Rhetorical Analysis Of State Of Oregon Vs Kipland

Tuan Taruselli-Stormes
Professor Monica Swaner
English 102
February 20, 2017

A Rhetorical Analysis of “State of Oregon v. Kipland Philip Kinkel”

October 16, 2002, P.J. Haselton filed court documents from the case of Kipland Philip Kinkel. This was a trial based on the 111 years and 8 months’ life term sentence Kinkel had received form an earlier trial for four counts of murder and 26 counts of attempted murder. Through this trial, they recapped the original trial, and deliberated over the evidence presented by Mr. Kinkel’s lawyers. Judge Haselton entertained the courts with their premises for grounds of inhumane violations of article I, section 15, and Article I, section 16, of the Oregon State Constitution. Judge Haselton presented a

The following morning, he went to Thurston High School and began shooting students. During his shooting spree, he murdered four people, including his parents, and injured 26 others. Kinkel confessed to committing these malicious crimes. The police searched his house and found a large amount of bomb making material, improvised, explosives, literature, and an arsenal of weapons. Kinkel was found guilty and sentenced to 111 years 8 months (para 1). Kinkel had a long history of paranoid schizophrenia and depression. He also had a very long blood line history of mental illness. Medical experts evaluated Kinkel to the possibility of him being able to be rehabilitated and possibilities of returning to a regular life. The experts were very skeptical and doubtful. His sentence was challenged as inhumane, but Oregon State Constitution was very clear about his

Other court cases were used during this trial to show their rulings and that they were not found inhumane. The effective use of logos in the court document helps persuade the audience that the case of Oregon Vs Tuel, were Mr. Tuel who committed a less offensable crime, but still received a life sentence that was within the guidelines of the state constitution.
Judge Haselton of the Oregon Court of Appeal effectively uses rhetorical appeals to support the court’s original sentence as constitutional and fair. The use of expert doctors Bolstad and Sacks to determine that the possibility of rehabilitation is almost impossible and very unlikely for Mr. Kinkel. Also, the defendant interpretation of the Articles I, 15, was misinterpreted. Kinkel stated that the article was cruel and unusual. Judge Haselton pointed out that there might have been a chance of rehabilitation, but he was thinking of the people of Oregon when he passed down his verdict.