Major Persuasive Project (rough draft)

See cover letter and brochure in class.

PETA Website

I think there are definitely times when imagery can go too far, and PETA's website is a good example of that. In their video promoting animal birth control, PETA uses video of dogs and cats to create an emotional connection between the viewer and the animals. PETA's goal is to make you feel sorry for the animals and then take some sort of action -- in this case, pledging to have your dog or cat spayed or neutered, as well as to adopt any future pets rather than purchasing them from a pet store or breeder. While I understand that PETA just wants to get its message out to the public, I think the organization often engages in tactics that approach manipulation. Personally, if I had just listened to the audio of the animal birth control video without actually seeing the images, I probably would have disregarded the message. I had a problem with the comparison made between a woman being raped and a female cat in heat; also, I wonder where a lot of there statistics came from. However, because PETA uses images of neglected dogs and cats to make their point, I found myself thinking about how sad the situation was and, ultimately, sympathizing with their message.

Op-Ed Piece

It has been more than eight years since someone was put to death in Washington. As we speak, however, the state Department of Corrections prepares for the scheduled March 13th execution of convicted murderer Cal Coburn Brown. We need to unite and put a stop to this before yet another person loses their life to an unjust system.

There is no denying that capital punishment is an extremely emotional issue. It affects people in a multitude of ways; even those who aren't personally affected have strong opinions on the subject. In fact, the death penalty is one of only two truly divisive issues in today's political landscape (the other being abortion). In this column, I will attempt to move past the emotionality and present some of the strongest arguments that are used in favor of the death penalty, as well as proponents' responses to them.

We as a society tend to assume that every person on death row is guilty. After all, if a jury found the criminal guilty, then they must be guilty, right? Wrong. Between 1973 and 2008, more than 130 people were exonerated in 26 different states. And since 1997, the University of Washington-based Innocence Project Northwest has uncovered evidence to reverse the convictions of 12 people in Washington alone. Even more disturbing, though, are the stories of those who were executed despite evidence of their innocence. Cameron Todd Willingham was put to death in Texas in February 2004 for murdering his three children by setting their house on fire. However, when the Chicago Tribune investigated Willingham's case in the months following his execution, they discovered that the fire was more than likely an accident. That means Willingham died for a crime he didn't commit.

The death penalty is often presented as a way to deter crime. People say that, if would-be criminals know they will be executed for committing murder, they will refrain from doing so. Yet there is no actual evidence of this. In 2000, then-U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno said this: "I have inquired for most of my adult life about studies that might show that the death penalty is a deterrent. And I have not seen any research that would substantiate that point." Perhaps most interesting to Washingtonians, though, is a 2004 study by Joanna Shepherd that looks at the supposed deterrent effect. Shepherd found that executions have deterred murder in only six states, and that Washington is not one of them. In fact Sherpherd points out that Washington is among the 13 states where the murder rate actually increased as a result of having a death penalty statute.

Finally, the cost of executing a criminal far exceeds that of life in prison. While there have been numerous arguments to the contrary, scientific studies have found that an execution is between two and five times more costly to taxpayers than sentencing the murderer to life in prison. The Death Penalty Information Center reports that capital punishment cases at the trial level in Washington State are estimated to generate roughly $470,000 in additional costs to the prosecution and defense over the cost of trying the same case without the death penalty. An additional $47,000 to $70,000 must be paid out to court personnel. The reason for these high costs? Endless appeals and additional required procedures drag the process on longer than most people care to admit. Most defendants spend 15 to 20 years on death row prior to their execution.

Proponents of the death penalty typically offer five justifications for their position. First, it is the appropriate punishment for someone who commits such a serious crime; second, rightful societal vengeance (often referred to as "an eye for an eye"); third, eliminating the possibility that the criminal will return to society; fourth, deterrence against future crimes by other criminals; and fifth, closure for the families of the victims.

What proponents don't realize is that all but one of these justifications can be rebutted. The argument has been made that life in prison is a worse fate than execution, which explains why so many convicted murderers prematurely end the appeals process. Some also say "an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind"; that perhaps the best option is to take the high road and not make murder the answer for murder. Studies have proven that capital punishment deters crime in only six states (Washington is not one of them). Finally, families of murder victims have said that closure never comes, that extending the murderer's trial only prolongs the pain. The only justification that cannot be rebutted is that the death penalty eliminates the possibility that the criminal will return to society.

If this evidence doesn't convince you that the death penalty system is flawed and should be eliminated, nothing will. If it does convince you, though, I urge you to take a stand before Cal Coburn Brown is executed by Washington State next week. Call or e-mail Governor Chris Gregoire, and tell her you won't stand by and watch an unjust system take the life of yet another man. Get involved with the Washington Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. At the very least, talk to your friends and family about capital punishment. Opening the lines of communication is the first step to policy change.

Concepts of Motherhood

For decades, women have fought for equal rights. But now women in the military want to go back to being treated differently than men... does this make sense? In "When Women Go to War," Anne Applebaum argues that single mothers should not be deployed overseas, thus leaving their child(ren) behind without a parent. She says women in the military should be able to take a few years off and then reenlist "with no stigma attached." What Applebaum doesn't mention, though, is the single fathers. She wants women to have the right to take several years off but then doesn't seem willing to extend that same right to men. I would argue, instead, that women who are considering enlisting in the miltary should realize beforehand that this situation will make it difficult to have a child. They should be willing to wait until they are discharged before getting pregnant, rather than asking the military to treat them differently than their male counterparts. If they aren't willing to wait, then perhaps they should find a different job.

In "She's Vain, Clueless, and In the Tabloid Press," D. Parvaz argues that Nadya Suleman's decision to have octuplets -- given her financial situation and the fact that she already had six kids -- was irresponsible. I completely agree. Suleman is under the impression that the most important part of being a parent is loving your child; that, as long as you have love in your heart, everything else will take care of itself. What she didn't consider was the money that is required to raise 14 kids on your own. Being a parent is about more than just love. It's about making the decision to have only as many children as you can take care 0f, both in terms of time and money. Clearly, when you're a single mother trying to raise 14 children, no single kid is going to get the attention he or she deserves, let alone the financial resources. Which means the people of California are stuck paying for Suleman to raise the 14 kids she so irresponsibly gave birth to.

Letter of Intent

I am writing on behalf of the Clean Air Alliance, a Seattle-based organization that has been in existance since 1998. Our goal is to fight air pollution in the greater Seattle area. I am asking for $100,000 to propose a cap-and-trade policy for corporations located within King County that are currently emiting pollution. My proposal would involve giving every corporation 20 pollution credits (or another number -- I would need to do more research first). Any corporation that wants/needs to pollute beyond their 20 credits would need to buy unused credits from other corporations. The price would be based on the supply and demand of pollution credits available in the market. Imposing a cap-and-trade policy would reduce the total pollution in King County, because corporations would finally have to pay for the damage they are doing to the environment.
(Note: I'm not sure exactly how an amount of pollution is measured, so I would need to do a significant amount of research before this letter of intent would be complete. I would also need to figure out what the optimum number of pollution credits to give out would be and how much pollution one credit is equivalent to, among other details.)

Social Justice Idea

An idea for a social justice project is to reduce corporate pollution by instituting a cap-and-trade policy. We all know that pollution hurts the environment, and right now it seems like there are very few restrictions on corporations as far as how much they are allowed to pollute. I personally do not believe the government is doing enough to ensure that the public has clean air to breath, and I think the best way to change that is by instituting a cap-and-trade policy on pollutors. This would severely limit the amount of pollution that a corporation can put off. Each corporation would be given a certain number of pollution credits; those who pollute more than the credits allow would then have to buy credits from other corporations. Eventually, I think corporations would realize the error of their ways and would make a greater effort to reduce the amount of pollution they are emitting into the air.

Minor Persuasive Paper #1

Part One
On the issue of capital punishment, perhaps the best way for me to appear credible or authoritative in the eyes of my audience is by doing my homework. I should demonstrate that I am well-informed when it comes to the various arguments surrounding the death penalty, both in support of and against the policy. It would be in my best interest to read up on other people’s arguments and use them to formulate my own response. This will let the audience know that I take the issue seriously and am dedicated to becoming as knowledgeable as possible about capital punishment. Also, I should make every effort to obtain current statistics – in particular, data pertaining to the cost of an execution versus life in prison, to the application of the death penalty in terms of racial and economic equality, and so on.

Another way to enhance my credibility on the issue is by establishing good character. In Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students, authors Sharon Crowley and Debra Hawhee make suggestions such as citing approval of character by respected authorities, or referring to additional works by the author. However, since I obviously have not had anything published on the death penalty, I will have to utilize other methods to establish good character. One option is to avoid so-called “unfair discursive tactics.” Threats, name-calling, and faulty reasoning, for instance, tell the audience that I do not respect the opinions of my adversaries. This will likely lead the audience to reject my own arguments.

A final way to appear more authoritative when it comes to capital punishment is by securing goodwill. I should establish the goal of my work from the onset and inform the audience of why I believe my argument is so important. Furthermore, the audience should know how they will benefit from reading (or listening to) it. There should be no ulterior motives; rather, the sole purpose of my argument should be to express my opinions on the issue and to attempt to convince others of them. It would also be in my best interest to keep the audience in mind while developing my argument. The audience should be provided with all information necessary to understanding both the issue in general and my argument in particular. However, I should be careful to not repeat information that the audience is already aware of.

Part Two
After reading several online community forums in which the members appeared overwhelmingly united in their opposition to capital punishment, I finally stumbled upon a YouDebate.com forum that featured actual debate on the issue. This is not to say that all of the arguments were particularly persuasive: In fact, I would argue that the majority of the posts were extremely ineffective in trying to convince others of their ideas. However, one member was able to produce a series of sophisticated arguments that far surpassed those of his peers. That person was dsadevil.

Many forum members make seemingly obvious errors in the construction of their arguments. Some rely too heavily on pathetic appeals, using phrases such as “murdered in cold blood” and “horrific crimes” in an attempt to draw on their peers’ emotions. Others resort to name-calling, referring to the opposition as “hypocrites” and “ridiculous.” Still others make broad, sweeping statements that are difficult to back up. One member of the YouDebate.com forum wrote “an eye for an eye” but offered nothing further; another declared “death sux!” (using that exact spelling, followed by a smiley face emoticon) and left it at that. These people either do not realize how weak their arguments are, or simply do not care enough to construct a stronger argument. This leads me to wonder, why bother?
What makes dsadevil’s arguments so effective is his use of data and expert testimony in support of his claims. He often refers to two separate studies by the University of North Carolina and Texas A&M University, both of which determined that the death penalty deters crime; he also includes quotations from esteemed professors (such as John McAdams of Marquette University) who have studied capital punishment and to data released by the U.S. Department of Justice. Unlike his peers, whose arguments are sometimes difficult to take seriously, it is obvious that dsadevil has done his homework on the issue. He knows what he is talking about and that comes across in his writing.

Dsadevil is also the only member who actually responds to members’ comments. The others continuously “talk over” each other – they aren’t interested in real communication. But when you think about it, how can you have a debate when the participants aren’t listening to each other? At one point, dsadevil responds to a comment made by fallingupwards, who argues that it is “barbaric for the U.S. to knowingly kill people.” Dsadevil then applies this logic to war, saying there are times when bombs fall and innocent people are killed. “But by not bombing and not fighting these tyrannical regimes,” he continues, “we doom even more people to death and lives of oppression.” In his responses, dsadevil attempts to do what other members do not. He wants to further the discussion and examine the issue beyond just face value.