For example, stating that minorities are wrongfully accused of crimes they did not commit. Authors in the middle would agree with both side but use different strategies to respond “rhetorically. ” It depends on how the “rhetoric” argues and support his claim. This essay will discuss techniques and writing strategies authors use to motivate the audience to react in their favor. In the article “Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents” by Keith Grant-Davie, Davie states that the exigency Is the motivation of the rhetoric In a rhetorical discourse.
He continues rhetorical exigency Is some kind of need or problem that can be addressed and solved through rhetorical courses. ” In other words, Grant-Davie believe that the rhetoric would explain his argument to change the audience mind. In this essay I will analyze the rhetoric arguments on death penalty. I will analyze different articles and suggest which rhetoric argues effectively. My first article is “When Murderer Dies, Innocents Live” by Jeff lacily, published in The Boston Globe. Jacobs believes that death is the right Justice for those who commit the worst of all crimes.
My second article is “Case Against Death Penalty Is Overwhelming” by Sheila M. Murphy. Murphy describe how death penalty affect public facilities. My third article “The Appeal of Death Row” by Mary A. Fisher is in the middle Jacobs and Murphy’s position on death penalty. Fischer is against death penalty because it cost taxpayers to much to keep death penalty in the justice system. She also agree by stating Its the only way victim’s family can receive justice for their lost love one. While analyzing their “rhetorical” strategies created sub-points that each author attacked.
They all discusses the benefits of having or not having death penalty and used facts to support their claim. Motivation Clearly writers write with a motivation to alter their audience’s mind about the epic. Jacobs motivation Is to persuade the audience that death penalty should be allowed in the justice system. He believes if someone take a life their life should be taken as well. On the other hand Murphy is against death penalty because she believes inmates are often wrongfully accused of crimes they did not commit.
Fischer Is not taking a side but support each argument; she believes that taxpayers pay millions of dollars to keep death penalty in the justice system. She also states that without death penalty the victims family would not be satisfied and would not give them the closure they seek. AUTHORITY USAGE Authors mention well known or powerful people to grab the audience’s. Jacobs believes murderers should get capital punishment for the crimes they commit. Also, he wrote when Rooney was governor and where this was published confirms Jacobs 1 OFF interest in his argument.
Murphy used a similar strategy, she mentioned the Governor of Illinois Pat Quinn to support her argument for death penalty. Fischer also use authority while supporting her argument for death penalty. I believe this is a smart “rhetorical” strategy which keep your audience interested. Using powerful people in the argument shows the importance of the position “rhetoric” stand. FACTS Author’s used facts to support their claim during an argument to alter the readers point of view about a topic. Jacobs also believe that death penalty in America is most accurate in the world.
Due to all the chances the accused has to prove his innocence and stay off the death penalty. He also used accidental death causes as examples, which was surgery, air traveling and prescription drugs in his article to support his argument. Stating that innocent people died from these accidents cause by tragic situations. Later explains that they all have benefits and too valuable to give up even f people die. Jacobs believes that death penalty makes it possible for Justice to be done to criminals who commit the worst of all crimes. He also believe that killers should pay with their life for capital crimes they commit. For every time a murderer is executed, innocent lives are saved. ” Jacobs basically means that, death penalty is actually doing society a favor by executing deadly criminals. In Murphy’s article, she disagrees with Jacobs claim that death penalty should be allowed. She counterargument by arguing that innocent people had been executed while the guilty person remain a free man. Some were wrongfully condemned to death by torture at the hands of a rogue police officers and his co-conspirators, who tortured African Americans until they confessed to crimes they did not commit. Basically Murphy means, corrupt cops operating without regard for the law to force confession from black males leading to innocent blacks on death row. She also states that, twenty men were wrongfully condemned to death in Illinois. In “The Appeal of Death ROW’, Fischer used facts in her article which supports both Murphy’s and Jacobs argument. Fischer states no-parole life sentences will give the victims family the justice they seek. She also states that death penalty cost taxpayers too much money. But believe if the state limits the years of appeals the state will not pay as much money on the death penalty.
These articles argue well in order to support their claim. Murphy argument is more effective than Jacobs and Fischer due to stronger facts and the way she presented them. Jacobs could have counter argued Murphy quote by stating that guilty men walk free from death row. Murphy could respond by stating innocent men receive death row because of corrupted polices officers making them pledge guilty to crimes they did not commit. Fischer is clearly not taking a side in this argument but simply arguing ways the state and taxpayers can benefit from death penalty.
All articles argued efficiently in order to support their claim. THE COST Authors who are against death penalty would use the cost of death row as one of their main points. Fischer believes that if death row continues it would cost taxpayers up to 9 billion to execute 20 inmates. Spending on death penalty takes away from schools, libraries and government aid. She supports her claim by using statistics which taxpayers pay. Murphy also agree with Fisher’s argument but adds a twist to t. Taxpayers are paying large portion of money to wrongly accuse the innocent.
Murphy states, “In 1978 Ford Heights case for wrongfully convicting the innocent (only taxpayers paid millions of dollars to convict an innocent person and she also believe there are similar cases. Jacobs who is for death penalty, did not argue against the cost of death penalty but paid most attention by claiming its the correct punishment. Conclusion All three articles supported their claim rhetorically, but I believe Sheila Murphy article argument was most effective. As an audience I believe she used great facts ND stated how the Justice system is corrupted.
She used real life situations to support her claim. Jeff Jacobs did not really use many statistics, he focus on revenge for the victim. He used a scientific study to support his claim which execution protects innocent life. Audiences who pay taxes would rather cut down on taxes rather than believing in a research that’s not accurate due to the data collected in a short period of time. Rhetoric write “rhetorically’ in other to change an individual opinion on the topic that’s presented. They use techniques and great strategy to change the reader point of view in a “Rhetorical Discourse. ”