Persuasive

Meaning:
1) Koch stands on the belief that karma is the overriding factor of your outcome. Meaning what you have done to someone else, something equal or worse shall occur to you. Koch is saying that is a man takes the life of another, then that same man deserves to have his own life taken from him. Punishment should not be light, there cannot be a light sentence available for doing something as gruesome as taking a man’s life just for pure enjoyment. “ Life is indeed precious, and I believe the death penalty helps affirm this fact.” (Koch) This is said in response to the argument or suggestion of a lighter sentence than the death penalty. Cold blooded killers are more likely to commit the same crimes if their sentence is easier. It’s harder to make a judgment on whether to kill a man, when your own life is in jeopardy as well.
2) Each debate over capital punishment somewhat coincide with each other, but yet contradict. On one point capital punishment is just to be used as a “scaring” method, because killing people is wrong, however if a man kills a man then he must die in the chair. The second statement supports Koch’s thesis in terms of what you do to another comes back upon yourself at a later date.

Purpose and Audience:
1. Koch did not create this essay, or offer his viewpoints on such a controversial issue to enable his acceleration, or popularity in the poles. Koch is aware of the publics lack of support of capital punishment but states, “ Admittedly capital punishment is not a pleasant topic. However one does not have to like the death penalty in order to support it.” ( Koch paragraph 6) Koch is bluntly stating that no matter how one feels about the death penalty right is right and wrong is wrong meaning, yes it may be wrong for killing a man “Thou shalt not kill”, however is it correct to let these same people continue to roam the streets, and take up space in our prisons?
2. Reading the first two paragraphs you can infer that Koch is anticipating that people are going to deject the idea of the death penalty. Consequently he opens up with gruesome stories to have the readers feel empathetic towards the victims, which strikes the thought of how they can resolve crimes like this occurring again. He questions the morality of the people by stating that we are being taught about what’s right and wrong by hard core criminals. Should we not be the one’s to tell them what they did wrong, and hand out the consequence?
3. Koch is prompting his readers to grow a back bone and put the wrong doers where they belong. Criminals have questioned the morality of the accusers by questioning, “ What makes you better than me.” As humans we take this into consideration and often feel a sense of guilt. You are consequently placed on the same level as the defense. They bring you to their level in hopes that you won’t step up; taking responsibility and doing the “right” thing.

Method and Structure:
1. Emotional- “Everyone wants his or her rights, and will defend them jealously.”
Ethical- “The Bible is our greatest source of moral inspiration”
Rational- “When we protect guilty lives, we give up innocent lives in exchange.”
Most effective: Rational, because it basically is a worst case scenario, but at the same time realistic enough because there is truth behind the argument.
Least effective: Ethical is the least effective, because everyone has different standards to what is considered ethical and unethical. For example an atheist would not find the Bible ethical which holds the argument, “Thou shalt not kill.”
2. Syllogism- 1. “Killing people is wrong…. It was no different whether it’s citizens, countries, or governments. Killing is wrong.
2. “Killing is wrong when I did it. Killing is wrong when you do it. I hope
You have the courage and moral strength to stop the killing.
It’s validity cannot be taken into consideration as means to be taken seriously, because these are criminal who are in a state of attempting to save his life. Is it really morally correct to take the advice of a man who not long ago took the like another? A man cannot change in the short period of time to conform to a pure new way of life. Honesty now comes into question.
3. Koch goes proceeds on my stating that capital punishment is barbaric and inhumane. Instantly he links his argument by altering it slightly, yes the death penalty can be performed inhumane, but yet it is necessary to get rid of those who are causing problems to our societies. I don’t find this part of his argument convincing, because he comes across as if he is contradicting himself, and unsure of which platform he should take.
4. 1. “ One does not have to like the death penalty to support it any more than radical surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy in order to find necessary these attempts at curing cancer.
2. If the penalty for rape were lowered, clearly it would signal a lessened regard for the victims’ suffering, humiliation, and personal dignity.
The first example is set to establish that like a disease death is an illness. Not capital punishment, however more so of the death that derives because of it. Like chemotherapy capital punishment is set in place to get rid of the murderers who burden society, however like chemotherapy there is always a downside to the outcome.