Alexa McAndrew 841 Spring Cove Court Eureka, Missouri 63025 December 7, 2015 Beth Eakman St. Edward’s University 3001 South Congress Avenue Austin, Texas 78704 Dear Professor Eakman Through the course of the semester, we have discovered the roots of economic, social, and political aspects that are presented in the 21st century. I learned to challenge new ways of thinking and analyze concepts that were not in the forefront of my mind. The ability to evaluate a piece of work through rhetoric can change how a paper is read and interpreted for its effectiveness in persuasion. Without this semester of information, I do not think I could achieve the analytical, moral, logical abilities of reading between the lines and creating a clearly communicated piece of writing. Writing has always been a passion of mine; however, there was always a concept that I lacked within all of my papers. Because of Rhetoric and Composition ll, I discovered how to use rhetoric to further the persuasions in my arguments. In my Rhetoric Analysis paper, I lacked organization and clarity in my ideas and it became difficult to convey my direct ideas to the reader. My paper titled, The False Perception of Guilt, read “Not only does the reader feel a sense of compassion for Henry that he will no longer have an execution date in the next year, but the reader finds that there is hope along with all the despair and heartache that has to be faced by those who know they cannot escape their fate of the electric chair”. The sentence could be perceived as conveying a lot of emotions, but I realize now that I tried to write too much to to try and explain the message that there is many innocents placed on death row. I came to understand that sometimes simple is better. My final research paper titled, The Cost of Ineffective Policy is Childhood Innocence, demonstrates a better understanding of clear persuasion. I wrote, “Because children are seen as mentally innocent with a lack of understanding, the juvenile courts have started to rule with a sense of compassion, that children are incapable of comprehending the long term effects of their actions”. I believe that I furthered my ability to write with direct explanations and allow my reader to instantly understand the message I was trying to get across. A major aspect that contributed to my papers was Composition. Looking back at my papers, my first paper was a bunch of parts that lacked the capability to come together as a whole. In my final paper, I finally brought all my ideas to create a whole piece of work that flowed from direct quotes to supporting my ideas to correctly arguing my perspective. A larger portion of forming my perspective was done through researching and critical reading. During my research, I had to read between the lines to avoid research bias and create my own opinion of the death penalty. Critical reading forced my to identify the strengths in my resources and author’s overall purpose. After gathering information and analyzing the author’s perspective, I used moral reasoning to determine what could be considered as an effective argument or what can be considered as right and wrong. My final paper, I critically analyze what is right and wrong with juveniles and the death penalty, and explored what the original policy for juveniles was intended to accomplish. After sitting in Rhetoric and Composition ll, and Freedom and Rights for a whole semester, I find it difficult not to take away the many things that I have learned. Many lessons were transformative as we dug deep into the history behind, Human Rights and Justice in the world that surrounds us as human beings. Once my perspective had been engulfed by new ideas that I had never thought of, it became difficult to look at our world the same. Before this semester, I had never taken an in depth look at the death penalty and found it troublesome to wrap my mind around the cruelty that can become of juveniles and those who
are put to death and then found to be innocent. In regards to my ability to write, I find it irreversible to go back to my old way of organizing a paper. Through creating synthesis maps and allowing myself to freely write, then returning to the crazy essay with no organization, I found it easier to demonstrate the ideas of my essay. Most importantly, I learned how to integrate new concepts into my original thinking. I find it incredible that all the concepts discussed in Freedom and Rights are all linked together in some way. It also astonished me that because of the deep conversations of various topics can help to write a more informative research paper. There is many things that I will take from the two classes to further my education during my college career. With all of this information and teachings, I believe I will be more successful in all aspects of my life. Sincerely,
Alexa McAndrew
Alexa McAndrew Beth Eakman Re FSTY 1313.07 Fall 2015 Rhetoric Analysis
The False Perception of Guilt Death Row is defined as a place for prisoners sentenced to death. It is never stated, however, if these prisoners are innocent or guilty of the alleged crime they were to have committed. Bryan Stevenson, author of Just Mercy, believed that out justice system was flawed to the extent that innocent people were being put to death. Stevenson even outlines how 1 in 9 death row prisoners are wrongly executed, which leads to the argument against the death penalty. Throughout the book Just Mercy, Stevenson tells his story of meeting with the men on death row and how his perspective was altered; consequently, Stevenson saw the need to reach and appeal to the outside world to take a stand on death penalty cases. In 1983, Bryan Stevenson was merely a student at Harvard Law school when he was faced with the task of meeting a condemned man on death row. At the time, Stevenson was simply a messenger relaying the message that the condemned did not yet have a lawyer to take on their case. Stevenson was panicked at the thought and never could have prepared himself for the tranquil aspects these man had. Because of his first death row experienced, Bryan Stevenson found a need for death row lawyers and started a non-profit firm to aid those who did not have the help they need. A very specific case established the book and becomes the backbone of all other cases: The case of Walter McMillan. Walter was placed on death row after being falsely accused of murdering a laundry mat clerk. The flaws of the justice system are exposed as cops pressure the “witness� into giving false details of the crime committed, as well as ignore the evidence that could prove Walter’s innocence. More stories that Stevenson experience surrounded the McMillan case and they all display how innocent people were sentenced unfairly to death. In writing
this story, Stevenson wanted to attracted attention to a difficulty discussed topic. His objective is to bring justice for those wrongly on death row and create a worldwide understanding of the flaws of the legal system. The idea of death row and taking the lives of the innocent through false leads is a very serious topic. The way this topic has to be discussed also needs to be very formal in the aspect that the audience takes it seriously. The way details are describe within the book is just enough to create a vivid piece of imagery, but not to the point where it frighten the reader into discontinuing the read. Even through the jaw dropping details, Stevenson manages to give imagery to the hope that these prisoner keep with them through the process. After a long day of visiting a condemned prisoner named Henry, Stevenson said, “I didn't expect him to be compassionate or generous. I had no right to expect anything from a condemned man on death row. Yet he gave me an astonishing measure of his humanity” (Stevenson 12). Not only does the reader feel a sense of compassion for Henry that he will no longer have an execution date in the next year, but the reader finds that there is hope along with all the despair and heartache that has to be faced by those who know they cannot escape their fate of the electric chair. Along with grasping the readers attention, Stevenson is also trying to relate to current society; more specifically the future of society. The book is written with simple phrase, not advanced law terminology or criminology terms. This allows readers of all ages to be influenced by the book and create an impact on a larger portion of society. The backbone of the book Just Mercy is the Walter McMillan case and how Walter was wrongly accused of a killing the female clerk at the cleaners. Ralph Meyers, one of the State’s witnesses, had admitted to seeing the alleged crime and was also pressured by the police to continue in the false story he had created. After reviewing Walter’s trial records, Stevenson found that the State’s witnesses, “were so obviously not believable” in what they were concluding had gone on the day of the murder (Stevenson 57). All of the witnesses lacked credibility and their stories were very inconsistent. Because of this account, it raises questions on why Walter was still stuck on death row. The fact that the State took no interest in finding the legitimate truth frustrate Stevenson greatly. From the point of view of the State, the argument is very one sided. A motion was not approved for a new trial and the State was too set on a guilty verdict to even
consider the new evidence that would have concluded that Walter was innocent. From the readers point of view, it is easily observed that this was unlawful doing within the case. The case was set on a guilty verdict and almost put an innocent man to death. Walter became a statistic of 1 in every 9 prisoners on death row are wrongly convicted. Without the persistent attitude of Bryan Stevenson, the courts would have never overturned their decision to have Walter sentenced to death. The reader is relieved when Stevenson say, “Based on the testimony of Ralph Meyers, Walter McMillan was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. As you’re about to hear, the testimony of Ralph Meyers was completely false” (Stevenson 169). Not only is the logical truth exposed but it also leads into the credibility of the writer because Stevenson shares the information from the trial that freed Walter in the end. There are some things in this world that are simply unfathomable, like being part of a statistic or something portraying the false perception of guilt. Bryan Stevenson showed a point of view that is not ever really told. He told about the lives of those sentenced to death. Those are human beings looking for justice and sometimes the common person forgets that. All the common person can see is a crime, not the whole story. One case in particular gathered the attention of the reader. The execution story about Herbert changed the overall perspective of the book. No longer was it an innocent man on death row but a man on death row who commit an accidental death. As horrible as the crime was, Herbert’s family still saw him as an innocent man. Herbert’s only intention was to “save” the love of his life. Stevenson wins the reader when he tells about his emotions before seeing Herbert go. “It was surreal in a way I hadn’t anticipated. In an instant a flood of sadness and tragedy had overtaken everyone and I began to worry that it would be impossible for this family to leave Herbert”(Stevenson 86). Stevenson explained his emotions which really grasped the reader and helped them relate in a way of losing a loved one. Herbert’s family was not seeing a man whose fate was death row, they saw a man who was having his life taken from him. For this reason, Stevenson brought light to the ideology of execution and how it not only hurt the man or woman being put to death but it hurts the lives that were touched around them. For a writer to grasp and hold a readers attention they have to be successful in pulling at the heartstrings; however, there must also be a purpose. Bryan Stevenson wanted to bring a heavy
topic out of the shadows. The idea that our justice system is flawed and that 1 out of every 9 death row prisoners are innocent relies strongly on appeals to the reader. Charlie was a 14 year old boy who was found guilty of killing his mothers boyfriend. The boyfriend, had beaten Charlie’s mother multiple times in the past and came home in a drunken rage, this time nearly killing her. As the boy sat and watched his mother bleed out he became petrified with an overwhelming sense of emotions. Charlie, out of fear for his mothers life, grabbed a gun and killed the man in his sleep. Because of the killing, Charlie had been sent to an adult prison and was assaulted multiple times by other adult prisoners. When Charlie was confront by Stevenson, he never said a word until he felt the over follow of desperation and need for someone to help him out of the horrible place he was being kept. The details that followed the truth of the event made any reader pause and mentally hear a cry for help. A cry that needs to take a second look at our justice system and help not only the innocent but the misunderstood children like Charlie. Day to day lives are constantly fed by the media, but it there is never any reflection on the current controversial issues. Bryan Stevenson wrote Just Mercy to inform and create understanding of the flaws of the justice system. Through statistic and observations, Stevenson decided to help the prisoners on death row but also grasp the readers attention. Using emotional stories and proof of trials, the reader was forced to think and reflect constantly on each word written. There’s always two sides to every story and that is clearly displayed in Just Mercy. Some of those who are innocent had their lives turned around in the blink of an eye, other like Charlie, were punished beyond the boundaries of what a 14 year old boy should experience in his life. Because of the efforts of Bryan Stevenson and the idea he had to touch lives, the controversy of the death penalty can be become more of reality, and no longer a suppressed and unspoken issue.
Alexa McAndrew Professor Beth Eakman FSTY 1313-07 5 November 2015
The Cost of Ineffective Policy is Childhood Innocence
The image of a child along with the perceived ideals of childhood, invokes a type of understanding of innocence, vulnerability, and our innate desire to protect them from any harm. It is society’s instinct to protect children because they are naturally innocent and do not pose a threat; however, for those who have been convicted of capital murder, their childhood innocence tends to be questioned by the standards of society. In regards to recent changes, law-makers have made a point to eliminate execution for any juvenile offender that commits the crime under 18 years of age and await execution until they are legally considered an adult. Not only is the death penalty ineffective at deterring crime, but sentencing juveniles is unethical because of their lack of full psychological development does not allow them to determine right from wrong. Sentencing juveniles to the death penalty is unethical due to the underdevelopment of a child psychologically. Until the 2005 court case of Roper v Simmons, which was a landmark decision in the Supreme Court, children of all ages could be executed. Once a child has reached the age of 18, an execution date could be set. As it is currently viewed today, “neither reform nor forgiveness is possible with a final and irrevocable punishment such as execution, because ending a juvenile’s life prevents him from attaining ‘a mature understanding of his own
humanity’” (Johnson 241). The Eight Amendment protects its citizens from cruel and unusual punishment. If this is the case, juveniles should be protected from receiving the death penalty because their minds cannot psychologically process the regret of the crime punishable by death. The death penalty becomes a cruel and unusual punishment because children cannot psychologically process right from wrong in the standards of societal norms. Although there has been acknowledgment of a child’s inability to dictate right from wrong, there is a lack of understanding in what is adequate treatment for delinquency. It is even thought that “ a sentence of death by incarceration extinguishes the juvenile’s life in free society” forcing them to be an outcast and not have to the chance to redeem themselves to society’s expectations (Johnson 251). Children under the age of 18 have a less developed frontal lobe which makes them more likely to fall into negative peer pressure and be more subjected to follow the pressure of outside environmental forces. Because children are seen as mentally innocent with a lack of understanding, the juvenile courts have started to rule with a sense of compassion, that children are incapable of comprehending the long term effects of their actions. Roper v Simmons declared that children were psychologically too immature, short sighted, and irresponsible to be solely responsible for their actions, but with the guidance of normal society guidelines and the ability to reach maturation in adulthood, juvenile could outgrow their reactive mindset. If allowed to grow and mature through rehabilitation, children could grasp right from wrong and live simply as part of society. Based on current studies and the proven psychological development of children, the court should not uphold the right to sentence a child the death penalty without first trying to rehabilitate and give them the ability to comprehend their inappropriate actions. Psychological, children are not
the only ones trying to comprehend the correct path; adults are trying to decipher the if the death penalty is an ethical punishment for juveniles. Sentencing juveniles is unethical because they are look upon as the innocence of society and fail to grasp the responsibility of the adult world. Children are seen as a set of names being tried against the law, not as human beings of society. In the book Just Mercy, Bryan Stevenson tells about a 14 year old boy that is take to an adult prison for the crimes he committed. The reader learns of the horrific incidents that the boy suffered from the older prisoners. From this, there is an realization that the United States government has taken responsibility over the juvenile court system as only a set of laws. The innocence and vulnerability of children resulted in the abuse of the 14 year old when he should have been protected under the law. Death row is not a place for children as it punishes them not having experienced positive and negative actions. The 14 year old boy Stevenson discussed had found himself in an unspeakable place after having murdered his moms abusive boyfriend. The boy did not understand that taking the gun from the night stand and killing the boyfriend in his sleep would result in the boy being placed on death row. As citizens, there is a reason children are not trusted with the tasks normally given to an adult. Adults have the ability to form their own opinion and are less susceptible to peer pressure than children. As a whole, society has begun to recognize that the “structural flaws of the institution [are becoming] exposed, and the social climate of the times calls for reform� (McMillin 1486). The past has only allowed the progression for reform of the current state of juvenile death penalty, which allows someone to still be executed for a crime they committed as a child. There are other ways besides the death penalty to punish juveniles for their crimes. If rehabilitation is
an option, a means of learning from their mistakes and the process of maturing could be found through helping their community. The court emphasized after the Roper vs. Simmons case that a child under the age of 18 should not be subjected to receiving the death penalty. The death penalty can date back to the first child being put to death from capital murder; however, the question still remains of why the court system is still allowing those who are incarcerated to be put to death for crimes committed as a child. The ineffective policy has been shown to lack in its ability to deter the crime of other children. The “… lack [of] self-control” that a child possesses doesn't allow them to fully understand that if they were to carry on with their actions of, for example capital murder, they could lose their life in the end (Johnson 244). If a child cannot rightly determine if an action is going to lead to positive or negative punishment as an end result, then there can be no understanding of a law that promotes death. The evolving standard of society further classes the policy into question. “Death by execution, denies juveniles the opportunity to mature and earn forgiveness for their transgressions”; consequently, children are not learning why the crime they committed is wrong and other children are not comprehending the negative results (Johnson 249). If the policy were to be effective then children would have to feel and understand the negative effects before they have to face it as a final punishment. Due to a child’s inability to comprehend right from wrong, the death penalty should not be a consequence for juvenile crimes. The lack of development in the frontal lobe prohibits a child for understanding the basic results of their actions. If rehabilitation is brought to the front for juveniles who commit serious crimes, there is a chance for forgiveness and understanding; consequently, giving a child the chance to mature and understand societal norms. The policy is
also ineffective at deterring the crime of other children because many children do not know that the action that they could commit leads to the death penalty. As society progresses, the United States government should take a closer look at the juvenile justice system and reevaluate the punishment of the death penalty.
Work Cited Antes, Kelli E. Taking a Life Without Taking a Life: State v. Ninham Violates the Eighth Amendment by Sentencing a Fourteen-Year-Old Juvenile to Life in Prison Without Parole. 1st ed. Vol. 39. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print. Johnson, Robert, and Sonia Tabriz. DEATH BY INCARCERATION AS A CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT WHEN APPLIED TO JUVENILES: EXTENDING ROPER TO LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE, OUR OTHER DEATH PENALTY. 2nd ed. Vol. 9. N.p. :n.p., n.d. Print. McMillin, Patrick N. FROM PIONEER TO PUNISHER: AMERICA'S QUEST TO FIND ITS JUVENILE JUSTICE IDENTITY. 5th ed. Vol. 51. N.p.: Houston Law Review, n.d. Print. Stevenson, Bryan. Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption. New York, NY: Spiegel&Grau, 2014. Print.