Aristotelian Rhetoric: The Debate over Capital Punishment - Coursework Example

Aristotelian Rhetoric: The Debate over Capital Punishment Part I: Rhetorical Analysis Death penalty has always been a for hot arguments and controversies among experts. However, the question whether capital punishment needs to be allowed or abolished has led to continuing debates in the nation. While the abolitionists oppose capital punishments on moral and human rights grounds, the proponents of capital punishments hold that there should be retributive justice in the nation. There are also researchers who claim that capital punishments act as the strongest deterrents that stand as warning boards to dreaded criminals. This paper seeks to undertake an Aristotelian rhetorical analysis on McAdams’s article “Wisconsin should have the death penalty” (2006) and in doing so the paper brings out the rhetorical strategies employed by the author in the article. McAdams’s article is quite persuasive in nature and all throughout the article the author tries to win the favor of his readers towards supporting death penalty. At the very outset of the article, McAdams appeals to the logos of his readers by stating that those who oppose death penalty are governed by emotions rather than reason. Further, he goes on to repudiate all the arguments raised by the abolitionists against death penalty and persuades the readers to think in favor of administering capital punishments. A close analysis of the article shows that it appeals to the ethos (credibility, character, and confidence of the writer), logos (use of reasoning to appeal to the reader) and pathos (emotional appeal) of the readers. Similarly, stylistic features such as the diction, syntax, details, imagery, and tone add to the credibility and persuasive nature of the discourse. McAdams tries to appeal to the logos (reasoning capacity) of his readers in many ways. He argues that only a minority opposes death penalty. The author makes use of rhetorical questions to repudiate the arguments against death penalty. It is a constant mantra of the opponents of death penalty that “death row is absolutely full of people who are in fact innocent, and really never did the crimes they are charged with” (McAdams 2006, p. 15). They go on claiming that a large number of innocent people are being executed each year in the nation. However, the author citing statistical data points out that very often the number of “innocent people” has been overstated. A thorough examination of such innocent cases revealed that they were actually guilty. However, the author makes it clear that even though many arguably innocents have been put on the death row no incidents of innocents being executed have been reported. McAdams, thus, reinstates that “death penalty opponents can’t point to a single innocent person known to have been executed for the last 35 years” (McAdams 2006, p. 16). Therefore, the author successfully convinces his readers that evidences in proof of the innocence of such convicted persons were thoroughly “incomplete” or “tainted.” Even the most ardent opponent of death penalty has failed to offer any solid evidence to prove such reported cases of innocence. McAdams also observes that the opponents of death penalty try to stir the pathos (emotional appeal) of the readers by convincing them that death penalty is more error-prone than lesser punishments and that the criminal justice system is vulnerable towards corruption. However, the author emphasizes that the rate of error for death penalty is much lower than that of imprisonment. Similarly, the opponents of capital punishment view life without parole as an adequate substitute for capital punishment which has been accepted by a large proportion of American public (McAdams 2006, p. 18). McAdams, on the other hand, points out various incidents where prisoners who are already sentenced to life without parole have killed other inmates. The author also convinces his readers that there is the danger of such prisoners escaping from prison and continuing capital offenses. There is also no guarantee that murderers sentenced to life without parole will remain in the prison all throughout their lives (McAdams 2006, p. 19). McAdams also repudiates the argument of the opponents of death penalty that it does not deter murderers or crimes. On the other hand, the authors brings out the reality that even in such states where capital punishment exist the actual number of executed criminals is very limited in number. There are also states with death penalty that have not executed any dreaded criminals in the past few years. In spite of these setbacks, McAdams brings to the attention of his readers a number of recent studies that have undoubtedly proved the deterrent effect of death penalty. One should also bear in mind the fact that there has been an increased number of capital punishments in the 1990s compared to the previous years. Thus, the author, citing a number of researchers, emphasizes that “a new generation of studies provides strong evidence that executions deter murder” (McAdams 2006, p. 20). Accordingly, he persuades his readers to support capital punishments as having the potential to deter people from indulging in dreaded crimes and capital offenses. To conclude, it can be stated that McAdams’s article employs noticeable rhetorical devices: rhetorical questions, the choice of diction, statistical data, examples and evidences, authentic quotations and the tone of the speaker contributing to the persuasiveness of the article. Rhetorical questions such as “Have Any Innocents Been Executed?” “How many innocents on death row are acceptable?” “Is the death penalty more error-prone than lesser punishments?” and “Is life without parole an adequate substitute?” make the article enriching and interesting for the reader. All throughout the article the author at first brings out the arguments put forward by the opponents of death penalty and then considers a number of evidences and sources to counter argue. The large number of quotations and references used in the article are carefully arranged to substantiate these counter arguments. The credibility and confidence (ethos) of the writer is quite evident. At the end of the article McAdams appeals both the pathos and logos of his readers when he purports that the proponents of death penalty are to be blamed for the lives of many innocent victims and he views them as “people who will risk the lives of innocent victims” (p. 21). Thus, one can clearly regard McAdams as an apt example for Aristotelian rhetoric for it employs a wide range of rhetorical strategies and thereby appeals to the ethos, logos and pathos of the readers. Part II: Argumentative essay: Pros and Cons of the Death Penalty Capital punishment has become one of the most controversial and debated issues in the United States and, as a result, the pros and cons of death penalty have long been discussed by many researchers. While the supporters of death penalty argue that capital punishments would deter dreaded criminals from indulging in serious crimes, there are many who hold that death penalty is against one’s human rights. The growing rates of homicides and serious offences have prompted many to support death penalty. On the other hand, the major argument against death penalty is that it violates human rights, ethics, and morality. This paper seeks to explore the major pros and cons of administering death penalty as part of the criminal judicial system. Many researchers, human rights activist and the Catholic Church argue that death penalty is against human rights, morality and ethical considerations. There are also a large number of people who oppose death penalty because of the cruel and inhumane way it is administered. In this respect, James Coleman observes that the application of the death penalty today in the American judicial system is quite arbitrary and inconsistent (“The Death Penalty: Arbitrariness and the Death Penalty”). Similarly, Coleman, citing the famous Lockett v. Ohio in 1978, goes on to argue that the ultimate decision of the jury to impose the death penalty is usually followed by the defendant’s opportunity to plead for mercy. It is also a fact that there are many deserving defendants who are eligible for the death penalty but escape the capital punishment and vice versa which poses a number of questions on the amount of fairness in administering death penalty. Even when the advocates of death penalty hold that it should be imposed “fairly and with reasonable consistency” one can never undermine the arbitrariness and discrimination involved in it (“The Death Penalty: Pro and Con”). In fact, the ideal death penalty system in the United States does not exist in its application. This is very well suggested by Greenberg when he observes that even though the goals of administering death penalty are “deterring crime, punishing the guilty, acquitting the innocent, avoiding needless cruelty, treating citizens equally, and prohibiting oppression by the state – America simply does not have the kind of capital punishment system contemplated by death penalty partisans” (Greenberg). Lifetime imprisonment without any parole would be a better alternative than death penalty. It can thus be seen that the current judicial system of applying death penalty has a lot of flaws and it is high time that the nation re-examine the system. On the other hand, one can never undermine the positive impacts of death penalty. Death penalty, undoubtedly, is a great tool of deterrence in putting an end to serious and cruel criminal activities. The criminals are most likely to indulge in more of serious crimes when the judicial system poses no threats to their own lives. The proponents of death penalty believe that death penalty is better deterrent than other alternative punishments such as life imprisonment. It is a fact that abolitionists who stress on the value of the life of a convicted murderer fail to value the lives of innocent victims. In the same way, it is the duty of the judicial system to ensure that retributive social justice is maintained, the interests of the common public are protected and that their lives are being secured and guarded against unwanted tragedies. The criminal justice statistics on death penalty makes it clear that the majority of the public opinion is in favor of death penalty. For instance, the criminal justice survey in 2002 revealed that almost 68% of women were in favor of death penalty whereas only 29% of them opposed the system (Attitudes toward the death penalty for murder for selected groups). The survey result, thus, reveals the American public still believes that the death penalty has a positive impact in the American society. Retributive justice should be shown towards the innocent victims as well as their relatives and family members. The judicial system cannot shut its eyes to the tears, miseries and sufferings of the family members of the innocent victims. It is imperative from the part of the government to safeguard the lives of innocent citizens from dreaded criminals and for this it is essential that capital punishments are administered on such dreaded criminals who pose threat to the nation as well as its citizens. Works Cited Attitudes toward the death penalty for murder for selected groups. United States, 2002. Web. 3 April 2012. Greenberg, Jack. “Against the American System of Capital Punishment.” Harvard Law Review Association (1986), WGBH educational foundation, 2011. Web. 3 April 2012. McAdams, John. “Wisconsin should have the death penalty.” Wisconsin Interest. 15. 2, 2006: 15-23. Web. 3 April 2012. The Death Penalty: Arbitrariness and the Death Penalty. ABA Focus 12.2 (Spring 1997). Web. 3 April 2012. The Death Penalty: Pro and Con. Congressional Quarterly Researcher 5.9 (March 10, 1995). WGBH educational foundation, 2011. Web. 3 April 2012. Read More