The article I analyzed for this assignment was a New York Times article about states considering ending the death penalty, it can be found at this link
This article focuses on a few arguments for ending the death penalty in order to save money. The argument is that that the capital punishment cases are more expensive because of the money spent on appeals and trials span much longer. Here is an example of a few qualifiers used in this argument:
Capital cases are expensive because the trials tend to take longer, they typically require more lawyers and more costly expert witnesses, and they are far more likely to lead to multiple appeals.
(pay close attention to the phrases containing "typically" and "more likely")
In New Mexico, lawmakers who support the repeal bill have pointed out that despite the added expense, most defendants end up with life sentences anyway.
I think qualifiers in these excerpts are to account for the possibility that some cases may not pertain to these arguments. Because this article has both sides of the argument, many of the rebuttal statements are to present the opposing viewpoints in this argument.
Opponents of repealing capital punishment say such measures are short-sighted and will result in more crime and greater costs to states down the road. At a time when police departments are being scaled down to save money, the role of the death penalty in deterring certain crimes is more important than ever, they say.
I thought, because this was a newspaper article, there were less rebuttal statements than a typical argumentative piece. This article was meant to educate the readers of the conflict going on between lawmakers. So, although this does present an argument, it shows both sides. I did see quite a few qualifiers, I think this was because this article focused more on the side of the argument that wanted to repeal capital punishment.
I think rebuttals and qualifiers would appear much more in a piece that was exclusively argumentative (i.e. blog posts, campaign literature, or newspaper columns). This article was merely reporting the story and had to still be somewhat objective. If the author of an argumentative piece was presenting mainly one side, there would be many more examples of rebuttals and qualifiers.
This article is definitely an interesting take on ways to reduce cost on a criminal justice front. The writer of the piece addressed both sides of the issue with an even voice, not blatantly favoring one position over another. The inclusion of qualitative data, that can be interpreted with statistical tools helps in building a framework for the issue at hand.
ReplyDeleteI think the qualifiers and rebuttals noted in the original blog post are well defined and described. Dominique was thorough in her analysis of the text and provided quotations from the article to illustrate her point effectively. I would add, in conjunction with her assessment of the inclusion of some of the qualifiers that many times, authors include qualifiers to block out any opposition. Urbina, the author of the piece, may be including some of the qualifiers he did as a way to build in his own bias, for or against the death penalty.
Urbina could have done a much more thorough job in addressing potential rebuttals, as noted by Dominique. He mentioned briefly the presence of opposition, but vaguely addressed their points and hardly did anything to refute them.
This article was certainly interesting. The author used a lot of statements given by others to build his argument around. As you mentioned he does a very good job as using different types of qualifies throughout which aid him in getting the point across. There isn't much play on emotions here, but there are a lot of cold hard facts. When dealing with an issue of this sort the only way to really make your point is to bring in the facts. In this article no one is going to sympathize with the prisoners so trying to play on the audience's emotions would not get the author very far.
ReplyDeleteThe evidence that was most persuasive was, as I mentioned earlier, the facts. For example, the author talked about releasing non-violent offenders early and placing them on parole which would limit the costs of the prisons. By the author doing this he may gain more support because he caters to both sides.