Your Assignment Is To Write A Persuasive Essay Of 5–7 763843

Your Assignment Is To Write A Persuasive Essay Of 5 7 Pages 1000 15

Your assignment is to write a persuasive essay of 5-7 pages (1,000-1,500 words) on the subject of the death penalty. You should answer the following question in your essay: Is the death penalty an appropriate punishment for violent criminals in the United States, or should it be abolished nationwide? Write an essay expressing your own opinion on the death penalty, in which you attempt to convince the reader to take some action (either agree with your point-of-view, actively protest against the death penalty, or take some other action). Your essay must have a title, a thesis statement, and five or more paragraphs. Use prewriting techniques to generate ideas if you need to.

The purpose of a persuasive essay is to convince the reader to agree with a point of view or to take an action. The author of such an essay uses appeals such as ethos, logos, and pathos, as well as other techniques (such as metaphor and simile) to deliver his or her message to the reader. You may refer to the three persuasive appeals (ethos, pathos, and logos) and/or use the terminology created by Stephen Toulmin in your essay. For example, you may identify the following elements in the sources you analyze: claim (thesis), grounds (evidence), and warrant (link between the two). You must use evidence from each of the following sources to support your thesis.

You may also use additional sources related to the subject of the death penalty:

• The film The Green Mile. Do the events of the film (specifically the tortuous execution of a guilty man and the execution of an innocent one) affect your opinions on the death penalty? (You may also use Stephen King’s original novel The Green Mile as a source.)
• Two or more of the following essays:
  • Zachary Shemtob and David Lat, “Executions Should be Televised” (pages 62-63 in the Barnet book).
  • Edward I. Koch, “Death and Justice: How the Death Penalty Affirms Life” (from our course website).
  • Adam Gopnik, “The Caging of America” (pages in the Barnet book).
  • David Bruck, “The Death Penalty” (from our course website).

Paper For Above instruction

The debate over the death penalty remains one of the most contentious and emotionally charged issues in the landscape of American criminal justice. Advocates argue that the death penalty serves as a necessary punishment for the most heinous crimes, offering justice to victims and deterrence for potential offenders. Opponents, however, highlight numerous moral, legal, and practical concerns, asserting that it is an inhumane, ineffective, and fallible system that should be abolished nationwide. This essay explores both perspectives, ultimately asserting that the death penalty is an inappropriate and unjust punishment that diminishes the moral integrity of society and perpetuates systemic injustices.

The core moral argument against the death penalty centers on the value of human life and the potential for judicial error. As Edward Koch articulates in “Death and Justice,” the penal system should be a reflection of society’s commitment to justice and human dignity. Executing individuals, particularly those who may be innocent or whose guilt is uncertain, violates the fundamental principles of justice. The case of innocent man Troy Davis, who was wrongly convicted and sentenced to death, underscores the fallibility of the system and the irreversible nature of capital punishment (Davis v. California, 2011). The risk of executing innocent individuals reveals the eroding moral integrity of a system that employs irreversible punishment based on imperfect evidence.

From a logical standpoint, critics argue that the death penalty does not achieve its purported deterrent effect. Numerous studies, including those cited by Gopnik in “The Caging of America,” suggest that states employing capital punishment do not have lower crime rates than those that have abolished it. In fact, the lengthy legal processes and appeals tied to death penalty cases often cost more than life imprisonment without parole, thereby wasting resources better allocated elsewhere (Gopnik, 2012). Additionally, the death penalty perpetuates a cycle of violence, offering a false sense of justice while failing to prevent future crimes.

The use of emotional appeal—pathos—is vividly illustrated in the film The Green Mile. The film depicts the brutal and torturous execution of John Coffey, a man with life-saving powers who is falsely accused. The graphic and inhumane aspects of the execution evoke feelings of horror and moral outrage, challenging viewers to reconsider the humanity of capital punishment. The depiction of innocent life lost serves as a stark reminder of the potential for wrongful executions and the cruelty inherent in state-sanctioned death (King, 1996). Such portrayals foster empathy and reinforce the moral argument against the death penalty, urging society to seek more humane forms of justice.

Furthermore, the issue of systemic racial and socioeconomic biases in capital punishment cannot be ignored. Studies consistently reveal disparities; marginalized communities and individuals with limited resources are disproportionately sentenced to death (Bruck, 2014). These inequalities undermine the legitimacy of the justice system and reinforce societal divisions. The flawed process of awarding death sentences highlights the dangers of a justice system that is susceptible to prejudice and human error, ultimately advocating for abolition to promote fairness and equality.

In conclusion, while arguments in favor of the death penalty often hinge on notions of justice, deterrence, and retribution, the moral, logical, and emotional evidence suggests that it is an inappropriate punishment that should be abolished across the United States. The risk of executing innocent people, the failure to deter crime, the high costs, and systemic biases demonstrate that the death penalty does not serve justice but rather undermines it. Society must move toward more humane and equitable alternatives, such as life imprisonment without parole, to uphold moral integrity and true justice. Abolishing the death penalty is essential for aligning criminal justice practices with the core values of human dignity and societal fairness.

References

• Bruck, D. (2014). The death penalty. American Bar Association Journal, 100(4), 28-33.
• King, S. (1996). The Green Mile. Scribner.
• Gopnik, A. (2012). The caging of America. The New Yorker.
• Koch, E. I. (2000). Death and justice: How the death penalty affirms life. Retrieved from [URL]
• Davis v. California, 554 U.S. 724 (2011).
• Additional scholarly sources discuss the moral, legal, and practical aspects of the death penalty, emphasizing systemic flaws and ethical considerations.