FINAL PORTFOLIO
Self assessment Letter Juliet Dalton 111 Wind Ridge Cir The Woodlands, TX 77381 December 5, 2015 Beth Eakman Re St. Edward’s University 3001 South Congress Ave. Austin, TX 78704 Dear Beth, I hope you are enjoying your time getting ready for the holidays. I am writing in regards to my time in Rhetoric and Composition II. Throughout the semester, this course transformed my writing style and has made me an effective writer. In all subjects, I believe the area where I improved the most was English, and as a Biochemistry major, I decided I need to implement English into my degree plan to continue this growth.
A few of my most concerning struggles at the beginning of the semester were my overuse of modifiers and lack of clarity due to unnecessary language. I would use modifiers in my writing assignments because I mistakenly believed it emphasized my purpose and got my point across more effectively. However, the modifiers I was using did the exact opposite. For example, a sentence in my Rhetorical Analysis assignment reads, “Mass incarceration has become a huge problem throughout the United States…”, and while this statement is true, the use of the modifier does not further advance my point. This sentence would be just as effective without “huge” in the middle of the phrase. Modifiers should be used to describe rather than magnify, otherwise they are just extra words that are unnecessary. The purpose of that paper was to convince my audience that there is, in fact, an issue with capital punishment. The modifier “huge” does not further my stated purpose, so therefore it is just a filler word that takes away from the precise and clear language needed to convince my audience. Lack of clarity usually stems from choosing diction that is too broad and is unnecessary.
One of the main critiques I would receive throughout my time in Rhetoric and Composition would be to use more concise language. In my Rhetorical Analysis, I began my conclusion with, “Capital punishment is one of the most controversial subjects in the United States”. While this is a true statement, it does not further the purpose of my thesis. In fact, this sentence allows room for interpretation. In this analysis, my thesis stated that there is a problem with the United States capital punishment. However, this sentence expresses the idea that there can be multiple interpretations, which works against my overall purpose.
After I had received these critiques, I was able to quickly identify my faults and change them for the Research Paper Final. My greatest improvement was starting with unclear writing to eventually using precise language that did not leave room for any misinterpretation. The most effective papers have a clear purpose and support that purpose with precise evidence. For example, in my Research Paper Final I claimed that, “Citizens of the United States who are unaffected by racism assume that everyone is guaranteed the same rights under the Constitution, however, the current
state of the death penalty and the Justice Department defies this expectation by incriminating and executing a disproportionate number of African Americans.” In this sentence, there is a claim supported with reasons/proof. Effective writing requires confirmation of claims, and that is where I had my most significant improvement throughout the semester.
Rhetoric and Composition II has taught me a few important tactics regarding writing, such as, precise language, audience analysis, and the art of persuasion. However, beyond these helpful tools, a few aspects that shaped my writing style over the course of the semester were ideas I learned about incorporating rhetoric, composition, research, critical writing, and moral reasoning with civil discourse. In regards to rhetoric, I was taught how many different types of arguments there can be, from evaluative to ethos, pathos, or logos. While each argument is used in a different way, the overall criteria that needs to be implemented to deem it effective is the same. A claim must be backed up with reasons that provide concrete indisputable evidence. The research section of this class provided helpful databases and library catalogues that would assist in attaining these reliable sources. If a source uses logical fallacies it cannot be used in a persuasive paper because it can be refuted. This aspect led into the critical reading of the course, which helped me evaluate which pieces of evidence are most effective to enhance a written assignment.
Lastly, the moral reasoning and civil discourse were touched on in Rhetoric and Composition, however, they were the forefront of the linked course, Freedom and Rights. Overall, the ideas and information I learned about rhetoric will be my main takeaway from this course. The ability to convince the audience that my views are how others should feel as well is a skill that is important in the world today. As a future medical school student, I know that I will have to convince people for the rest of my life that what I am arguing is not only logical, but the way my audience should feel as well.
The day I was taught to write a thesis statement completely changed what I thought I knew. Over and over throughout the whole semester I struggled with clarity and stating my main point, but breaking down the introduction paragraph was my threshold concept that opened a “conceptual gateway” for me. A thesis statement is one of the most important parts of of a research paper, and throughout high school my teachers just brushed over teaching this, assuming every student already had this concept down. This is the first time I feel as though I can confidently write an introduction that will benefit my paper. I was unaware that there is a difference between a topic sentence and a thesis statement. However, they have completely different purposes. A thesis statement is simply a claim with reasons that is the stress sentence in the introduction. After clearly understanding this concept, my papers became more effective because I was able to relate each point back to the thesis of my paper. This is an irreversible skill that I will always have to write future papers.
In both Freedom and Rights as Throughout the semester, one of the most well as Rhetoric and Composition helpful resources I used for assistance was II, human rights were analyzed Lauren. She always made herself available and evaluated throughout the and it was easy for me to get in touch with year. The topic for the semester her. If any parts of an assignment were was capital punishment, which unclear to me, I would call Lauren (even if it was discussed in both linked was somewhat late) and she would talk me classes. However, Freedom and through what I needed help on. Rights focused much more on contemporary society and the statistics while Rhetoric and Composition focused more on the arguments against it. The information that I was taught in Freedom and Rights about the disproportionate number of capital punishment victims influenced and deepened my understanding which led to the creation of my final research paper.
Overall, this course transformed me into an effective writer with a better understanding of rhetoric strategies. I was fortunate to take this course during the fall as a freshman because I will be able to apply what I learned to this class to all aspects of my writing. I believe that having a minor in English will develop me into a wellrounded student with important skills, such as the ability to write an evaluative argument. Beth, thank you for taking the time to read this letter and shape the student I am today. Sincerely, Juliet Dalton
Inconsistency within the Justice System Introduction: In the memoir Just Mercy author Bryan Stevenson recounts his experiences as a lawyer for convicted felons and details the unfair treatment against them based on race, poverty, or mental illness. The dominance of racial minorities in jails suggests a strong bias against them. Due to this unfair treatment, Stevenson uses personal anecdotes as reasons to be against capital punishment. However, this is only half the issue. Stevenson fights for those wrongly condemned and the unwillingness of the justice system to acknowledge them as innocent. This theme extends throughout the whole memoir. Stevenson’s overall most convincing argument against the death penalty is the unreliability of the justice system to consistently convict the guilty man, leading to injustice for the innocent man.
Bryan Stevenson
Rhetorical Context:
Genre and Writer:
Stevenson does not just want to present information; he wants to change minds. It is not enough for his audience to just hear his opinions on these issues, his purpose is to have people view his website and get involved. This text is widely available and is simple to read, making the audience of this memoir anyone who attempts to take the time to read it. Mass incarceration has become a huge problem throughout the United States making this memoir relevant today. Furthermore, the struggle against racial inequality continues to be an issue. While this has always been a battle fought throughout America’s history, it has become prominent again in today’s generation.
Stevenson is the founder of a nonprofit, private organization called the Equal Justice Initiative (EJI). Through this organization Stevenson has helped many condemned prisoners and he documented many of these cases in his nonfiction law memoir, Just Mercy.
EJI's History of Racial Injustice Highlight
Logical Appeals: One of Stevenson’s most convincing arguments against the death penalty are his appeals to logic. The intentional disregard to the law of the authorities trying to convict Walter McMillian is astonishing. It is hard to believe some of the things these men got away with throughout Walter’s case. Stevenson uses examples from Walter’s case and many other convicted felons to convince his audience that the death penalty is an extreme form of punishment. For example, Herbert Richardson, a man Stevenson represented on death row had a questionable case. Stevenson acknowledges that “his guilt wasn’t really in question” however, “there were persuasive reasons why this case should not have been a capital murder case, above and beyond the absence of a specific intent to kill” (79). Richardson was clearly a guilty man, but in order to be put to death row there must be intent to kill, which was lacking in this case. Stevenson presents the information and still there is an unwillingness to fight for this man’s rights by the justice system and he was put to death. While the audience can see that this man has issues and is guilty of a horrible crime, it still does not mean the death penalty is the correct form of punishment.
Another instance when Stevenson uses logic to enhance his argument against the death penalty is when Walter was put “on death row while he was a pretrial detainee” (96). The only reason Walter would be put on death row before he had a chance to go to trial is because the justice system is working against him. It is common knowledge that he was wrongly condemned as noted by the many eyewitnesses and yet there is more effort being put towards keeping him there than actually catching the true criminal. Stevenson appeals to logos with clear, specific, and factual events to reveal to the audience that the justice system can be unreliable at times and capital punishment is a harsh sentence for inconsistent convictions.
Ethical Appeals: Stevenson’s most convincing strategy against the death penalty is his appeal to the ethical side of the law. There was so much disregard to what was is right or fair for the person on trial that it was not hard for Stevenson to identify and explain these reasons as to why the death penalty should not be a form of punishment. During his time as a nonprofit lawyer, Stevenson saw that there was “simply no commitment to the rule of law, no accountability, and little shame” (114). The threats placed upon Ralph Myers were a perfect example of this disregard for the law. He was put on death row when he did not comply with the men who were trying to put Walter away based on false accusations. It is difficult to believe that people would commit so strongly to putting an innocent man away. If the authorities had succeeded a good man would have been put to death and further advanced the racial injustice in the criminal system today. Another way Stevenson appeals to his audience’s ethical side is involving them by speaking in second person.
He directly states how “we are all implicated when we allow people to be mistreated…Fear and anger can make us vindictive and abusive, unjust and unfair, until we all suffer from the absence of mercy and we condemn ourselves as much as we victimize others” (18). This statement alone appeals to the audience in a few ways. First, it forces the reader to feel involved in what is going on in the justice system. This also furthers Stevenson’s original purpose, which is to change his audience’s mind and get them involved, not just informed. Lastly, it appeals to the audience’s ethics and internal conscience. It is everyone’s fault if an innocent man is convicted, and there needs to be more proactive actions against this happening.
Pathological Appeals: Just Mercy is an extremely emotional memoir, and Stevenson capitalizes on this aspect and uses it as one of his arguments against the death penalty. The thought alone of systematically killing people is harsh enough, but the fact that it happened to “someone who is not a threat [is] completely different” (90). This is when mental illness becomes a topic of discussion. Killing a man who just needs medical help in a mental facility is a hard idea to swallow. Capital punishment can be justified in many cases, however in Stevenson’s argument he pleads for the men and women who clearly do not deserve it. Towards the beginning of the memoir when Walter was first charged, there was an emotion felt by the town that was very different from what the audience reading the memoir felt. “When the indictment was announced, there was joy and relief in the community that [Walter had] been charged” (50). This innocent man being charged for a crime he did not commit made a community feel safer. However, this stems emotions such as anger and pity from the audience. The
emotional appeal is a strong argument throughout this memoir because the idea of an innocent man being killed is horrific, and many would agree with that. Based on racial discrimination and his social class Walter was backed into a corner by authorities that would not settle for less than a guilty verdict. A good, innocent man being put through such hard times blinds the audience into unconditional support for Walter and because of this the reader starts to agree with Stevenson, that capital punishment is an extreme way of handling crimes.
Use of Evidence: Stevenson’s memoir is full of very sufficient evidence against the death penalty. He has arguments extending from personal experience, factual statistics, and the stories of those he represents. Every piece of evidence chosen to be used is relevant to his overall theme. Each account either involves racial discrimination, the disadvantage experienced by the poor, or harsh treatment towards criminals with mental illnesses. All of these are specific reasons Stevenson fights capital punishment. Much of Stevenson’s arguments are personal accounts, so accuracy can be put into question there.
However, as a high profile lawyer many would believe that his experiences are accurate. Beyond just personal experience, Stevenson also includes statistics and irrefutable facts, enhancing his accountability and furthering his argument. Lastly, Stevenson’s arguments are all relevant to the death penalty and the unreliability of the justice system. Not one piece of evidence strays from his main theme, which is the failure of the justice system.
Concluding Points: Capital punishment is one of the most controversial subjects in the United States. The horrible truth is that people are being wrongly convicted of crimes and being put to death based upon things such as race, poverty, and mental illness. Stevenson fights for these convicted felons but he knows he can not do it alone. By grabbing the audience’s attention with chilling anecdotes he moves them to become involved, achieving his overall purpose and making a difference for those who can no longer help themselves.
A System run by racism According to the United States Justice Department, one in three black men can expect to go to prison in his lifetime. However, only one in seventeen white men can expect that same fate. These disproportionate numbers are only a piece of evidence that uncover bias within the Justice Department, undermining its validity and moral authority. Citizens of the United States who are unaffected by this racism assume that everyone is guaranteed the same rights under the Constitution, however, the current state of the death penalty and the Justice Department defies this expectation by incriminating and executing a disproportionate number of African Americans.
Capital punishment is meant to be a deterrent of crime. However, the 2013 FBI uniform crime report unveiled statistics that could aid in the argument that the death penalty is not an effective way to prevent crime. The south, which has the highest rate of executions (80%) also has the highest murder rate. In contrast, the northeast has less than 1% of all executions, and has the lowest crime rate punishable by death. If the death penalty was effective at this stated purpose, the region with a high rate of the death penalty would be expected to have lower crimes punishable by death and vice versa. It seems as though the death penalty is used as a tool for vengeance or a way to punish criminals that the national government endorses, regardless of the morality debates against it.
In a study done by the Death Penalty Information Center, police chiefs were asked what they believe is the most effective way of lowering crime rates. Majority of them claim that reducing drug abuse would lower violent crimes by the largest margin. Some other ideas include a better economy with more job opportunities, longer prison sentences, and more police on the streets. Surprisingly, the very last solution that police chiefs claimed would reduce crime rates would be to expand the use of the death penalty, coming in at 1% (Death Penalty Information Center). These results are unexpected because the only reason the United States implements the death penalty is because its purpose is to deter crime. Based on the ideas suggested, it seems as though being proactive, (such as reducing drug abuse and offering more jobs) would lower crime rate much more effectively than being reactive to crime and applying the death penalty.
Throughout the Criminal Justice Department, systematic discrimination and racial profiling reveals bias against minorities, particularly, African Americans. Within the Justice Department African Americans are disproportionately sentenced to death based solely on the color of their skin. According to the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC), African Americans only make up approximately 13% of the U.S. population, yet they make up 35% of executions since 1976 and 42% of those on death row. Under the 14th Amendment, discrimination in the Justice System is made illegal by the equal protection provisions. However, based on DPIC’s statistics, it seems as though these laws are disregarded, creating unequal treatment for those on trial. This injustice takes away the moral authority of the laws because they are ignored to convict African Americans more often than whites.
In the Supreme Court case McCleskey v. Kemp (1987), McCleskey argued that he was racially discriminated against, violating the 14th Amendment. However, the Supreme Court claimed the statistics provided did not reveal substantial evidence to reverse McCleskey’s conviction. New York Times author, Anthony Lewis, argues in his article Bowing to Racism that the Supreme Court “effectively condoned the expression of racism in a profound aspect of our law.” The Supreme Court ruled that because McCleskey could not provide evidence of specific discrimination in his trial, then there was no Constitutional violation. However, this does not mean that the statistical evidence provided did not reveal trends of racial profiling.
Justice Lewis F. Powell
Warren McCleskey During the case, McCleskey’s defense presented evidence from over 2,000 Georgia cases that showed bias toward convicting African Americans more often than white people. Justice Lewis F. Powell was the swing vote to end with a five to four vote decision against McCleskey. However, he later confessed to his biographer that this is the one case he would change his vote if he could. Because McCleskey’s evidence showed statistical trends over a long period of time, if the Supreme Court had ruled in his favor, the United States government would have acknowledged that our nation has had a corrupt Justice System allowing race to be a factor during the conviction process.
In the McCleskey case, a factor that contributed to his conviction was the fact that his victim was white. In the United States, since 1976, the number of persons executed in cases involving a white defendant and a black victim is only 31. However, the number of black males executed when their victim was white is 295. These statistics support the idea that if a black man kills another black man, he is less likely to receive the death penalty than if he had killed a white man. Perhaps even more discomforting, while only half of all murder victims are white, 80% of death penalty cases involve a white victim (Death Penalty Information Center). These trends affirm that racial bias has permeated the Justice System. Furthermore, a series of different studies in Louisiana expose how that “the odds of a death sentence are still 97% higher for those who kill white than for those who kill blacks” (Pierce and Radelet 670). Based on the principles of freedom and equality in the Constitution, whites should not be intentionally favored in the Criminal Justice System, but the Supreme Court has condoned it.
Under the Constitution, defendants on trial for their lives are entitled to a fair jury of peers, however, this does not always translate to the courtroom. According to Capital Punishment in Context, in Dallas County involving over 100 felony cases prosecutors dismissed African Americans twice as often as whites. If a potential juror had stated that they experienced issues with the police or the courts, 100% of blacks were dismissed but only 39% of whites. Race is a variable taken into account during jury selection, violating the 14th amendment. When prosecutors violate this law in order to increase their chances of convicting the defendant, it takes away the validity of the Constitution. Laws are only just if everyone abides by them, and the United States Criminal Justice system becomes corrupt when juries are tampered with to favor the prosecution. In fact, “compared to juries seated in nondeath cases, death qualified jury pools are disproportionately white, male, older, and more religiously and politically conservative” (Lynch and Haney 73). This systematic discrimination is a way for the prosecutor to push their own motive and end the trial with a guilty verdict, violating the 14th Amendment. By discriminating against minorities on trial, these prosecutors show “no commitment to the rule of law, no accountability, and little shame” (Stevenson 114). Further studies have been conducted that reveal jurors who “poorly understood [the case] and were confused by the judicial instructions would be more affected by racial factors in reaching their sentencing verdicts” (Lynch and Haney 342). It is expected that if a case has confused a juror, there would be more discussion to come to a rational verdict. Instead, jurors come to rash decisions based on racial profiling which again undermines the moral authority of the Justice System. As a nation, this process of conviction is far below the natural standards held by the United States and requires effort from the general public and leaders of this nation to create more awareness that will spark changes within the Justice System. Furthermore, another characteristic that was observed by Neil Vidmar is that “mixed juries engaged in longer deliberations, discussed wider range of information, and were more accurate in their statements about the case” (1974). However, when observing homogenous white juries there was much less discussion and there were more inaccuracies when giving statements about the case leading to haste decisions with less supporting evidence. An unfair jury leads to an unfair conviction which increases the possibility of an innocent or undeserving man sitting on death row waiting for his execution date.
Allowing the death penalty to continue to be a strategy for deterring crime or punishment for the guilty will in all cases continue to harm minorities first and foremost. Humans are imperfect, meaning our Justice System is flawed. If the United States continues to implement the death penalty on criminals, the probability of killing an innocent person eventually reaches one. Whether this innocent person is African American or not is irrelevant in this case, the real issue is if the United States is comfortable with the chances of making this mistake. Overall, the elimination of the death penalty would aid in the struggle for racial equality in the Criminal Justice System. The color of one’s skin should never be the determining factor if he or she lives or dies, but it continues to influence verdicts across the Justice Department.