To kill or not to kill. The legalization of the death penalty in certain states of America indubitably causes an issue cluttered with controversy, yet one worth analyzing. Although I am relatively informed on the topic because of my strong interest in real crime shows and documentaries, I would not say I am biased, for I do not possess a strong conviction on either side. On the contrary, David Bruck, a successful lawyer devoted to the defense of persons charged with a capital crime, offers a worthwhile insight into the discussion. His essay "The Death Penalty" responds to an essay by the Democratic mayor of New York City at the time, Edward I. Koch. Bruck's essay was originally printed in The New Republic on May 20, 1985. Consequently, his
…show more content…
For example, he tells of the celebratory crowd that anxiously awaited Shaw's death while encouraging the executioner. His depiction of pro-capital punishment individuals as barbaric and uneducated continues to become more detailed. Additionally, he describes crowd members eagerly awaiting the hearse, shouting, "Where's the beef?" and expressing "whoops of elation" (607). The quotation of one demonstrator shouting "Where's the beef?" refers to a Wendy's commercial at the time, thus, the question successfully connects to the audience's passionately growing image of the psychopathic supporters of capital punishment. To put it frankly, Bruck is suggesting that since the demonstrators are barbaric and crazy, the death penalty is wrong; however, the actions of supporters does not mean the death penalty is unjust. Of course, no moral reader wants to be associated with those offensively comparing humans to hamburger meat, so Bruck's guilt by association fallacy is effective, yet problematic. Moreover, his fallacy is effective because the pathos distracts his audience from a lack of substance in his logical support, yet it is problematic because it damages Bruck's credibility under close examination. Also, the inclusion of the crowd expressing "whoops of elation" exaggerates his emotional appeal (607). Instead of explaining …show more content…
In his guilt by association fallacy, he proposes the death penalty is inhumane because of the racist behavior of a past governor of South Carolina who supported the penalty. He explains how the electric chair used in the death of Shaw was built in 1912 and issued by South Carolina's governor at the time, Governor Cole Blease, who was an advocate for lynch law. As a result, Bruck suggests Governor Blease is not credible, although his views on race were accepted at the time, by saying, "in 1912, a lot of people agreed with Governor Blease that a proper regard for justice required both lynching and the electric chair. Eventually we are going to learn that justice requires neither" (610). This is a guilt by association fallacy because Bruck attacks Governor Blease's reputation on the single premise that Blease supported lynch law, instead of logically criticizing Blease's reasons he supported capital punishment. Moreover, Bruck argues that the evolution of our country's moral understanding has led to the elimination of lynch law, and will lead to the disposal of capital punishment. This attempt of pathos by Bruck is unsatisfying to the reader, begging the question, Is the issue the governor or the justice of the death penalty? Alike to his other arguments, this one also becomes convoluted with
For example, he tells of the celebratory crowd that anxiously awaited Shaw's death while encouraging the executioner. His depiction of pro-capital punishment individuals as barbaric and uneducated continues to become more detailed. Additionally, he describes crowd members eagerly awaiting the hearse, shouting, "Where's the beef?" and expressing "whoops of elation" (607). The quotation of one demonstrator shouting "Where's the beef?" refers to a Wendy's commercial at the time, thus, the question successfully connects to the audience's passionately growing image of the psychopathic supporters of capital punishment. To put it frankly, Bruck is suggesting that since the demonstrators are barbaric and crazy, the death penalty is wrong; however, the actions of supporters does not mean the death penalty is unjust. Of course, no moral reader wants to be associated with those offensively comparing humans to hamburger meat, so Bruck's guilt by association fallacy is effective, yet problematic. Moreover, his fallacy is effective because the pathos distracts his audience from a lack of substance in his logical support, yet it is problematic because it damages Bruck's credibility under close examination. Also, the inclusion of the crowd expressing "whoops of elation" exaggerates his emotional appeal (607). Instead of explaining …show more content…
In his guilt by association fallacy, he proposes the death penalty is inhumane because of the racist behavior of a past governor of South Carolina who supported the penalty. He explains how the electric chair used in the death of Shaw was built in 1912 and issued by South Carolina's governor at the time, Governor Cole Blease, who was an advocate for lynch law. As a result, Bruck suggests Governor Blease is not credible, although his views on race were accepted at the time, by saying, "in 1912, a lot of people agreed with Governor Blease that a proper regard for justice required both lynching and the electric chair. Eventually we are going to learn that justice requires neither" (610). This is a guilt by association fallacy because Bruck attacks Governor Blease's reputation on the single premise that Blease supported lynch law, instead of logically criticizing Blease's reasons he supported capital punishment. Moreover, Bruck argues that the evolution of our country's moral understanding has led to the elimination of lynch law, and will lead to the disposal of capital punishment. This attempt of pathos by Bruck is unsatisfying to the reader, begging the question, Is the issue the governor or the justice of the death penalty? Alike to his other arguments, this one also becomes convoluted with