Death Penalty Essays

Of the two death penalty essays that we read in class, I believe that the essay by Kroll is more effective than the one written by Mencken. Normally, I would be more easily and strongly persuaded by an essay that primarily uses logos to sway the readers, like the Mencken essay, but that was not the case here. With such a serious and emotional topic like the death penalty, the technique that is most effective in persuading readers is definitely pathos. Kroll writes, "We were in the middle of something indescribably ugly. Not just the cold-blooded killing of a human being... It was nakedly barbaric." There are many times like this throughout his essay where Kroll uses words like "ugly" and "barbaric" to describe the death penalty, which have negative connotations. By describing it in such a negative way, it makes the readers feel sorry for anyone who has to go through the process, no matter what they did. It is human nature to believe that killing someone in cold blood is wrong, so people will be urged to think against this idea, thus strengthening Kroll's argument. On the other hand, Mencken wrote in his essay, "There are, indeed, many other jobs that are unpleasant, and yet no one thinks of abolishing them- that of the plumber, that of the soldier, that of the garbageman, that of the priest hearing confessions, that of the san.. and so on." Here he is using logic to refute the argument that the job of a hangman is unpleasant. Although this idea that he presents is logical, it does not have the grasping effect that appeals to emotion have on the readers in this situation. Kroll's use of pathos was definitely more effective in persuading me to agree with his argument than Mencken's use of logos.