nigger in the jury, he would be fired”. The writer then tries to prove that this has not changed much by saying that the prosecutors have however only improved their language as such implying the same sentiments exists even today.

Herbert gives credence to his argument by referring to an interview with Patricia Lemay a white juror who once served in a hearing resulting I an execution, during the jury deliberations which are supposed to be archetypical of objectivity and fairness, the jurors displayed nauseating levels of xenophobia and discrimination. This was brought out by the idea among some groups that white lives were more valuable than black ones. Citing credible sources in the form of retired justices Thurgood and Blackmun who he contrast the original intention with the result effectively juxtaposing them to depict the inappropriateness of the penalty.

Marshall said that it was approved by the Supreme Court to be practiced in fairness and justice, however, the promise has turned into empty mockery Blackmun on the other hand rejected it saying he would not be part of a system fraught with arbitrariness, discrimination, caprice and mistake”