George Orwell argues that Capital Punishment is wrong with some narrative evidence that he experienced and described in his essay. Orwell chooses carefully placed words to make the reader feel the experience Orwell was endured during his visitation to Burma prison. He was sharing his experience by choosing the appropriate tone and expressive mood without real details. Orwell uses a good amount of details to show how capital punishment is wrong. For example Orwell states, “We were waiting outside the condemned cells, a row of sheds fronted with double bars, like small animal cages” (Orwell, 1931). He describes how cells for prisoners looked when he entered the prison. This essay has many arguable points that can be viewed differently. Orwell
…show more content…
These four parts are the topic, claims, evidence, and assumptions. For example, the claim that Orwell has states “He and we were a party of men walking together, seeing, hearing, feeling, understanding the same world; and in two minutes, with a sudden snap, one of us would be gone-one mind less, one world less” (Orwell, 1931). Orwell conveys his claim that capital punishment is wrong by giving it as a narrative, not as an argumentative paper. This makes its harder for the reader to see his essay as an argumentative paper. Most of Orwell’s style of writing remind the reader of narrative writing more than as evidence that he provides. The topic of Orwell essay is not slike the prisoner but a Capital Punishment. He uses prisoners just to expand and identify the whole idea of Capital Punishment. The assumption is that killing a human life is wrong under any circumstances. Besides, not only Orwell view this assumption but also a religious people believe that killing a sin. However, “The death penalty was suspended in 1972 in the United States when the Supreme Court held that its imposition was arbitrary and racially disparate” (Peel, 2013). If one person is guilty, it does not mean the others have rights to slue the chosen punishment for this …show more content…
People cannot judge without knowing that story. Orwell writes an essay about Capital Punishment with some narrative evidence about prisoners, but he never mentions why they deserve to be punished through death. If the crime was very serious, such as a mass homicide, or if it were as small as stealing a piece of fruit; to Orwell, it does not matter. Because, under any circumstances, it is wrong to murder, and for the reader to understand that the crimes do not matter. This makes the whole point that some innocent people get Capital Punishment for something they never did. Which leads to open-end for readers to decide what is Capital Punishment and if people should view it as punishment for
These four parts are the topic, claims, evidence, and assumptions. For example, the claim that Orwell has states “He and we were a party of men walking together, seeing, hearing, feeling, understanding the same world; and in two minutes, with a sudden snap, one of us would be gone-one mind less, one world less” (Orwell, 1931). Orwell conveys his claim that capital punishment is wrong by giving it as a narrative, not as an argumentative paper. This makes its harder for the reader to see his essay as an argumentative paper. Most of Orwell’s style of writing remind the reader of narrative writing more than as evidence that he provides. The topic of Orwell essay is not slike the prisoner but a Capital Punishment. He uses prisoners just to expand and identify the whole idea of Capital Punishment. The assumption is that killing a human life is wrong under any circumstances. Besides, not only Orwell view this assumption but also a religious people believe that killing a sin. However, “The death penalty was suspended in 1972 in the United States when the Supreme Court held that its imposition was arbitrary and racially disparate” (Peel, 2013). If one person is guilty, it does not mean the others have rights to slue the chosen punishment for this …show more content…
People cannot judge without knowing that story. Orwell writes an essay about Capital Punishment with some narrative evidence about prisoners, but he never mentions why they deserve to be punished through death. If the crime was very serious, such as a mass homicide, or if it were as small as stealing a piece of fruit; to Orwell, it does not matter. Because, under any circumstances, it is wrong to murder, and for the reader to understand that the crimes do not matter. This makes the whole point that some innocent people get Capital Punishment for something they never did. Which leads to open-end for readers to decide what is Capital Punishment and if people should view it as punishment for