The content of the article is quite significant primarily because the subject continues to be an undying issue worthy of attention and debate. The article focused on one of the most impending topics not just in the United States, but around the globe as well. It focused on the implementation of capital punishment. It should be noted that unlike most write-ups about capital punishment, the introduction of the topic was quite appealing since it took a very timely position.
The article started by noting two alarming crimes that caught attention in California and Britain- that of California’s David Westerfield who was found guilty of kidnapping and murdering the seven-year-old Danielle Van Dam, and that of a school janitor who have been charged with murdering two ten-year-old girls. Apparently, addressing the issue of a death sentence by presenting very imminent actual incidents that demanded such form of punishment made the issue notable of immediate discussion.When analyzed, it can be noted that the thesis of the argument was somehow well laid but not directly stated during the initial paragraphs. In the statement “it seems that the general public would like to see the death penalty imposed for these and similar crimes”, it is somehow implied that the author was one of those whom he referred to as the “general public” although he did not clearly state that he identified himself as someone who wanted to promote death penalty. Such position was then promoted all throughout the whole of his essay.
As the presentation of the argument progresses, it can be noted that Sullivan only presented the arguments that pro-life advocates often point out. The absence of the arguments from the advocates of death penalty somehow promotes the idea that the author is supportive of the opposing party. However, the subsequent paragraphs will prove otherwise. Apparently, the author pointed out the arguments posed by the abolitionists of capital punishment only to provide the readers an idea of what he wanted to debunk. The organization of the entire essay gradually supported the argument posed by the author.The frame – from the introduction to the conclusion – presented a well formulated flow of ideas that attracted, engaged, and demanded the full support of the readers.
It should be noted that in the beginning of the argument, the author used empathy and compassion in order to prove that the idea of capital punishment should be propagated. By noting the crimes that were committed against innocent children, the author somehow puts the readers in a position where they should choose between presenting their sympathy over the naive victims and defending those who were actually guilty and culpable criminals.Aside from using an emotional strategy to prove his point, the author also makes use of social classification. Note that in his third paragraph, the author classifies the capital punishment argument as a battle between two social classes. He labels the advocates of the death penalty as the “general public” while he points out the abolitionists as “British elites”. By doing such, he somehow implies that those who are against capital punishment actually possess the characteristics that are mostly associated with the British influential.
As a result, the article primarily poses a question of identity among the general American population who are against death penalty. In the subsequent paragraphs, the author takes on a logical and rational strategy to prove his point. He tried to take on a factual style. He addresses each of the arguments often used by the abolitionists and tried to debunk these statements by presenting counter arguments supported by historical narratives, and important researches.
In the end of his argument, he uses the actual defense of the abolitionists in order to support his position. He somehow convinces the readers that in order to save lives - those of the probable victims of the criminals – they should then promote the death of the criminals. In the last few paragraphs of the article, Sullivan again reminds the readers that abolishing death penalty is like choosing murderers (David Westerfield) over innocent children (Danielle Van Dams).Though the article proved to be quite persuasive primarily because it appeals to emotions and logic, it lacks direct argumentation. It does not ultimately address the question of why capital punishment should be implemented. Instead, it ponders on the idea that the arguments of the abolitionists are wrong and invalid.
Also, the arguments that the author presented were all theoretical. He failed to provide a highly observable experience that supported his main argument- that providing death penalty could actually save lives.
