Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,

link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010124291/OVIC?u=cobb90289&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=85504aaf. Accessed 1 Oct. 2024.

Originally published as "Individual Rights and Responsibility—The Death Penalty, but Sparingly," Human Rights, 17 June 2008.

This article argues that the death penalty is necessary for punishing the worst crimes and providing justice for innocent lives. It offers a strong defense of the death penalty and challenges arguments for its abolition. The author refers to historical figures to give an example of why he believes that some actions deserve the ultimate punishment of death. The intended audience includes students, legal professionals, and the general public who are interested in the death penalty debate. This article would appeal to people with strong opinions on justice, human rights, and moral issues. The author uses ethos by referencing historical figures to build credibility. He uses pathos by making emotional appeals related to certain historical tragedies. The article also addresses common counterarguments, which allows readers to see different perspectives. However, the article shows bias by mainly supporting the death penalty and not fully explaining the abolitionist views. The author also seems to overlook complex issues like wrongful convictions and racial bias. Overall, this article is useful for understanding one side of the death penalty debate. It’s relevant to the topic, but I believe it’s important to read other sources that speak over abolitionist arguments for a complete understanding on the debate.

Controversies. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,

link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010955224/OVIC?u=cobb90289&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=9eea53d6. Accessed 1 Oct. 2024.

Originally published as "The Cost of Capital Punishment: Reconsidering the Death Penalty Is a Matter of Conscience and

Constitutionality," Freeman, 12 May 2014.

This article argues against the death penalty, focusing on its moral and financial problems. The author highlights the risk of executing innocent people and the high costs of keeping the death penalty in effect. He explains how wrongful executions can occur and that taxpayers end up paying the bill for this costly process. The author also criticizes current efforts by some states to speed up the death penalty process, stating that this could lead to even more innocent people being executed. It seems aimed towards anyone interested in the death penalty debate, including lawmakers and the general public. The author uses logos by providing statistics and studies that show how expensive and ineffective the death penalty is. The emotional stories of wrongful convictions used in the article also show pathos, making the argument more relatable and impactful. These rhetorical devices help clarify the debate by discussing both the financial costs and the moral issues tied to wrongful executions. But, I believe the article may seem biased since it primarily focuses on the problems with the death penalty without mentioning any counterarguments. It covers important issues but could be even more effective if it included potential solutions to these problems. Overall, I think the article is very relevant for anyone researching the death penalty, especially its flaws. It provides important information on the risks and costs of this punishment, making it a useful resource for understanding the debate.

Current Controversies. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,

link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010955216/OVIC?u=cobb90289&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=8e9b66a1. Accessed 1 Oct. 2024.

Originally published as "Testimony of Richard C. Dieter, Executive Director, Death Penalty Information Center," 2013.

This article discusses how expensive and inefficient the death penalty is in the U.S. It argues that the costs involved with this process often outweigh any benefits it might have. The author compares the high costs of death penalty cases to that of life sentences and uses studies and examples from different states to show how this affects the world financially. It seems like the article is aimed at policymakers, legal professionals, and anyone interested in the justice system. The author uses logos by providing credible sources to make a strong argument against the death penalty. By citing specific studies and statistics, the author effectively persuades readers with certain facts. The article breaks down the financial impact of the death penalty, showing how costs add up throughout the process. This helps readers see the bigger picture beyond just moral arguments. However, I believe one weakness is that it mostly focuses on the financial aspects and doesn’t really address the moral arguments for the death penalty. This could make it seem biased since it doesn’t include any opposing viewpoints. Overall, the article is useful for anyone looking into the costs of the death penalty and its impact on the justice system. But, think it’s important for readers to look at other sources to get a more balanced view of the topic.

by Mary E. Williams, Greenhaven Press, 2002. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,

link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010124265/OVIC?u=cobb90289&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=05e83a7a. Accessed 1 Oct. 2024

This article discusses significant problems with the death penalty in the U.S., focusing on racial and economic biases. It argues that a person’s chances of receiving a death sentence often depend on the race of the victim and the wealth of the defendant. For example, people who kill white victims are much more likely to face the death penalty than those who kill Black victims. The author uses specific case studies and statistics to show how unfair the system can be and how a person’s financial situation can impact their sentence. The intended audience includes policymakers, legal professionals, and those interested in criminal justice issues, specifically in racial inequality and the ethics of the death penalty. The author uses logos by providing statistical evidence and real-life examples to support claims about these biases, which makes the argument clearer and more convincing. While the article is convincing in explaining the role of race and wealth in sentencing, one potential weakness is that it doesn’t mention other factors that could also influence death penalty cases. Also, the strong argument against the death penalty may come off as biased. Overall, the article is useful for anyone researching the death penalty, particularly its racial and economic aspects. However, I believe readers should look for more sources that cover this topic to get a more well-rounded view.