Fighting Death

Validity in argument rarely stands ground by itself. This editorial talks about just how cruel an attempted execution can be. The problem is however, the author never seems to back up his/her argument with evidence outside of their own opinion. Botched executions are terrible and I most definitely agree that states should take a minute to realize what they are really doing and the possible outcomes of their actions. The New York Times article, Botched Executions, is compelling but lacks proper supporting evidence and ideas.

Authors of great works generally have some source of information that they rely on for their writings. As a writer of the NY Times, this author appears to use his own newspaper as reference when writing about a topic. When your newspaper is as credible as the NY Times, referencing it often is fine even though the opinion section is the least credible part of any newspaper. On top of these personal references, the author uses strong language and words that appeal to the emotions of the audience, continuously giving examples of how harshly the prisoner was treated when being executed. Using words and phrases like, “barbaric” and, “his flesh burned,” give the reader a sense of sympathy toward the prisoner. This may or may not be necessary given that the prisoner is on death row for a very good reason. The author eventually uses a reference to a Constitutional Challenge but never gives numerical figures or details about why Kentucky challenged in the first place.

On a less critical note, I personally agree with this author and the things he/she wrote. Executions in the U.S. are somehow known for their inefficiency and difficulties when it comes to killing a person legally. However, there isn’t a whole lot the government can do while still keeping the procedure “humane.” The process itself is already on the verge of cruel.The individual states have different rules and regulations for executions and I find all of them cruel and nearly unnecessary. On the other hand, I have heard through hear-say that prison is becoming more and more home-like. With TV and good food, is it really punishing a person? One man in Austria was allowed to choose his prison, Garsten which sounds like a pretty comfortable way to do a ‘sentence’.

When it comes to being believable in this article, it lacks just the right amount of support to really be a great editorial. If it were me I would add some evidence of perhaps what the public thinks or the government’s opinion on the failed attempts at execution. Statistics could also help to fully convince readers to see the author’s side of the argument. The author has a call to action directed at the states and government to pause and think about how many things are going wrong with executions. This point the author makes would be so much more qualified if he/she only added some references to how botched executions are bad for the state when it comes to cost, waste, and time consumption.

Some actual evidence that might be helpful would be information on money and just how much it really costs the state to execute someone, let alone execute them twice. Other interesting information would be the public's opinion on the topic. Does the death penalty actually do what it is supposed to: decrease crime? Some say yes, and some say the death penalty is useless. Also, when referring to things like the challenge towards the Constitution made in 2007, the author may want to reference what actually happened or at least an article that gives a brief overview. Statisticsthat could be important to the article are that 37 people were executed in 2008 which is less than 2007. About half of these people were executed in Texas.

In the end, the Botched Executions article may have been written with the intention of being quick and to the point. In that case I understand why there weren’t more references and supporting evidence. There is still no excuse to not back up an opinion with why or at least a general response for the intentions of the article. I believe that the states do need to settle down and figure out whether lethal injection will always be the best and most efficient way of execution. Overall, the article was lacking but still interesting and while I agree with the author, more could be done to convince the audience why they should feel the same about Capital Punishment.

The main argument being made is that of how executions should be done in a more humane way if done at all. The author says that with so many failed attempts or botched executions that the government should stop all executions until they know exactly how to end the life the first time with minimal pain and suffering.

Strategies the author uses for support include, the detailed description of how gruesome the procedure is and how the person being executed must go through such suffering only to die in the end. This strategy forces the audience to believe that the person being executed is the victim in the situation. Using words like “barbaric” and “cruel” create a picture for the reader. Another strategy used is statistics. “In the last four years, it has had three botched executions,…” While proving that there are more than enough botched executions, statistics like these also help to shape the reader’s mind into exactly what the author wants.

As for an alternative way of thinking, the author proposes that states like Ohio with botched and failed executions should take a minute to realize that their method of execution is obviously not efficient and reliable. The author also states that the government should stop all executions until they know for certain that every person condemned to death will not have to suffer or be “killed” more than once.

This editorial was about executions gone wrong. Some executions fail to kill the person allowing them to live. They don't live very long for there is another attempt at their life some other day. The author is saying that if people are willing to believe in the death penalty then they should at least believe in a humane way of putting someone do death for wrong-doing. The author wants to get the point across that states who enforce the death penalty should stand back and look at the cruelty of putting people to death.