The Death Penalty Persuasive Analysis

856 Words4 Pages
“An eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” said the Bible about justice but it also says “You shall not murder,” so is morally accepted the murder to a murderer? The topic in discussion is whether should the death penalty be banned or allowed, if taking the life of a criminal is a necessary punishment. The article of The Editors "Ban the Death Penalty” is based on facts and analysis about how the death penalty is not proved to deter crimes. However, Adrianne Haslet-Davis’s article, "Why the Death Penalty Should Live" does not sustain her thoughts with information. Furthermore, The Editor advocated their article with information of the possible consequences of this punishment to show better their point when Haslet-Davis just shares her experience and beliefs missing to provide specific data. On one hand, her article succeeds by putting the readers in her position and target their emotions owing to the fact that she was the victim. The Editors’ opposing article even if not appeals to our emotions it still makes the most successful argument on account of the quality of its information. The Editors ' article makes a better job by proving all the information they have with facts and studies and Haslet-Davis did not use any proven fact to support hers. On one hand, Adrianne Haslet-Davis believes the death penalty should be implemented to be set as a precedent and be a deterrent for future murderers, she states “We don’t put up with terrorism or terrorists” as

More about The Death Penalty Persuasive Analysis

Open Document