Imagine being part of a family sitting in a courtroom across from the man who sexually assaulted and then murdered your 11-month-old daughter. This is the nightmare involved in the trial of Charles Warner (England). I believe that capital punishment should be considered in the most serious cases like the case of Charles Warner. This stands in direct opposition to the argument made by the New York Times editorial titled “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. In this paper, I will be conducting a rhetorical analysis of the author’s goals, intended audience, and desired outcome.
Throughout this paper, I will also be researching, analyzing, and evaluating the article from the New York Times. Next, this paper will take a look at the goals and motives of the rhetors involved in the writing of this article from the New York Times editorial section. While reading the article, it is very clear that the author and rhetor is attempting to convince their readers that capital punishment should be considered by all Americans to be unambiguously wrong, with no exceptions. Ultimately, the editorial is a call from the rhetor to persuade the general American population to consider voting for politicians that condone the use of the death penalty in any case.
The organization of the text includes an expert testimony from the Pope and then some statistics of capital punishment throughout America over the past 45 years to back up the authors claim that the death penalty is against the American constitution and should be abolished in America. This particular editorial was written in August of this year. The topic of capital punishment is not a new one, however, the author writes in response to a statement from Pope Francis regarding his condemnation of capital punishment. Therefore, the conversation is timely, especially considering midterm elections that just happened in November.
One of the most important factors of any rhetorical analysis is the intended audience. First of all, the New York Times is targeted for residents of the New York metropolitan area. Beyond that, the Times intended audience would usually consist of college-educated, affluent American citizens who are interested in the range of stories and opinion editorials offered by the New York Times. This is important to consider because the intended audience of the New York Times is also the population most likely to vote and be concerned with political discussions in America. Next, this paper will examine the ethos, logos, and pathos used in this rhetorical artifact from the New York Times to persuade its readers. All three of these artistic proofs can be seen throughout the editorial board of the Times. The first appeal of ethos which is about the rhetor’s credibility is an interesting one because the authors of the editorial aren’t named. The editorial board of the New York Times has its own credibility built up over years of serving the American public through news and opinion editorials.
The authors of this rhetorical text also appeal to their own credibility by using direct quotes from Pope Francis on the topic discussed in the editorial. The editorial board attempts to logically appeal to their audience by using many statistics and tying those into their argument. An example of the authors use of logos appears in this quote from the New York Times editorial: “Over the past 45 years, when 1,479 people were executed in this country, 162 people sentenced to death have been exonerated. All the arguments for executing criminals have been debunked: It is useless as a deterrent and it does not save lives by getting rid of murderers. Many countries, including nearly all Western democracies with the shameful exception of the United States, have rejected it” (Board). This quote contains many claims and uses of appeals. Using statistics like “1,479 people were executed in this country, 162 people sentenced to death have been exonerated” (Board) show a claim of fact because it can be shown to be either true or false. Furthermore, a claim of value can be seen in the quote “All the arguments for executing criminals have been debunked: It is useless as a deterrent and it does not save lives by getting rid of murderers” (Board.) This is a claim of value because it contains words like “useless” and “debunked” which are value terms expressing a belief or opinion. Finally, The author also does use pathos in the article, which his an emotional appeal to influence the audience. The rhetor uses the story of a man named Carey Dean Moore, from Nebraska, who is now 60 years old and has been on death for 38 years.
The author claims that few Nebraskans even remember what he was condemned for. This is an emotional appeal attempted to sway the emotions of the audience towards pity towards this man who has been on death row for far too long. Finally, this paper will evaluate the effectiveness of the rhetoric used by the New York Times editorial “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. According to a website titled the “Public Opinion About the Death Penalty”, the support for capital punishment alternatives are the highest they have ever been. The push for life sentences without parole is much higher than the support for capital punishment. Another aspect to consider is the public response to the remarks made by Pope Francis. Many conservative Roman Catholic’s struggle with the Pope’s more liberal stance on this social issue. The Pope is not only claiming his own disdain for the death penalty, but he is calling for the Catholic church everywhere to work “with determination for the abolition of the death penalty worldwide” (Reese). He has faced backlash for this mainly in the United States where a larger majority of white Catholics do support the death penalty. It will be interesting to see if this article from the New York Times quoting Pope Francis can move these numbers to be in opposition to the death penalty. The rhetor’s of the article from the New York Times certainly made their case clear
