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.)
Thursday, February 26, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Letter to Superintendent of Seattle Schools
Dr. Goodloe-Johnson,
I'm writing today to say that I agree with your decision to close five Seattle public schools and move all or part of eight others. I understand that this was probably a very difficult decision for you to make, and I applaud you for having the courage to make the correct choice. You faced harsh criticism from students and parents; despite it all, though, you were determined to make the decision that would have as positive an impact as possible. I applaud you for this.
Much of the criticism directed at you was from parents who said their kids' schools were being unfairly targeted. Some argued that it was based on the students' economic breakdown; others claimed that it was their minority status. Still more said it wasn't fair to move students to larger classes, even when their current schools were in poor condition and underfunded. I ask the critics this: Would you rather have your child in a small class located in a crumbling building that received little funding, or in a slightly larger class located in a recently remodeled building that received more funding? Which of these situations is in your child's best interest?
Decisions such as these are the kind that nobody wants to face. The way I see it, there was no way you could win. If you close schools, students and parents start calling for your head; if you keep under-performing schools open, the district loses money and the school board starts calling for your head. Let's just say that I wouldn't want to be in your position right now. Under the circumstances, though, I believe you made the best decision possible and I hope the critics will see it that way someday soon.
I'm writing today to say that I agree with your decision to close five Seattle public schools and move all or part of eight others. I understand that this was probably a very difficult decision for you to make, and I applaud you for having the courage to make the correct choice. You faced harsh criticism from students and parents; despite it all, though, you were determined to make the decision that would have as positive an impact as possible. I applaud you for this.
Much of the criticism directed at you was from parents who said their kids' schools were being unfairly targeted. Some argued that it was based on the students' economic breakdown; others claimed that it was their minority status. Still more said it wasn't fair to move students to larger classes, even when their current schools were in poor condition and underfunded. I ask the critics this: Would you rather have your child in a small class located in a crumbling building that received little funding, or in a slightly larger class located in a recently remodeled building that received more funding? Which of these situations is in your child's best interest?
Decisions such as these are the kind that nobody wants to face. The way I see it, there was no way you could win. If you close schools, students and parents start calling for your head; if you keep under-performing schools open, the district loses money and the school board starts calling for your head. Let's just say that I wouldn't want to be in your position right now. Under the circumstances, though, I believe you made the best decision possible and I hope the critics will see it that way someday soon.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
CollegeHumor.com Review
CollegeHumor.com is the kind of website that serves an admittedly narrow purpose. With a target audience consisting of males between the ages of 18 and 22 – attracted by a combination of “beer, babes, parodies and sketches” – the website’s creators clearly have their craft down to a science. They understand the typical college guy’s sense of humor and deliver on it nicely. Boasting more than six million hits per month, it is no wonder that CollegeHumor.com is attempting to make the transition to television. But does it work as a half-hour show on MTV? In my opinion, CollegeHumor.com should stick to the web.
What makes CollegeHumor.com so successful is the fact that its videos are short and to the point. Most do not exceed five minutes in length; this makes them the perfect way to procrastinate when you should be studying, or to kill time between classes. However, I question how many guys are going to sit down and watch a 30-munute program when they could view similar sketches online without the commercials. We’ve seen with other Internet-based television shows (such as quarterlife) that this format has not worked in the past. Will CollegeHumor.com be able change the trend? Only time will tell.
What makes CollegeHumor.com so successful is the fact that its videos are short and to the point. Most do not exceed five minutes in length; this makes them the perfect way to procrastinate when you should be studying, or to kill time between classes. However, I question how many guys are going to sit down and watch a 30-munute program when they could view similar sketches online without the commercials. We’ve seen with other Internet-based television shows (such as quarterlife) that this format has not worked in the past. Will CollegeHumor.com be able change the trend? Only time will tell.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Stasis -- Death Penalty
The death penalty should be abolished in Washington State. Even supporters would have to agree that it is unjustly applied; for example, of the five worst serial killers in the state's history, none have received the death penalty. Supporters then point out the fact that most of these killers ended up making plea deals with prosecutors in order to avoid the death penalty. While this is true, the question remains: How can Washington, a state with a death penalty statute in effect, not impose it on its most horrific murderers? If Washington is not going to sentence the worst of the worst to death, then I would argue that nobody deserves to die.
Supporters also point to the fact that the death penalty provides justice for the victim and his or her family members. However, I would argue that justice is something that varies from one person to the next. Some people may feel a sense of justice when their loved one's murderer is put to death; others, though, may never feel like justice was served. Furthermore, if the death penalty provides justice, why are there so many groups (including Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation) that advocate against the death penalty, and virtually none that support it?
In addition to these points, the argument against the death penalty is supported by a significant amount of data (which I do not know off the top of my head). Research has proven that the death penalty is imposed more often on minorities and the economically disadvantaged than it is on wealthy white people. Also, the death penalty deters crime in only six states (Washington is not one of them). It costs the tax payers significantly more money to try death penalty cases than non-death penalty cases; the cost of actually imposing the death penalty is also high. With these facts, how can one justify keeping the death penalty on Washington's books?
Supporters also point to the fact that the death penalty provides justice for the victim and his or her family members. However, I would argue that justice is something that varies from one person to the next. Some people may feel a sense of justice when their loved one's murderer is put to death; others, though, may never feel like justice was served. Furthermore, if the death penalty provides justice, why are there so many groups (including Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation) that advocate against the death penalty, and virtually none that support it?
In addition to these points, the argument against the death penalty is supported by a significant amount of data (which I do not know off the top of my head). Research has proven that the death penalty is imposed more often on minorities and the economically disadvantaged than it is on wealthy white people. Also, the death penalty deters crime in only six states (Washington is not one of them). It costs the tax payers significantly more money to try death penalty cases than non-death penalty cases; the cost of actually imposing the death penalty is also high. With these facts, how can one justify keeping the death penalty on Washington's books?
Tunnel Debate
Going into the debate, I was a strong opponent of replacing the Alaskan Way viaduct with a tunnel. This opinion was based entirely on the cost of the project -- I read in the Seattle Times that a tunnel was going to be something like two to three times as expensive as the surface street option, or building another viaduct. But watching the debate made me reconsider my position. In light of the current economic situation, I now think it might be worth it to invest the money if it will mean more jobs for those who need them. The fact that the jobs will only last nine years wasn't important to me; frankly, if I was unemployed, a job that I knew I would have for the next nine years would be significantly better than no job at all. Yet I still wonder how this project would be paid for. Washington already has a budget deficit, and increasing the deficit is probably not the greatest idea when you consider the state's future. Do the benefits of the tunnel option outweigh the costs? I'm still not sure, but right now I'm leaning toward yes.
Major Analysis Project (final draft)
If Gary Ridgway got life, how can anyone get death?
This question is frequently posed by opponents of capital punishment. If the prolific Green River killer received life in prison for murdering 48 women, they wonder, how can Washington’s judicial system justify a death sentence for someone who killed far fewer people? The Ridgway case has fueled an onslaught of arguments against the death penalty since his guilty plea six years ago. It even became the subject of a Washington State Supreme Court case: In State v. Cross, defendant Davya Cross used Ridgway’s sentence to challenge the imposition of the death penalty on him. The Court eventually determined that Cross’s arguments were a moral issue rather than a legal one, causing him to lose his case; even so, opponents continue to cite the Ridgway case in support of their claims. But while it may seem like convincing evidence, the Ridgway case often takes on too large of a role in an argument, causing opponents to lose sight of the much stronger supporting evidence – and ethos – their arguments require.
Capital punishment has been the subject of much debate among both lawmakers and citizenry in Washington for more than a century. The state executed its first defendant in 1904 under a statute requiring the death penalty for convicted first-degree murderers. In 1913, the death penalty was abolished in Washington; lawmakers reinstated it six years later with a necessary jury recommendation. Defendants continued to be executed until 1972, when the issue of arbitrariness in the death penalty was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court in Furman v. Georgia. That June, the Court ruled punishment unconstitutional by a vote of five to four. Death penalty statutes in 40 states (including Washington) were effectively voided, thus commuting the sentences of 629 death row inmates across the country. Just five months passed before Florida became the first state to rewrite its death penalty statute, eliminating problems cited in Furman. Washington followed, and its death penalty statute was reinstated in 1977 (“Constitutionality of the Death Penalty in America” and “Legal History of the Death Penalty in Washington State”).
Seventy-seven defendants have been executed in Washington since 1904. Between 1981 (when the Revised Code of Washington was last updated) and 2006, there were 254 aggravated first-degree murder cases across the state where the death penalty was an option. Prosecutors sought the death penalty in 79 of those cases. Juries returned death sentences in 30 cases. Of the 30 death sentences handed down, 20 have been reversed on appeal. Six defendants are currently on death row pending appeal and clemency hearings. Four cases have resulted in executions. Of those four, three have been “volunteers” – defendants who have waived appeals and allowed themselves to be executed. The method of execution in this state is lethal injection, unless the defendant prefers to die by hanging (Davidson).
A January 2008 edition of The Daily, the University of Washington’s student newspaper, included an opinion essay written by Ryan Morden. Entitled “Let’s Kill the Death Penalty in Washington,” Morden claims that capital punishment should be abolished because it is both inhumane and unjust. He cites as his main piece of evidence the life in prison without parole sentence Gary Ridgway received for murdering 48 women. Morden goes on to compare the Ridgway case to a more recent news headline:
Over Christmas break, two people shot a family of six to death in Carnation, a small town 30 miles east of Seattle. The murder was horrific, and people are calling for the death penalty. However, the message in our state is this: The more people you kill, the less likely you will be put to death thanks to the outcome of Ridgway’s trial. Remember, 48 killed is fine – six murdered is not. (Morden)
Although Morden points to the amount of time it can take for a defendant to die by lethal injection – referring to the application of the death penalty as “cruel and unusual punishment” – and to biblical passages that seemingly prove capital punishment is in conflict with the Bible, the overwhelming majority of his argument relies on the audience’s agreement with his evaluation of the Ridgway case (Morden).
Taken at the surface, Morden’s comparison between the Ridgway case and the Carnation mass murders appears legitimate. However, when you consider the mitigating factors in Ridgway’s case that often go unmentioned, it becomes clear that Morden is offering a false comparison. Ridgway’s arrest in 2001 yielded enough information to charge him with only seven of the Green River killings, despite police suspicion that he had murdered dozens of other women in the region during that time. King County prosecutor Norm Maleng agreed to a plea bargain only because of pressure from victims’ family members, who demanded the information that would provide closure to the deaths of their loved ones. This is not to say that Ridgway deserved to live: Most people would probably agree that, if any case merited the death penalty, Ridgway’s was it. Yet the extenuating circumstances essentially eliminated the possibility of Maleng seeking the death penalty. Do the facts of one particular case mean Washington should refuse to execute all future defendants? According to Morden, the answer to that question is a resounding yes.
What is so interesting about Morden’s essay is his abandonment of the typical evidence for arguments against capital punishment. Rather than going on about cost and racial and socio-economic factors, Morden presents rarely-cited evidence in support of his claim. This move had every possibility of success: Rather than rehashing old statements, Morden could have given death penalty supporters even more reason to reconsider their positions. Instead, though, his evidence lacks credibility. “In some cases, it’s been known to take from 30 minutes to an hour for a criminal to die, causing the recipient to undergo intense suffering until his body finally gives up,” Morden states. He goes on to argue that “lethal injection might as well be called ‘concentrated chemical domestic warfare’ without the ‘war’ part” (Morden). What the audience doesn’t know is where this information came from. Did a doctor say this? Or was it posted on Wikipedia by some kid with too much time on his hands? The author’s failure to disclose his sources affects his ethos, because the audience has no way of knowing how reliable the rest of his
essay is.
Morden’s ethos is also affected by the negative attitude he takes toward a segment of his audience. As a staff writer for The Daily, Morden should be aware that his audience consists of fellow college students. He appears to take advantage of the assumption that college students are generally liberal, and that liberals are generally more likely to oppose capital punishment than conservatives. Morden makes several cutting remarks toward conservatives: “Even members of the College Republicans can agree that putting an innocent person to death is wrong,” he says (Morden). The author goes on to take shots at John McCain’s “straight talk” style and at Fox News, which is commonly considered to be a right-of-center news network. Although he may not have meant anything disparaging by these comments, they still weaken Morden’s credibility as a writer – and particularly his credibility among the exact group of students he wants to convince of his viewpoint. It is unlikely that conservatives would take his essay seriously, let alone bother formulating a response. Because of this, Morden’s essay does nothing to further the capital punishment debate.
Like Morden, Kenneth H. Davidson of the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) uses the Ridgway case as evidence to support his argument that the death penalty should be abolished. But the biggest difference between the two articles lies in how they use the case. Morden cites it as his main piece of evidence; Davidson, on the other hand, lets the case take a backseat to more reliable data and expert testimony. In December 2008’s “Time for a Hard Look at the Death Penalty,” Davidson claims the Washington State Legislature should fund a “thorough, multi-disciplinary study” of the death penalty system (Davidson). His article is presented in a question-and-answer format, which allows him to pose a series of questions that someone without an established opinion on the subject might ask about the death penalty. For example, has the death penalty been fairly and evenly applied? Furthermore, does the death penalty serve a significant public good, which justifies its costs?
Davidson provides thorough answers to each question, frequently citing the Ridgway case in response. He states the following concerning the benefits of the death penalty versus the benefits of life in prison without parole:
Mark Prothero, who represented Gary Ridgway, questioned the function of the death penalty as a form of punishment. He described Mr. Ridgway’s solitary confinement in a windowless, six feet by 10 feet cell, where he serves his life sentence without the possibility of parole. Twice a week he is taken to a larger, windowless room for an hour of exercise… He has no hope of this routine changing. Mr. Prothero asked: “Is the death penalty really the worst punishment?” (Davidson)
Unlike Morden, who makes the typical “If Gary Ridgway got life, how can anyone get death?” argument, Davidson uses the Ridgway case to support his assertion that capital punishment is a form of “state-assisted suicide” (Davidson). He points to the fact that three of the last four executions in Washington were voluntary, with defendants actually preferring death to a life in prison without the possibility of parole. If the defendant wants to die, Davidson argues, is capital punishment really punishment at all?
Davidson’s article differs greatly from other opinion pieces on the subject. Most authors argue for their particular viewpoint – either pro- or anti-capital punishment – in hopes that, if they argue forcefully enough, the audience will eventually adopt their position. Davidson, however, wants his audience to arrive at their own conclusions. His goal is simply to provide the appropriate information that will enable his audience to make an informed, logical decision. But this is not to say that Davidson remains completely objective. Although his opinion remains (for the most part) masked by the included facts and data, it is clear that Davidson personally opposes the death penalty. Davidson’s decision to not be as forward with his personal opinion makes the audience more comfortable with his article. Those who support the death penalty are more likely to take his arguments seriously, to carefully consider the evidence and formulate an opinion without feeling pressure from the author to agree with him.
What makes Davidson’s article so effective is the amount of evidence he provides in support of his claim. While Morden offers almost no real evidence, Davidson includes data from a variety of reliable sources. He cites the American Bar Association’s study on racial disparities in the application of the death penalty; exonerations through DNA testing reported by The Innocence Project; and a recent study by death penalty scholar Joanna Shepard, who determined that capital punishment deters murder in only six states (Washington is not one of the six). Davidson also provides examples from several previous death penalty cases. Furthermore, Davidson himself is a reliable source of information on the subject. In addition to being a former chair of the WSBA Committee on Public Defense’s Death Penalty Subcommittee, he also received the WSBA’s highest honor, the Award of Merit, for his 2007 Death Penalty Study. Davidson’s qualifications provide a strong appeal to ethos, which increases the likelihood that the audience will take his argument seriously.
Opponents of capital punishment have every right to ask the typical “If Gary Ridgway got life, how can anyone get death?” question. It is perfectly valid when taken at face value. After all, if a state with an active death penalty statute refuses to impose it on arguably the most prolific serial killer in American history, how can it justify a death sentence for anyone else? This question could puzzle even the most ardent supporter of capital punishment. But problems arise when opponents refuse to explore the Ridgway case beyond face value. Extenuating circumstances, such as the decades that passed with the Green River case going unsolved, or the desire the victims’ families had for closure, are too often ignored. Instead of delving into the messy details of a case, opponents prefer to make sweeping generalizations that will further their arguments – even if it means sacrificing the truth their audiences deserve.
This is not to say that opponents should stop using the Ridgway case to argue against the death penalty. Rather, they should consider how they are using it. If, like Morden, your claim rests almost entirely on the Ridgway case, you probably need to rework your argument. It is extremely difficult to apply the outcome of one case to all others; more importantly, though, it is an argument that any skeptical audience would likely reject. However, if you follow Davidson’s model and let reliable data and expert testimony shine, the Ridgway case can still be used to create a link between your claim and your evidence. Most people would agree that the question at the heart of so many opponents’ arguments is a good one. But if you want to distinguish yourself from other death penalty opponents and actually have an impact on Washington laws, what really matters is the supporting evidence – and ethos – you need to prove your claim and win over your audience.
Works Cited
“Constitutionality of the Death Penalty in America.” Death Penalty Curriculum. 30 Jan. 2009
http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/student/c/about/history/history-5.htm.
Davidson, Kenneth H. “Time for a Hard Look at the Death Penalty.” Washington State Bar Association. 2 Dec. 2008. 31 Jan. 2009
http://www.wsba.org/media/publications/ barnews/davidson1208.htm.
“Legal History of the Death Penalty in Washington State.” Washington Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. 30 Jan. 2009 http://www.abolishdeathpenalty.org/HistoryOfWashingtonDeathPenalty.htm.
Morden, Ryan. “Let’s Kill the Death Penalty in Washington.” The Daily of the University of Washington. 17 Jan. 2008. 31 Jan. 2009
http://dailyuw.com/2008/1/17/lets-kill-death-penalty-washington/.
This question is frequently posed by opponents of capital punishment. If the prolific Green River killer received life in prison for murdering 48 women, they wonder, how can Washington’s judicial system justify a death sentence for someone who killed far fewer people? The Ridgway case has fueled an onslaught of arguments against the death penalty since his guilty plea six years ago. It even became the subject of a Washington State Supreme Court case: In State v. Cross, defendant Davya Cross used Ridgway’s sentence to challenge the imposition of the death penalty on him. The Court eventually determined that Cross’s arguments were a moral issue rather than a legal one, causing him to lose his case; even so, opponents continue to cite the Ridgway case in support of their claims. But while it may seem like convincing evidence, the Ridgway case often takes on too large of a role in an argument, causing opponents to lose sight of the much stronger supporting evidence – and ethos – their arguments require.
Capital punishment has been the subject of much debate among both lawmakers and citizenry in Washington for more than a century. The state executed its first defendant in 1904 under a statute requiring the death penalty for convicted first-degree murderers. In 1913, the death penalty was abolished in Washington; lawmakers reinstated it six years later with a necessary jury recommendation. Defendants continued to be executed until 1972, when the issue of arbitrariness in the death penalty was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court in Furman v. Georgia. That June, the Court ruled punishment unconstitutional by a vote of five to four. Death penalty statutes in 40 states (including Washington) were effectively voided, thus commuting the sentences of 629 death row inmates across the country. Just five months passed before Florida became the first state to rewrite its death penalty statute, eliminating problems cited in Furman. Washington followed, and its death penalty statute was reinstated in 1977 (“Constitutionality of the Death Penalty in America” and “Legal History of the Death Penalty in Washington State”).
Seventy-seven defendants have been executed in Washington since 1904. Between 1981 (when the Revised Code of Washington was last updated) and 2006, there were 254 aggravated first-degree murder cases across the state where the death penalty was an option. Prosecutors sought the death penalty in 79 of those cases. Juries returned death sentences in 30 cases. Of the 30 death sentences handed down, 20 have been reversed on appeal. Six defendants are currently on death row pending appeal and clemency hearings. Four cases have resulted in executions. Of those four, three have been “volunteers” – defendants who have waived appeals and allowed themselves to be executed. The method of execution in this state is lethal injection, unless the defendant prefers to die by hanging (Davidson).
A January 2008 edition of The Daily, the University of Washington’s student newspaper, included an opinion essay written by Ryan Morden. Entitled “Let’s Kill the Death Penalty in Washington,” Morden claims that capital punishment should be abolished because it is both inhumane and unjust. He cites as his main piece of evidence the life in prison without parole sentence Gary Ridgway received for murdering 48 women. Morden goes on to compare the Ridgway case to a more recent news headline:
Over Christmas break, two people shot a family of six to death in Carnation, a small town 30 miles east of Seattle. The murder was horrific, and people are calling for the death penalty. However, the message in our state is this: The more people you kill, the less likely you will be put to death thanks to the outcome of Ridgway’s trial. Remember, 48 killed is fine – six murdered is not. (Morden)
Although Morden points to the amount of time it can take for a defendant to die by lethal injection – referring to the application of the death penalty as “cruel and unusual punishment” – and to biblical passages that seemingly prove capital punishment is in conflict with the Bible, the overwhelming majority of his argument relies on the audience’s agreement with his evaluation of the Ridgway case (Morden).
Taken at the surface, Morden’s comparison between the Ridgway case and the Carnation mass murders appears legitimate. However, when you consider the mitigating factors in Ridgway’s case that often go unmentioned, it becomes clear that Morden is offering a false comparison. Ridgway’s arrest in 2001 yielded enough information to charge him with only seven of the Green River killings, despite police suspicion that he had murdered dozens of other women in the region during that time. King County prosecutor Norm Maleng agreed to a plea bargain only because of pressure from victims’ family members, who demanded the information that would provide closure to the deaths of their loved ones. This is not to say that Ridgway deserved to live: Most people would probably agree that, if any case merited the death penalty, Ridgway’s was it. Yet the extenuating circumstances essentially eliminated the possibility of Maleng seeking the death penalty. Do the facts of one particular case mean Washington should refuse to execute all future defendants? According to Morden, the answer to that question is a resounding yes.
What is so interesting about Morden’s essay is his abandonment of the typical evidence for arguments against capital punishment. Rather than going on about cost and racial and socio-economic factors, Morden presents rarely-cited evidence in support of his claim. This move had every possibility of success: Rather than rehashing old statements, Morden could have given death penalty supporters even more reason to reconsider their positions. Instead, though, his evidence lacks credibility. “In some cases, it’s been known to take from 30 minutes to an hour for a criminal to die, causing the recipient to undergo intense suffering until his body finally gives up,” Morden states. He goes on to argue that “lethal injection might as well be called ‘concentrated chemical domestic warfare’ without the ‘war’ part” (Morden). What the audience doesn’t know is where this information came from. Did a doctor say this? Or was it posted on Wikipedia by some kid with too much time on his hands? The author’s failure to disclose his sources affects his ethos, because the audience has no way of knowing how reliable the rest of his
essay is.
Morden’s ethos is also affected by the negative attitude he takes toward a segment of his audience. As a staff writer for The Daily, Morden should be aware that his audience consists of fellow college students. He appears to take advantage of the assumption that college students are generally liberal, and that liberals are generally more likely to oppose capital punishment than conservatives. Morden makes several cutting remarks toward conservatives: “Even members of the College Republicans can agree that putting an innocent person to death is wrong,” he says (Morden). The author goes on to take shots at John McCain’s “straight talk” style and at Fox News, which is commonly considered to be a right-of-center news network. Although he may not have meant anything disparaging by these comments, they still weaken Morden’s credibility as a writer – and particularly his credibility among the exact group of students he wants to convince of his viewpoint. It is unlikely that conservatives would take his essay seriously, let alone bother formulating a response. Because of this, Morden’s essay does nothing to further the capital punishment debate.
Like Morden, Kenneth H. Davidson of the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) uses the Ridgway case as evidence to support his argument that the death penalty should be abolished. But the biggest difference between the two articles lies in how they use the case. Morden cites it as his main piece of evidence; Davidson, on the other hand, lets the case take a backseat to more reliable data and expert testimony. In December 2008’s “Time for a Hard Look at the Death Penalty,” Davidson claims the Washington State Legislature should fund a “thorough, multi-disciplinary study” of the death penalty system (Davidson). His article is presented in a question-and-answer format, which allows him to pose a series of questions that someone without an established opinion on the subject might ask about the death penalty. For example, has the death penalty been fairly and evenly applied? Furthermore, does the death penalty serve a significant public good, which justifies its costs?
Davidson provides thorough answers to each question, frequently citing the Ridgway case in response. He states the following concerning the benefits of the death penalty versus the benefits of life in prison without parole:
Mark Prothero, who represented Gary Ridgway, questioned the function of the death penalty as a form of punishment. He described Mr. Ridgway’s solitary confinement in a windowless, six feet by 10 feet cell, where he serves his life sentence without the possibility of parole. Twice a week he is taken to a larger, windowless room for an hour of exercise… He has no hope of this routine changing. Mr. Prothero asked: “Is the death penalty really the worst punishment?” (Davidson)
Unlike Morden, who makes the typical “If Gary Ridgway got life, how can anyone get death?” argument, Davidson uses the Ridgway case to support his assertion that capital punishment is a form of “state-assisted suicide” (Davidson). He points to the fact that three of the last four executions in Washington were voluntary, with defendants actually preferring death to a life in prison without the possibility of parole. If the defendant wants to die, Davidson argues, is capital punishment really punishment at all?
Davidson’s article differs greatly from other opinion pieces on the subject. Most authors argue for their particular viewpoint – either pro- or anti-capital punishment – in hopes that, if they argue forcefully enough, the audience will eventually adopt their position. Davidson, however, wants his audience to arrive at their own conclusions. His goal is simply to provide the appropriate information that will enable his audience to make an informed, logical decision. But this is not to say that Davidson remains completely objective. Although his opinion remains (for the most part) masked by the included facts and data, it is clear that Davidson personally opposes the death penalty. Davidson’s decision to not be as forward with his personal opinion makes the audience more comfortable with his article. Those who support the death penalty are more likely to take his arguments seriously, to carefully consider the evidence and formulate an opinion without feeling pressure from the author to agree with him.
What makes Davidson’s article so effective is the amount of evidence he provides in support of his claim. While Morden offers almost no real evidence, Davidson includes data from a variety of reliable sources. He cites the American Bar Association’s study on racial disparities in the application of the death penalty; exonerations through DNA testing reported by The Innocence Project; and a recent study by death penalty scholar Joanna Shepard, who determined that capital punishment deters murder in only six states (Washington is not one of the six). Davidson also provides examples from several previous death penalty cases. Furthermore, Davidson himself is a reliable source of information on the subject. In addition to being a former chair of the WSBA Committee on Public Defense’s Death Penalty Subcommittee, he also received the WSBA’s highest honor, the Award of Merit, for his 2007 Death Penalty Study. Davidson’s qualifications provide a strong appeal to ethos, which increases the likelihood that the audience will take his argument seriously.
Opponents of capital punishment have every right to ask the typical “If Gary Ridgway got life, how can anyone get death?” question. It is perfectly valid when taken at face value. After all, if a state with an active death penalty statute refuses to impose it on arguably the most prolific serial killer in American history, how can it justify a death sentence for anyone else? This question could puzzle even the most ardent supporter of capital punishment. But problems arise when opponents refuse to explore the Ridgway case beyond face value. Extenuating circumstances, such as the decades that passed with the Green River case going unsolved, or the desire the victims’ families had for closure, are too often ignored. Instead of delving into the messy details of a case, opponents prefer to make sweeping generalizations that will further their arguments – even if it means sacrificing the truth their audiences deserve.
This is not to say that opponents should stop using the Ridgway case to argue against the death penalty. Rather, they should consider how they are using it. If, like Morden, your claim rests almost entirely on the Ridgway case, you probably need to rework your argument. It is extremely difficult to apply the outcome of one case to all others; more importantly, though, it is an argument that any skeptical audience would likely reject. However, if you follow Davidson’s model and let reliable data and expert testimony shine, the Ridgway case can still be used to create a link between your claim and your evidence. Most people would agree that the question at the heart of so many opponents’ arguments is a good one. But if you want to distinguish yourself from other death penalty opponents and actually have an impact on Washington laws, what really matters is the supporting evidence – and ethos – you need to prove your claim and win over your audience.
Works Cited
“Constitutionality of the Death Penalty in America.” Death Penalty Curriculum. 30 Jan. 2009
http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/student/c/about/history/history-5.htm.
Davidson, Kenneth H. “Time for a Hard Look at the Death Penalty.” Washington State Bar Association. 2 Dec. 2008. 31 Jan. 2009
http://www.wsba.org/media/publications/ barnews/davidson1208.htm.
“Legal History of the Death Penalty in Washington State.” Washington Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. 30 Jan. 2009 http://www.abolishdeathpenalty.org/HistoryOfWashingtonDeathPenalty.htm.
Morden, Ryan. “Let’s Kill the Death Penalty in Washington.” The Daily of the University of Washington. 17 Jan. 2008. 31 Jan. 2009
http://dailyuw.com/2008/1/17/lets-kill-death-penalty-washington/.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Seattle U Basketball
The process of learning isn't always easy, said the ancient Greek rhetorician Isocrates. But, in the end, the rewards make the process worth it. That same theme rings true for the Seattle University men's basketball team.
This season has been one of transition for the Redhawks, who are making the move from NCAA Division II to Division I after nearly three decades of de-emphasizing athletics. Coach Joe Callero believed going into the season that his team could pull a few upsets early. Yet he questioned how well the team would be playing in January.
"In 22 years of coaching, I've had zero experience with this. The coaching manual isn't designed for first-year transitional coaching," he said. "But as we continued to play well into January, I told our assistant coaches, 'We have a group of guys who really like to play together.' Yeah, maybe we're pretty good."
Rather than succumbing to the difficulties of the transition process, the Redhawks have met each match head-on. Their lack of a proven "superstar" has led each team member to rise to the challenge and play to the best of his ability. Together, the Redhawks are clearly more than just the sum of their parts.
March 3rd will mark the first match between Seattle U and the University of Washington since 1979. There's no doubt that the chances of a Redhawks win are slim: After all, the Huskies are ranked among the top teams in the nation, and the Redhawks are just a former-Division II team trying to make it in the big time.
But whatever the scoreboard reads after 40 minutes, March 3rd will be a victory for the Redhawks. It will mark the school's return to Division I sports better than any other game this season. Perhaps it will even provide Seattle U with some national attention -- particularly if they play well against a team that is bound to be a part of the March madness.
There is no denying that the process of Seattle U becoming a successful Division I basketball team is far from over. In fact, it's really just begun. But, if the Redhawks stick with it and continue playing the way they are, the rewards will be worth it.
This season has been one of transition for the Redhawks, who are making the move from NCAA Division II to Division I after nearly three decades of de-emphasizing athletics. Coach Joe Callero believed going into the season that his team could pull a few upsets early. Yet he questioned how well the team would be playing in January.
"In 22 years of coaching, I've had zero experience with this. The coaching manual isn't designed for first-year transitional coaching," he said. "But as we continued to play well into January, I told our assistant coaches, 'We have a group of guys who really like to play together.' Yeah, maybe we're pretty good."
Rather than succumbing to the difficulties of the transition process, the Redhawks have met each match head-on. Their lack of a proven "superstar" has led each team member to rise to the challenge and play to the best of his ability. Together, the Redhawks are clearly more than just the sum of their parts.
March 3rd will mark the first match between Seattle U and the University of Washington since 1979. There's no doubt that the chances of a Redhawks win are slim: After all, the Huskies are ranked among the top teams in the nation, and the Redhawks are just a former-Division II team trying to make it in the big time.
But whatever the scoreboard reads after 40 minutes, March 3rd will be a victory for the Redhawks. It will mark the school's return to Division I sports better than any other game this season. Perhaps it will even provide Seattle U with some national attention -- particularly if they play well against a team that is bound to be a part of the March madness.
There is no denying that the process of Seattle U becoming a successful Division I basketball team is far from over. In fact, it's really just begun. But, if the Redhawks stick with it and continue playing the way they are, the rewards will be worth it.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Major Analysis Project (rough draft)
If Gary Ridgway got life, how can anyone get death?
This question is often posed by opponents of capital punishment. If the Green River killer received life in prison for murdering 48 women, they ask, how can Washington State justify the death sentence for someone who killed far fewer people? Ridgway’s case has fueled an onslaught of arguments against the death penalty since his guilty plea six years ago. It was even the subject of a Washington State Supreme Court case: In State v. Cross, defendant Davya Cross challenged the imposition of the death penalty on him based on Ridgway’s sentence. Cross lost his case when the Court determined that his arguments were a moral issue rather than a legal one; even so, opponents continue to cite the Ridgway case in support of their arguments. But while it may seem convincing, the Ridgway case often takes on too large of a role in an argument, causing opponents to lose sight of the much stronger supporting evidence their claims require.
Capital punishment has been a subject of debate among both lawmakers and citizenry in Washington for more than a century. The state executed its first defendant in 1904 under a statute that required the death penalty for convicted first-degree murderers. In 1913, the death penalty was abolished in Washington; it was reinstated six years later with a necessary jury recommendation. Defendants continued to be executed until 1972, when the issue of arbitrariness was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court in Furman v. Georgia. That June, the Court ruled by a vote of five to four capital punishment unconstitutional. Death penalty statutes in 40 states, including Washington, were effectively voided, thus commuting the sentences of 629 death row inmates across the country. Just five months passed before Florida became the first state to rewrite its death penalty statute, eliminating problems cited in Furman. Washington followed, reinstating its death penalty statute in 1977 (“Constitutionality of the Death Penalty in America” and “Legal History of the Death Penalty in Washington State”).
Seventy-seven defendants have been executed in Washington since 1904. In the period between 1981 (the Revised Code of Washington’s last revision) and 2006, there were 254 aggravated first-degree murder cases across the state where the death penalty was an option. Prosecutors sought the death penalty in 79 of those cases. Juries returned death sentences in 30 cases. Of the 30 death sentences handed down, 20 have been reversed on appeal. Six defendants are currently on death row pending appeal and clemency hearings. Four cases have resulted in executions. Of these four, three have been “volunteers” – defendants who have waived appeals and allowed themselves to be executed. The method of execution in Washington is lethal injection, unless the defendant chooses to die by hanging (Davidson).
In January 2008, The Daily of the University of Washington printed an opinion essay by student Ryan Morden. Entitled “Let’s Kill the Death Penalty in Washington,” Morden claims that capital punishment is both inhumane and unjust, and therefore should be abolished. He cites as his main piece of evidence the fact that Green River killer Gary Ridgway received life in prison without parole for murdering 48 women. The author then compares the Ridgway case to a more recent headline:
Over Christmas break, two people shot a family of six to death in Carnation, a small town 30 miles east of Seattle. The murder was horrific, and people are calling for the death penalty. However, the message in our state is this: The more people you kill, the less likely you will be put to death thanks to the outcome of Ridgway’s trial. Remember, 48 killed is fine – six murdered is not. (Morden)
Although Morden also points to the amount of time it can take for a defendant to die by lethal injection (referring to the application of the death penalty as “cruel and unusual punishment”) as well as to biblical passages that seem to prove that capital punishment is in conflict with the Bible, the vast majority of his argument relies on the audience agreeing with his evaluation of the Ridgway case (Morden).
On the surface, Morden’s comparison between Ridgway and the Carnation murders seems legitimate. However, when you consider the often-unmentioned mitigating factors in Ridgway’s case, it becomes clear that this is a false comparison. The arrest of Ridgway in 2001 yielded enough information to charge him with only seven of the Green River killings, despite police suspicion that he had murdered dozens of other women in the region. King County prosecutor Norm Maleng agreed to a plea bargain only because of pressure from victims’ family members, who demanded information that would provide closure to the deaths of their loved ones. This is not to say that Ridgway did not deserve to die: Most people would probably agree that, if any case merited the death penalty, Ridgway’s was it. Yet the extenuating circumstances essentially eliminated the possibility of seeking the death penalty. Do the facts of one particular case mean Washington should refuse to execute anyone in the future? According to Morden, the answer is yes.
What is so interesting about Morden’s essay is his abandonment of the expected evidence for arguments against capital punishment. Rather than going on about cost and racial and socio-economic factors, Morden presents rarely-cited evidence in support of his claim. This move had every possibility of success: Rather than rehashing old statements, Morden could have given death penalty supporters new reasons to consider changing their positions. Instead, though, the evidence he presents lacks credibility. “In some cases, it’s been known to take from 30 minutes to an hour for a criminal to die, causing the recipient to undergo intense suffering until his body finally gives up,” Morden states. He goes on to argue that “lethal injection might as well be called ‘concentrated chemical domestic warfare’ without the ‘war’ part” (Morden). What the audience doesn’t know is where this information came from. Did a doctor say this? Or was it posted on Wikipedia by some kid with too much time on his hands? The author’s failure to disclose his sources affects his ethos, because the audience has no way of knowing how reliable the rest of his information is.
Morden’s ethos is also affected by the attitude he takes toward a portion of his audience. As a staff writer for The Daily, Morden should be aware of the fact that his audience is fellow college students. He appears to be taking advantage of the assumption that college students are generally liberal, and that liberals are generally more likely to oppose capital punishment than conservatives. Morden makes several cutting remarks toward conservatives: “Even members of the College Republicans can agree that putting an innocent person to death is wrong,” he says (Morden). The author goes on to take shots at John McCain’s “straight talk” style and at Fox News, which is watched most by conservatives and Republicans. Although he may not have meant anything by these comments, they still weaken Morden’s credibility as a writer – particularly his credibility among the exact group of students he wants to convince of his viewpoint. It is unlikely that conservatives would take his essay seriously, let alone bother formulating a response to his claim.
Like Morden, Kenneth H. Davidson of the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) uses the Ridgway case as evidence to support his argument. But the biggest difference between the two articles is how they use the case. Morden cites it as his main piece of evidence; Davidson, on the other hand, lets the case take a backseat to the more reliable data and expert testimony. In “Time for a Hard Look at the Death Penalty,” Davidson claims the Washington State Legislature should fund a “thorough, multi-disciplinary study” of the death penalty system (Davidson). His article is presented in a question-and-answer format, which allows him to pose a series of questions that someone without an established opinion might ask about the death penalty. For example, has the death penalty been fairly and evenly applied? Also, does the death penalty serve a significant public good, which justifies its costs?
Davidson goes on to provide thorough answers to each question, frequently citing the Ridgway case in response. He says the following about the benefits of the death penalty versus the benefits of life in prison without parole:
Mark Prothero, who represented Gary Ridgway, questioned the function of the death penalty as a form of punishment. He described Mr. Ridgway’s solitary confinement in a windowless, six feet by 10 feet cell, where he serves his life sentence without the possibility of parole. Twice a week he is taken to a larger, windowless room for an hour of exercise… He has no hope of this routine changing. Mr. Prothero asked: “Is the death penalty really the worst punishment?” (Davidson)
Unlike Morden, who makes the typical “If Gary Ridgway got life, how can anyone get death?” argument, Davidson uses the Ridgway case to support his assertion that capital punishment is a form of “state-assisted suicide” (Davidson). He points to the fact that three of the last four executions in Washington were voluntary, with defendants actually preferring death to life in prison without parole. If the defendant wants to die, Davidson argues, is capital punishment really punishment at all?
Davidson’s article differs greatly from other opinion pieces on the death penalty. Most authors argue for their viewpoint – either pro- or anti-capital punishment – in hopes that, if they argue strongly (or loudly) enough, the audience will eventually adopt their position. Davidson, however, wants his audience to arrive at their own conclusions on the subject. His goal is simply to provide the appropriate information that will enable the audience to make an informed decision. This is not to say that Davidson remains completely objective, though. He clearly opposes the death penalty, although his opinion is (for the most part) masked by the included facts and data. Davidson’s decision to not be as forward with his personal opinion makes his audience more comfortable with the article. Those who support the death penalty are more likely to take his arguments seriously, to consider the evidence and formulate an opinion without feeling a lot pressure from the author to agree with him.
What makes Davidson’s article so effective is the amount of evidence he provides in support of his claim. While Morden offers almost no real evidence, Davidson includes data from a variety of reliable sources. He cites the American Bar Association’s study on racial disparities in the application of the death penalty; exonerations through DNA testing reported by The Innocence Project; and a recent study by death penalty scholar Joanna Shepard determining that capital punishment deters murder in only six states as evidence. Davidson also provides examples from several previous death penalty cases. Furthermore, Davidson himself is a reliable source of information on this subject. In addition to being a former chair of the WSBA Committee on Public Defense’s Death Penalty Subcommittee, he also received the WSBA’s highest honor, the Award of Merit, for his 2007 work on the Death Penalty Study. Davidson’s qualifications provide a strong appeal to ethos, which increases the likelihood that the audience will take his argument seriously.
Opponents of capital punishment have every right to ask the typical “If Gary Ridgway got life, how can anyone get death?” question. It is perfectly valid when taken at face value. After all, if a state with an active death penalty statute refuses to impose it on arguably the most prolific serial killer in American history, how can it justify a death sentence for anyone else? This question could puzzle even the most ardent supporters of capital punishment. But problems arise when opponents refuse to explore the Ridgway case beyond face value. Mitigating factors, such as the desire the victims’ families had for closure, or the decades that passed with the Green River case going unsolved, are ignored. Instead of delving into the messy details of a case, opponents prefer to make sweeping generalizations that will further their arguments – even if it means sacrificing the truth their audiences yearn for.
This is not to say that opponents should stop using the Ridgway case to argue against the death penalty. Rather, they should consider how they are using it. If, like Morden, your claim rests almost entirely on the Ridgway case, you probably need to rework your argument. It is extremely difficult to apply the outcome of one case to all others; more importantly, though, it is an argument that any skeptical audience would likely reject. However, if you follow Davidson’s model and let reliable data and expert testimony shine, you can still use the Ridgway case to create a link between your claim and your evidence. Most people would agree that the question at the heart of so many opponents’ arguments is a good one. But while that may be a good starting point, what really matters is the supporting evidence you need to prove your claim and win over your audience.
This question is often posed by opponents of capital punishment. If the Green River killer received life in prison for murdering 48 women, they ask, how can Washington State justify the death sentence for someone who killed far fewer people? Ridgway’s case has fueled an onslaught of arguments against the death penalty since his guilty plea six years ago. It was even the subject of a Washington State Supreme Court case: In State v. Cross, defendant Davya Cross challenged the imposition of the death penalty on him based on Ridgway’s sentence. Cross lost his case when the Court determined that his arguments were a moral issue rather than a legal one; even so, opponents continue to cite the Ridgway case in support of their arguments. But while it may seem convincing, the Ridgway case often takes on too large of a role in an argument, causing opponents to lose sight of the much stronger supporting evidence their claims require.
Capital punishment has been a subject of debate among both lawmakers and citizenry in Washington for more than a century. The state executed its first defendant in 1904 under a statute that required the death penalty for convicted first-degree murderers. In 1913, the death penalty was abolished in Washington; it was reinstated six years later with a necessary jury recommendation. Defendants continued to be executed until 1972, when the issue of arbitrariness was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court in Furman v. Georgia. That June, the Court ruled by a vote of five to four capital punishment unconstitutional. Death penalty statutes in 40 states, including Washington, were effectively voided, thus commuting the sentences of 629 death row inmates across the country. Just five months passed before Florida became the first state to rewrite its death penalty statute, eliminating problems cited in Furman. Washington followed, reinstating its death penalty statute in 1977 (“Constitutionality of the Death Penalty in America” and “Legal History of the Death Penalty in Washington State”).
Seventy-seven defendants have been executed in Washington since 1904. In the period between 1981 (the Revised Code of Washington’s last revision) and 2006, there were 254 aggravated first-degree murder cases across the state where the death penalty was an option. Prosecutors sought the death penalty in 79 of those cases. Juries returned death sentences in 30 cases. Of the 30 death sentences handed down, 20 have been reversed on appeal. Six defendants are currently on death row pending appeal and clemency hearings. Four cases have resulted in executions. Of these four, three have been “volunteers” – defendants who have waived appeals and allowed themselves to be executed. The method of execution in Washington is lethal injection, unless the defendant chooses to die by hanging (Davidson).
In January 2008, The Daily of the University of Washington printed an opinion essay by student Ryan Morden. Entitled “Let’s Kill the Death Penalty in Washington,” Morden claims that capital punishment is both inhumane and unjust, and therefore should be abolished. He cites as his main piece of evidence the fact that Green River killer Gary Ridgway received life in prison without parole for murdering 48 women. The author then compares the Ridgway case to a more recent headline:
Over Christmas break, two people shot a family of six to death in Carnation, a small town 30 miles east of Seattle. The murder was horrific, and people are calling for the death penalty. However, the message in our state is this: The more people you kill, the less likely you will be put to death thanks to the outcome of Ridgway’s trial. Remember, 48 killed is fine – six murdered is not. (Morden)
Although Morden also points to the amount of time it can take for a defendant to die by lethal injection (referring to the application of the death penalty as “cruel and unusual punishment”) as well as to biblical passages that seem to prove that capital punishment is in conflict with the Bible, the vast majority of his argument relies on the audience agreeing with his evaluation of the Ridgway case (Morden).
On the surface, Morden’s comparison between Ridgway and the Carnation murders seems legitimate. However, when you consider the often-unmentioned mitigating factors in Ridgway’s case, it becomes clear that this is a false comparison. The arrest of Ridgway in 2001 yielded enough information to charge him with only seven of the Green River killings, despite police suspicion that he had murdered dozens of other women in the region. King County prosecutor Norm Maleng agreed to a plea bargain only because of pressure from victims’ family members, who demanded information that would provide closure to the deaths of their loved ones. This is not to say that Ridgway did not deserve to die: Most people would probably agree that, if any case merited the death penalty, Ridgway’s was it. Yet the extenuating circumstances essentially eliminated the possibility of seeking the death penalty. Do the facts of one particular case mean Washington should refuse to execute anyone in the future? According to Morden, the answer is yes.
What is so interesting about Morden’s essay is his abandonment of the expected evidence for arguments against capital punishment. Rather than going on about cost and racial and socio-economic factors, Morden presents rarely-cited evidence in support of his claim. This move had every possibility of success: Rather than rehashing old statements, Morden could have given death penalty supporters new reasons to consider changing their positions. Instead, though, the evidence he presents lacks credibility. “In some cases, it’s been known to take from 30 minutes to an hour for a criminal to die, causing the recipient to undergo intense suffering until his body finally gives up,” Morden states. He goes on to argue that “lethal injection might as well be called ‘concentrated chemical domestic warfare’ without the ‘war’ part” (Morden). What the audience doesn’t know is where this information came from. Did a doctor say this? Or was it posted on Wikipedia by some kid with too much time on his hands? The author’s failure to disclose his sources affects his ethos, because the audience has no way of knowing how reliable the rest of his information is.
Morden’s ethos is also affected by the attitude he takes toward a portion of his audience. As a staff writer for The Daily, Morden should be aware of the fact that his audience is fellow college students. He appears to be taking advantage of the assumption that college students are generally liberal, and that liberals are generally more likely to oppose capital punishment than conservatives. Morden makes several cutting remarks toward conservatives: “Even members of the College Republicans can agree that putting an innocent person to death is wrong,” he says (Morden). The author goes on to take shots at John McCain’s “straight talk” style and at Fox News, which is watched most by conservatives and Republicans. Although he may not have meant anything by these comments, they still weaken Morden’s credibility as a writer – particularly his credibility among the exact group of students he wants to convince of his viewpoint. It is unlikely that conservatives would take his essay seriously, let alone bother formulating a response to his claim.
Like Morden, Kenneth H. Davidson of the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) uses the Ridgway case as evidence to support his argument. But the biggest difference between the two articles is how they use the case. Morden cites it as his main piece of evidence; Davidson, on the other hand, lets the case take a backseat to the more reliable data and expert testimony. In “Time for a Hard Look at the Death Penalty,” Davidson claims the Washington State Legislature should fund a “thorough, multi-disciplinary study” of the death penalty system (Davidson). His article is presented in a question-and-answer format, which allows him to pose a series of questions that someone without an established opinion might ask about the death penalty. For example, has the death penalty been fairly and evenly applied? Also, does the death penalty serve a significant public good, which justifies its costs?
Davidson goes on to provide thorough answers to each question, frequently citing the Ridgway case in response. He says the following about the benefits of the death penalty versus the benefits of life in prison without parole:
Mark Prothero, who represented Gary Ridgway, questioned the function of the death penalty as a form of punishment. He described Mr. Ridgway’s solitary confinement in a windowless, six feet by 10 feet cell, where he serves his life sentence without the possibility of parole. Twice a week he is taken to a larger, windowless room for an hour of exercise… He has no hope of this routine changing. Mr. Prothero asked: “Is the death penalty really the worst punishment?” (Davidson)
Unlike Morden, who makes the typical “If Gary Ridgway got life, how can anyone get death?” argument, Davidson uses the Ridgway case to support his assertion that capital punishment is a form of “state-assisted suicide” (Davidson). He points to the fact that three of the last four executions in Washington were voluntary, with defendants actually preferring death to life in prison without parole. If the defendant wants to die, Davidson argues, is capital punishment really punishment at all?
Davidson’s article differs greatly from other opinion pieces on the death penalty. Most authors argue for their viewpoint – either pro- or anti-capital punishment – in hopes that, if they argue strongly (or loudly) enough, the audience will eventually adopt their position. Davidson, however, wants his audience to arrive at their own conclusions on the subject. His goal is simply to provide the appropriate information that will enable the audience to make an informed decision. This is not to say that Davidson remains completely objective, though. He clearly opposes the death penalty, although his opinion is (for the most part) masked by the included facts and data. Davidson’s decision to not be as forward with his personal opinion makes his audience more comfortable with the article. Those who support the death penalty are more likely to take his arguments seriously, to consider the evidence and formulate an opinion without feeling a lot pressure from the author to agree with him.
What makes Davidson’s article so effective is the amount of evidence he provides in support of his claim. While Morden offers almost no real evidence, Davidson includes data from a variety of reliable sources. He cites the American Bar Association’s study on racial disparities in the application of the death penalty; exonerations through DNA testing reported by The Innocence Project; and a recent study by death penalty scholar Joanna Shepard determining that capital punishment deters murder in only six states as evidence. Davidson also provides examples from several previous death penalty cases. Furthermore, Davidson himself is a reliable source of information on this subject. In addition to being a former chair of the WSBA Committee on Public Defense’s Death Penalty Subcommittee, he also received the WSBA’s highest honor, the Award of Merit, for his 2007 work on the Death Penalty Study. Davidson’s qualifications provide a strong appeal to ethos, which increases the likelihood that the audience will take his argument seriously.
Opponents of capital punishment have every right to ask the typical “If Gary Ridgway got life, how can anyone get death?” question. It is perfectly valid when taken at face value. After all, if a state with an active death penalty statute refuses to impose it on arguably the most prolific serial killer in American history, how can it justify a death sentence for anyone else? This question could puzzle even the most ardent supporters of capital punishment. But problems arise when opponents refuse to explore the Ridgway case beyond face value. Mitigating factors, such as the desire the victims’ families had for closure, or the decades that passed with the Green River case going unsolved, are ignored. Instead of delving into the messy details of a case, opponents prefer to make sweeping generalizations that will further their arguments – even if it means sacrificing the truth their audiences yearn for.
This is not to say that opponents should stop using the Ridgway case to argue against the death penalty. Rather, they should consider how they are using it. If, like Morden, your claim rests almost entirely on the Ridgway case, you probably need to rework your argument. It is extremely difficult to apply the outcome of one case to all others; more importantly, though, it is an argument that any skeptical audience would likely reject. However, if you follow Davidson’s model and let reliable data and expert testimony shine, you can still use the Ridgway case to create a link between your claim and your evidence. Most people would agree that the question at the heart of so many opponents’ arguments is a good one. But while that may be a good starting point, what really matters is the supporting evidence you need to prove your claim and win over your audience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)