Death Penalty

Kroll's article witnessing the execution of his friend Robert Harris was a much more convincing read than Mencken's Penalty of Death. Let me start by using one of Mencken's own tactics and pointing out the flaws in his argument; right off the bad Mencken shoots down two of the arguments of his opposition. He then ignores all other logical disagreement outside of those two discredited points and assumes that since those two are not true then he must be right. Mencken alienates the reader greatly in his piece very early on and as a result his following argument, which only stands on one solid point, ends up being fairly weak. Kroll took a different route in his piece, instead telling a parable that the reader could relate to, drawing them in and linking them to the issue on an emotional level. Then in paragraph 24, Kroll subtly hints that he feels that capital punishment, or at least carried out in this manner, is wholeheartedly in humane. Also by portraying the people performing the execution and thier supporters in a negative light, Kroll is able to discredit his apposition on an emotional basis alone. Using narrative and an appeal to pathos Kroll comes out being much more persuasive than his opposition, although Mencken does teach us a valuable lesson: if you're going to appeal to someones logical side, make sure your logic is sound first.