An Eye for Eye

The death penalty is one of the controversial topics being widely discussed today. Anna Quindlen is one of many people who opposes the death penalty. She is a crime buff who has worked as a reporter for decades in some of the worst areas of New York. In her article, "Death Penalty's False Promise: An Eye for an Eye," she states how the death penalty and her have nothing in common. She claims that the killing of one human being as punishment for the killing of another makes no sense and is inherently immoral. She tries to relate to her readers by using imagery, stating her opinions, and by appealing to the emotions of her readers. Throughout her argument, she also uses many examples to back up her opinions. She gives examples of situations that appeal to her readers sentiments and makes them feel connected to the scenario. Quindlen not only relates to the readers who oppose the death penalty, but she also relates to the readers who thinks it is a valid means of dealing with criminals. Throughout the article, Quindlen targets both views of the death penalty; stating what the beneficial factors of each side of the death penalty are. She starts off her article talking about Ted Bundy and how he's murdered dozens of women. "He and the death penalty seemed made for each other." In an indirect way, she is agreeing to the death penalty and thinks that Ted Bundy should recieve the death penalty. Then she goes right back to saying "The deah penalty and I, on the other hand, seem to have nothing in common," stating her claim that she opposes the death penalty. This technique Quindlen uses captures all of her readers; it allows the readers to feel that she is not trying to impose her opinions on her readers but rather, relate to them.

One of the techniques that Quindlen uses is appealing to her audience's emotions. She relates to her readers by connecting with the audience of both sides of the argument. "I have always been governed by my gut, and my gut says i am hypocritical about the death penalty." Quindlen is saying that albeit she opposes the death penalty, she's hypocritical about it when something bad happens to her personally. At first, she states how she opposes the death penalty and how it's immoral, but then she relates to her readers by using an example of her daughter being clubbed to death while she was sleeping in a sorority house. Quindlen is speaking to her readers on a personal level, telling them that even though she thinks the death penalty is wrong, she would have had the pleasure of killing the criminal herself. She is not only relating to her readers who oppose the death penalty, she is also relating to the readers who thinks the death penalty is a legitimate means of dealing with criminals. Quindlen's method of appealing to her reader's emotions really captures their attention by showing her audience that she cares and conciders other people's opinions alongside her own.

Quindlen uses her opinions to relate to both views of the death penalty. She tries to relate to and get the attention of the readers who agree with the death penalty by saying for example, "the death penalty would act as a deterrent by eliminating recidivism." However, she goes right back to the opposing side of the death penalty by saying "I don't believe that deterrence is what most propenents seek from death penalty anyhow." She tries to capture all of her audience's attention by supporting both sides of the argument with examples of what she thinks is advantageous in both. Quindlen tries to relate to the opposing side of the death penalty by saying that "I think the killing of one human being as punishment for the killing of another makes no sense and inherently immoral." She also expresses how there is nothing anyone could do that is bad enough to replace the pain a parent has go through in losing a 6-year-old boy; not lethal injection or even the electric chair. In expressing her own opinions and giving examples to support them, Quindlen makes such a strong argument that it almost makes me want to re-examine my own opinions on the death penalty.

Quindlen uses several types of technique in her argument; one of which is imagery. Throughout her article, she uses numerous examples to support her claim. Certain examples that she described gave me such a vivid-mental-picture that i felt like i was in the scenario myself. She appeals to her readers in a way that makes you feel like you are both in the scenario at the same time experiencing what is happening. She said that "people standing around the gurney waiting, made it more awful. One