Death Penalty Rhetorical Analysis

In 1972 the Supreme Court issued a moratorium on the death penalty. Three years later in 1975 William F. Buckley writes an article that was published in Execution Eve and Other Contemporary Ballads discussing and counter arguing abolitionists about the death penalty and its effects. Buckley writes the article to try and convince people the moratorium must be lifted. Buckley believes it’s better to sacrifice the life of the convicted criminal rather than risk the lives of an unknown amount of innocent people. “If we had certainty, we would not have risks- and we do- better to risk the life of the convicted man than risk the life of an indefinite number of innocent victims who might survive if he were executed.”
Buckley begins with an assertion …show more content…
Capital punishment continues on the books of a majority of states, the people continue to sanction the concept of capital punishment, and indeed capital sentences are routinely handed down.” When Buckley calls the abolitionists’ argument “circular” he means the assertion is the same as the conclusion their argument has no real end or validity. Buckley also mentions “the people continue to sanction the concept of capital punishment” meaning there are people who still give approval for the plan of capital punishment. Buckley continues by changing the abolitionists’ argument. “What has made capital punishment ‘unusual’ is that the courts and, primarily, governors have intervened in the process so as to collaborate in the frustration of the execution of the law.” Buckley manipulates his opponent’s argument into an argument that supports his view by saying it’s only unusual because there’s interference with the process of carrying out the death penalty. Buckley continues: “To argue that capital punishment is unusual, when in fact it has been made unusual by extra-legislative authority, is an argument to expedite, not eliminate, executions.” Buckley cherry picks the abolitionists’ arguments and using them against the abolitionists by changing their …show more content…
“And the clincher. (5) Since we don’t not know for certain whether or not the death penalty adds deterrence, we have in effect the choice of two risks.” Buckley breaks down his idea of deterrence into two possibilities. Buckley defines his first risk as: “If we execute convicted murderers without thereby deterring prospective murderers beyond the deterrence that could have been achieved by life imprisonment, we may have vainly sacrificed the life of the convicted murderer.” To Buckley it is not important whether or not a convicted murderer’s life is sacrificed rather what matters is if that sacrifice stop another murderer from being created. Buckley follows with risk two: “If we fail to execute a convicted murderer whose execution might have deterred an indefinite number of prospective murderers, our failure sacrifices an indefinite number of victims of future murderers.” With risk two Buckley tries to sway people who stand in the middle of the argument to agree with his; Buckley tries to create a sense of security with the continuation of the death penalty, the sense of security being the deterring of murderers. Buckley prefers risk one because he would rather sacrifice the life of a murderer than sacrifice an unknown number of innocent