essay

A national debate has thrown fuel on the fires of politics and race in America. This debate

revolves around the removal of statues honoring Confederate soldiers, and its forum ranges from the

halls of Congress to our city streets. This chain of events culminated in a violent protest on the streets

of Charlottesville, Virginia. Its cost on that day was the life of Charlottesville resident Heather Hayer and

two police officers responding to the violence. In the days following the events in Charlottesville, a

number of politicians and other public figures spoke out about the issues of removing these statues.

One politician is Republican Representative Markwayne Mullin of Utah who published an article titled

“Congressman, Native American: When political correctness runs amok – erasing our history doesn’t

change it” on the Fox News website on August 21, 2017. It is widely accept that the majority of Fox

News viewers and readers are conservatives, so Mullin’s target audience for this article is his

conservative constituents. His ultimate purpose is to stoke the fire of his readers’ patriotism and outrage

at “political correctness” and its negative progressive effects on America’s culture and future.

The editorial board of the New York Times Op-Ed department makes a well-rounded appeal to

pathos when they argue against the death penalty. They begin with a story about a death row inmate,

describing an old man with health problems who spends 80 minutes thinking he is about to die before

being sent back to his cell to wait two more years for prison officials to try again. The board uses

powerful negative adjectives to emphasize disapproval, describing the “pathetic scene” of the elderly

inmate as a fair representation of “a vile practice that descends further into macabre farce.” This

example humanizes the inmates on death row, encouraging the reader to see them as people instead of

simple criminals. They conclude this example by mentioning a case in which the death penalty is

challenged as being a cruel and unusual punishment, which certainly could be applied to the sick old

man sentenced to two more years of imprisonment only to once again face death. The second point the

board makes introduces the issue of prejudice. They describe the death penalty as an exercise in

discrimination, listing “mental illness, intellectual disability, brain damage, childhood abuse or neglect,

Commented [CA1]: Here is an effective intro for Essay 1: it gives the readers answers to who, what, where, when, and why. And it even identifies the source author’s audience and purpose. Note that this intro is for the Mullin article.

Commented [CA2]: This student paragraph follows the MEAL plan for paragraphing, the old/new contract, and guidelines for quoting sources. Note that this paragraph analyzes the NYT op-ed.

abysmal lawyers, minimal judicial review, [and] a white victim” as being more relevant to the outcome

of a conviction than the severity of the crime. As evidence, they refer to a report on executions last

year, saying that “of the 23 people put to death in 2017, all but three had at least one of these factors”

and “eight were younger than 21 at the time of their crime.” This is a particularly hot topic in today’s

political climate. Millennials make up the largest demographic segment of the New York Times’ audience

and are likely to have strong opinions against racism and discrimination. Highlighting these patterns in

capital punishment sentences is likely to spark righteous outrage in liberal-leaning readers. In their next

example, the editorial board goes on to describe the large numbers of wrongful convictions made,

reminding the reader that innocent people have died under the practice of capital punishment. Loss of

innocent life is often a powerful argument, as most will agree that it should be avoided whenever

possible. Social pressure is also skillfully applied when the board describes the steep decline in support

for capital punishment over the last 15 years. They mention that “the rest of the developed world” has

rejected the practice of capital punishment, again using negative adjectives such as “cruel” and

“pointless” to invoke disapproval. In the last paragraphs of the article, the board addresses a

counterpoint that the death penalty will die out on its own. They acknowledge that many states have

banned or otherwise eliminated capital punishment but point out that other states have taken measures

to further support the process and exacerbate previously cited issues. These states the board describes

as “fiercely committed” and says that “they won’t stop killing people unless they’re forced to.” In their

conclusion, the board again refers to America being a minority in the continued practice of capital

punishment. As a whole, the article makes a well-balanced appeal using tactics that appeal to a variety

of values, beliefs, and emotions which most people will agree with.