Minor Analysis Paper #2

Part One
In “State’s Death Penalty System Fails,” Timothy Kaufman-Olson argues that the many flaws in Washington’s death penalty system make it irreparably broken. Kaufman-Olson utilizes pathos, appealing to the audience’s emotions with phrases such as “killing an innocent person” and “troubling and telling statistic[s].” The author appeals to ethos by referencing the fact that he is a notable figure in this particular field: As a professor of politics at Whitman College and vice president of the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, Kaufman-Olson is clearly knowledgeable when it comes to capital punishment. Finally, he employs logos by referring to specific death penalty cases in Washington. Kaufman-Olson also refers to both an ACLU report and a study by Columbia University that detail problems with the death penalty.

Kaufman-Olson’s claim is that there are too many flaws in the state’s death penalty system for it to be just. He supports this claim by citing two Washington cases in which the death penalty was thrown out because of trial errors; in the first, because of a failure to call vital witnesses, and in the second, because of a reliance on a jailhouse informer with a history of perjury. The author’s claim is also supported by the previously mentioned ACLU report and Columbia University study. In creating warrants to link together his claims and support, Kaufman-Olson utilizes ethos. The audience is expected to find the provided data sufficient; however, the report and study would need to be investigated further to be sure. Kaufman-Olson does not address rebuttals in his article.

Jeff Jacoby makes use of these same rhetorical techniques in “The Feeble ‘Arguments’ Against Capital Punishment,” where he rebuts many popular arguments against the death penalty. Jacoby utilizes pathos with phrases such as “barbaric” and “feeble arguments;” however, his most obvious pathetic appeal lies in the following statement: “…There is indeed a measure of solace in knowing that the monster who destroyed their loved one will never hurt anyone again.” The author appeals to ethos by displaying impressive logic, proving to the audience that he is knowledgeable on the subject. Lastly, Jacoby draws on logos by going through the opposing arguments one by one, answering their claims and pointing out the flaws in their arguments clearly and concisely.

Jacoby’s claim is that flaws in arguments against the death penalty prove that the system is, in fact, just. The author’s claim is supported entirely by his own logic – there is no data, testimony, or examples provided to back it up. Jacoby utilizes logos in creating warrants. He addresses a variety of opposing arguments based on letters to the editor printed in the New York Times just days before the execution of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. The problem, though, is that Jacoby’s logic can easily be argued against because it is essentially no more than one man’s opinion. Kaufman-Olson’s argument is stronger because it is supported by actual data. However, while Kaufman-Olson fails to address rebuttals, Jacoby’s entire article is devoted to striking down opposing arguments.

Part Two
Kaufman-Olson’s argument rests on the fact that capital punishment is not just because there are too many problems with cases, as pointed out in the ACLU report. However, Kaufman-Olson also cites race and socio-economic factors, cost, and the failure to deter criminals as signs that the death penalty is not just. The author relies on the assumption that his audience is open to this viewpoint, or, at least is not resistant to it. He also assumes that his audience has some interest in the subject, because otherwise they likely wouldn’t have sought the article out. Kaufman-Olson appears to value, first and foremost, justice for all; he doesn’t believe innocent people should be executed based on trial errors. He also values the constitutional right to a fair trial and the right to life (or the right to not have your life taken away by the state). Kaufman-Olson uses the loci of person, arguing that innocent people shouldn’t be killed; he also uses the loci of quantity, stating that eliminating the death penalty is in the best interest of the greatest number of people.

Jacoby’s argument rests on the fact that the death penalty is just because of the flaws in the arguments against it. According to Jacoby, those who support the death penalty do so based on history, common sense, a sense of fairness, and a moral tradition. He relies on the same assumptions about his audience as Kaufman-Olson; that the audience is at least marginally open to his viewpoint, and that they are interested in the subject. Jacoby also appears to value justice for all, but in a different sense than Kaufman-Olson: Jacoby wants justice for victims and their families, while Kaufman-Olson wants justice for murderers. The author has the “an eye for an eye” mentality and values the exacting of a punishment that fits the crime. Like Kaufman-Olson, Jacoby uses the loci of quantity, arguing that the death penalty is in the best interest of the greatest number of people because it removes murderers from the earth. He uses the loci of essence as well, mentioning the previously mentioned values of those who support the death penalty.