The essay “Executions Should Be Televised” was written by both Zachary Shemtob and David Lat. Shemtob is a teacher at Central Connecticut State University and teaches Criminal Justice. While Lat is not a teacher or professor, he is a former federal prosecutor. Based on professions, these men have dealt with capital punishment and have some form of background knowledge of the filming concerned with executions. The essay “Executions Should Be Televised” that Shemtob and Lat co-wrote was published in 2011 in New York Times.
The thesis, or purpose, of this essay was to inform the citizens about where their tax money is going and what is actually happening behind the closed doors of capital punishment. The authors want to make it legal to film the executions. They want this so that the voter and citizens have a first-hand account to see what is actually happening in these executions and how these people are dying. The authors are not for or against capital punishment; they just believe that the citizens should be clearly informed about what is happening and not take the press’s written word for it.
Through this whole essay, the authors' personas seem very straight to the point and open minded. They don’t leave a lot to the imagination or imply much. Shemtob and Lat state where they …show more content…
They use it in a manner of an analogy and compare the type of death and pain the two inmates experienced as they were lethally injected. Also, in the DeYoung case, other lawyers argued that it was a safety problem to allow an audience. The authors' rebuttal by implicitly stating that times have changed, security has increased, and no audience member would be robbed or hurt like these lawyers believe would happen. Not only that but the Shemtob and Lat also bring back the point that they aren’t pushing for a live audience, but simply just for the filming which can be shared out with the
The thesis, or purpose, of this essay was to inform the citizens about where their tax money is going and what is actually happening behind the closed doors of capital punishment. The authors want to make it legal to film the executions. They want this so that the voter and citizens have a first-hand account to see what is actually happening in these executions and how these people are dying. The authors are not for or against capital punishment; they just believe that the citizens should be clearly informed about what is happening and not take the press’s written word for it.
Through this whole essay, the authors' personas seem very straight to the point and open minded. They don’t leave a lot to the imagination or imply much. Shemtob and Lat state where they …show more content…
They use it in a manner of an analogy and compare the type of death and pain the two inmates experienced as they were lethally injected. Also, in the DeYoung case, other lawyers argued that it was a safety problem to allow an audience. The authors' rebuttal by implicitly stating that times have changed, security has increased, and no audience member would be robbed or hurt like these lawyers believe would happen. Not only that but the Shemtob and Lat also bring back the point that they aren’t pushing for a live audience, but simply just for the filming which can be shared out with the