The Death penalty has been a controversial subject since the beginning of time. People are concerned about the morality of the death penalty thus making it a debatable subject. Because of this, James Freeman, columnist for USA Today, decided to write an editorial on the subject of Does America need the death penalty? While being a writer for USA Today, one would think that he would effectively use the appeals of rhetoric (ethos, pathos, and logos), but in fact he does not and concludes with a poorly writing argument.One problem James Freemans editorial faces is through the use of its ethos. Basically, the only credibility he shows is the fact that he writes for the USA Today. He uses statements such as, Ive struggled with the death penalty and My first reaction was probably typical Fry the bastard! These statements make the reader think, as a reader, that he is not at all confident with his argument. Freeman is forthright in telling us that he has a problem deciding where he actually stands. Frying the bastard, is what he is trying to stop, isnt it?The writers style and voice as he discusses his analysis is the only effective use of ethos in the argument. As a reader, it was very interesting to read his essay because the author sounds interested in discussing the topic. This style of writing is very informal, which adds to its ease in reading. This is an excellent writing style because he makes his essay most interesting.Pathos is a huge factor that plays an important role in writing arguments. The writer of this piece does an excellent job of emotionally connecting with the reader. The problem that the author has is that he affects the reader in the opposite way. When I first read, I was preparing to write this column last week when I read about the released convict who dragged a 6-year-old Jake Robel to his death along five miles of Missouri highway, I could only cringe and feel for the boy and his family. This man wa...
