FINAL PORTFOLIO
CASSANDRA TALBERT
2
Contents. 3. Letter to Beth 5. Rhetorical Analysis 7. Research Paper
EDITORIAL OFFICES 313, Washington, D.C. 20013-7012, (202) 623-6090 (202) 623-6090(202) 623-6090(202) 623-6090 13 Rue de Buci, 75006 Paris, France +32 1 46 34 84 11 Plaza del Castillo, 36, 31001 Pamplona, Navarra, Spain +34 958 22 20 64 +34 958 22 20 64+34 958 22 20 6434 958 22 20 64 SUBSCRIPTIONS (800) 766-2149 (800) 766-2149 FREE(800) 766-2149(800) 766-2149 FREE FREE P.O. Box 62060, Tampa, FL 33362-0608, Outside the United States: (810) 911-3209(810) 911-3209(810) 911-3209(810) 911-3209 Final Portfolio is published by The Meechum Publishing Group LTD.
Final Portfolio
Letter to Beth
3
Beth Eakman 3001 S Congress Austin, TX 78704 Dear Beth: I thoroughly enjoyed being in your class and having you as professor this semester. Taking your class has allowed me to become a better student and improve my writing. I have improved in the areas of rhetoric, composition, research, critical reading, and moral reasoning and civil discourse. When reading assignments from the beginning of the semester, notably the Rhetorical Analysis, and comparing them to my most recent work, the Research Paper, I have noticed differences with my quality of work. Not only has this course helped improve the quality of my work in this class, but other classes that I am taking as well. Reading my first writing assignment for this class, the Rhetorical Analysis, and comparing it to my most recent work, the Research Paper, I can see improvements in my knowledge and use of rhetoric and composition. Within in my analysis, I somewhat understood and could identify elements of an argument and rhetorical strategies, but I could not fully grasp how to use them. As the semester progressed, identifying and understanding the elements of argument and rhetorical strategies became easier, thus allowing me to grasp how to use them which I did during my research paper. Not only did I have difficulty with using rhetoric and elements of argument, but I had trouble integrating quotes within my papers. With practice and information that I learned from the class, it became easier to integrate quotations into my paper, as well as paraphrasing as to not quote as much. I have always had a little trouble composing my papers, and using peer editing in class and resources on campus has allowed me to identify things in my paper and future papers
4 that I need to watch out for and correct. Throughout the semester, my knowledge of research has improved. At the beginning of the semester when researching, I was overwhelmed trying to find reliable sources that related to my topics but as the semester progressed and I learned new techniques from the course, researching became easier. One such technique was the annotated bibliography, I had never heard of one before nor knew what to do, but after learning about and trying it I learned how useful it is. As you stated in one of our classes, writing the annotated bibliography, though time consuming, practically writes the paper for you. After using the annotated bibliography to determine how reliable the sources are and summarizing them, it is easier to formulate the argument and develop the paper. This was very helpful when writing my research paper, because after summarizing the sources I could see which sources were related to one another and saw a way they could be organized to develop my argument and my paper. Not only have I improved in rhetoric, composition, and research but I have improved in the area of critical reading and moral reasoning and civil discourse. At the beginning of the semester, when I had just begun this course, I could identify faulty logic but I could not quite evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of an argument. I could tell when an argument was weak or strong, but I could not identify what components made it strong or weak and evaluate those components. As the semester progressed, I learned to evaluate these components to understand other arguments and evolve my own to make it work in my favor and be solid. Before, when I would make arguments, I would not be sure about my argument therefore the argument would be weak but know that I have learned through this course what it takes to create an argument, I can be confident in my work making it strong which can be seen in my research paper. The same logic applies to moral reasoning and civil discourse. I have learned a lot through this course, from class discussions and course material. This course has helped me grow as a student, and also
as an individual because I can apply everything I learned not just to writing, but to everyday life as well. I can now see how businesses employ rhetorical strategies through commercials to appeal to an intended audience. This course has taught me a lot of valuable material that can transfer over to different parts of my career as a student. Thank you for teaching me, Beth and I hope that I am able to take another of your classes in the future.
5
Sincerely, Cassie Talbert
Rhetorical Analysis The Power in Identity
In the United States judicial system there is a tremendous amount of injustice. Injustice in relation to race, wealth, and class. In a speech by Bryan Stevenson, a lawyer as well as a criminal justice reformer, he states the importance and power of identity in life and throughout his work in attempting to reform the criminal justice system. In his presentation on Ted Talks, Stevenson speaks to an educated audience using modes of persuasion to convey his message of preserving identity and doing what is right. Stevenson begins his speech using a personal anecdote to form a relationship and establish credibility with his audience. He continues to do this throughout his speech, furthermore promoting his message of preserving identity and continuing to do what is right. For instance, Stevenson tells of attending a meeting and listening to Rosa Park’s and her friends speak, when she turns to him and tells him that his work will make him tired but he needs to brave. This promotes Stevenson’s ideal of needing to preserve identity and do what is right, because although it may be hard he understands that he needs to reform the criminal justice
system and speak for those that don’t have the power to speak for themselves. In addition to using personal anecdotes to establish his credibility with the audience, Stevenson uses humor and emotion to appeal to the audience on a personal level. He speaks about racial inequality, death row, and sentencing children to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Stevenson speaks of a time he was working on a case, and on arriving to the courthouse, was stopped by an AfricanAmerican janitor who hugged him, once finding out he was a lawyer, and whispered that he was “so proud” of him. He states that it “energized” him and allowed him to see the capacity of not only selfidentity, but the identity of a hopeful community. Identity is not something that only individuals can feel, but there is a broader sense of identity that an entire community can feel, influencing them to contribute to change. Stevenson not only uses personal stories to convey his message, but he seamlessly weaves statistics into his speech. He uses numbers to back up his topics and his stories, establishing logic with the audience. When speaking about race and incarceration, he uses sound statistics and numbers to communicate his message. Stevenson uses multiple modes of persuasion to connect to the audience, and establish his idea about identity and doing what is right. For instance, finishing his speech with the story of a janitor at a court house telling him “keep your eyes on the prize, hold on.” He concludes this with speaking about human rights, justice, and basic dignity. Stevenson’s speech focuses on identity and doing what is right no matter how hard it may be. He uses multiple modes of persuasion, such as logos and ethos, to convey his message and relate to the audience on a personal level.
6
Research Paper
7
The Death Penalty and Mentally Ill
In the last 30 years, the number of mentally ill individuals in state prisons and jails has increased substantially. The United States has the highest amount of incarcerated individuals than any developed country, according to the Institute for Criminal Policy Research, and approximately 20 percent of those incarcerated individuals have a serious mental illness reports the Treatment Advocacy Center (1). This continuously growing number is often attributed to the lack of funding for state mental institutions. Absence of representation and the stigma that is regularly associated with mental illness, the mentally ill are often sentenced to death which violates the 8th Amendment. Although there has been advancement in the area of mental illness, social stigmas and prejudices persist. Labels and misconceptions that surround mental illness frequently present themselves within the criminal justice system. John F Edens of Texas A&M University argues that defendants with labels of mental illness are subjected to harsh treatment by juries and judges. Based on preconceived notions and the stigma that surrounds those with mental illness, when a jury hears that a defendant is deemed psychopathic they are more likely to receive the ruling of capital punishment based on the misconception that they would be a “continuing threat to society� (603). These individuals considered to be psychopathic receive higher rates of capital punishment (60%) than those deemed psychotic (30%) and those without any mental disorders at all (38%) (603). Edens furthers his argument, and addresses that this belief is detrimental within the criminal justice system, as there is no evidence that a psychopathic individual is more likely to commit violent acts than a defendant without psychopathic behavior (617). This is problematic as it indicates that
8
there is a bias within the general public towards individuals with a mental illness, which results in harsh sentences for mentally ill individuals, stemming from the public’s poor understanding of mental illness. Mental illness is popularly misrepresented in the general public which transfers over to our justice system and police forces. Kiera Welch of Texas Southern University details that there has been an increase of individuals with mental illness in state prisons, and that these individuals are grossly misrepresented (2), as well as being mishandled by police and prison guards due to lack of training. With lack of resources and a system not designed to house mentally ill inmates, their health deteriorates resulting in an increase of their illness (9). When the mentally ill do get released from prison, their health is significantly worsened and they often see themselves back in the system that is not designed to help or house them. When these inmates are repeatedly subjected to the system, their sentences become lengthier and harsher, thus when a mentally ill individual does commit a violent act they are more likely to be put on death row. Lynn Entzeroth furthers this claim that the current legal system fails to protect the severely mentally ill from capital punishment. She declares that this is due to lack of criteria, which is open to interpretation that protects from capital punishment (5). Entzeroth defends this claim by recounting on a 2008 Supreme Court decision and pivotal cases such as Furman v Georgia and Gregg v Georgia. The Supreme Court has a very narrow criteria on who can receive the death penalty leaving courts to struggle with deciding who deserves the death penalty, which is particularly difficult due to lack of knowledge of mental illness. Although the 8th Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, the parameters of this Amendment are not clearly drawn. The Amendment only covers individuals with severe illness, Van Ellis recounts the story of James Wilson who entered an elementary school killing two children and wounding many others. During the incident he was not considered to be mentally ill, but pleaded in court that he
couldn’t help it” (1). The courts recognized that he was acting under an “irresistible impulse” but continued to sentence him to death ruling he was “guilty, but mentally ill”. Ellis declares that other states with the death penalty have added verdicts such as this one, which makes it difficult to rule that this is in violation with the 8th Amendment. He continues his claim that the Supreme Court often rules in favor of the death penalty when it brings about retribution or deterrence (5). Stephanie Mencimer, a journalist, asserts that executing the mentally ill is against the 8th Amendment. Often times those with serious mental illnesses are not competent to understand the magnitude of their crimes nor the punishment that corresponds. These individuals believe what the court is ruling and think that they deserve their punishment, which falls under the realm of cruelty. Mencimer uses laws that are currently set in place to discuss the illegality of subjecting inmates with mental illness to the death penalty. She uses examples of discrepancies within the court’s ruling of whether an individual can be deemed mentally ill. These discrepancies include the execution of Scott Panetti, a convicted killer, and the Supreme Court case Ford v. Wainwright which authorized the execution of the mentally ill to be unconstitutional. Although the Ford v. Wainwright ruled the execution of the mentally ill to be unconstitutional, it still occurs. There are many social stigmas and prejudices that surround mental illness, and, sadly, these ideologies are implemented into a system that already fails the mentally ill in numerous ways. In prisons, these inmates receive no help with their illness and are treated as threats to other inmates and officers. With no hope of rehabilitation, the mentally ill are often in and out of the system, receiving harsher and lengthier sentences. Sentencing the mentally ill to death row violates the 8th Amendment, and in a world that already stigmatizes them, the justice system is one area that should equally and fairly represent and protect these individuals. “
9
10 Works Cited Edens, John F., Lori H. Colwell, Donna M. Desforges, and Krissie Fernandez. “The Impact of Mental Health Evidence on Support for Capital Punishment: Are Defendants Labeled Psychopathic Considered More Deserving of Death?” Behavioral Sciences & the Law Behav. Sci. Law 23.5 (2005): 603-25. 16 Sept. 2005. Web. 05 Oct. 2015. Ellis, Van W. "Guilty but Mentally Ill and the Death Penalty: Punishment Full of Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing." Duke Law Journal 43.1 (1993): 87-112. JSTOR. Web. 04 Oct. 2015. Entzeroth, Lyn. “The Challenge and Dilemma of Charting A Course to Constitutionally Protect the Severely Mentally Ill Capital Defendant From the Death Penalty.” Akron Law Review 44.2 (2011): 529-582. Legal Collection. Web. 04 Oct. 2015. How Many Individuals with Serious Mental Illness Are in Jails and Prisons?" Treatment Advocacy Center, Nov. 2014. Web. 7 Nov. 2015. "
Institute for Criminal Policy Research, n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2015. Mencimer, Stephanie. “Of Unsound Mind.” Mother Jones 40.2 (2015): 42. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 3 Oct. 2015. Welch, Kiera. “When the Mentally Ill and the Criminal Justice System Collide-The Result.” 41.1 (2015): n. pag. Thurgood Marshall Law Review. Web. 05 Oct. 2015.