How Paper #3 Differed From Paper #2

Paper #3 and Paper #2 differed because one was a position paper and one was an analyzing paper. In paper #2 we analyzed particular advertisements that had connections to one another. In paper 3 we had to take a position on an issue or argument that we have found and think is important. I think that paper 3 was a bigger and broader paper because we had to incorporate a lot more of our own ideas and include other quotes and sources, in paper 2 we analyzed sources and explained those.

Polished Paper #3

DiRoma 1

Kayla DiRoma

Dr. Sonia Begert

English 101

24 November 2015

Position Paper

Eighteenth Century B.C. was the first established date of death penalty laws in the Code of King Hammaurabi of Babylon, it then codified the death penalty for 25  different crimes. Britain influenced America’s kickoff of the death penalty more than any other country since the time when European settlers came into the new world they brought the practice of capital punishment. The death penalty condescends itself for killing killers when they can just be kept in prison for all their lives instead with no chance of parole. There have been multiple cases of people being charged with the death penalty and even minutes before execution have been convicted of being wrongfully charged and turn out to be innocent, but also there have been cases where individuals have been found to be innocent after the fact that they have already been executed. The death penalty should be abolished not only because of wrongful convictions but it is unjust, costly for taxpayers, and there are better alternatives to take down the prisoners who do not deserve to see the light of day again.

In a piece written by Sean McElwee on the Huffington Post, he takes a position of the death penalty being abolished or not. Sean states, “The United States needs to

DiRoma 2

abolish the death penalty. It’s archaic, costly, ineffective, and most importantly, unjust... The purpose of our criminal justice system is to deter crime, rehabilitate convicts, and incapacitate hardened criminals. Philosophically speaking, life in prison serves these functions better than the death penalty.” Just like Sean says, there are multiple valuable reasons the death penalty should be abolished. Some people believe that God created the death penalty because Genesis 9:6 says, “whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” Which is really just saying that if anyone kills a man, than it would be no other than to kill the killer. But people say God also commanded “Thou shalt not kill.” When the people who inject the medicine into the prisoner are killing the man. Sean McElwee also gives another good point by saying, “However, while it brings no benefits, the death penalty does seriously undermine the criminal justice system for three reasons: racism, false incrimination, and revenge.” It has been known that those who murdered whites have been more prone to receive the death penalty than those who have murdered blacks, there have been a great deal of times when prisoners have been falsely incriminated. If a prisoner has been put on the death penalty and was falsely incriminated that is a huge strain on the prisoner himself thinking that he is going to die in the prison and what if the prisoner is not found guilty until after he has been killed, you cannot take it back life is forever. With supermax prisons escape is no longer a stable possibility. Death is final and life in prison creates for rehabilitation, it does not mean prisoners are getting away with

DiRoma 3

anything by not getting the death sentence, they still will never see out of the prison gates just like people who have to get killed while in prison.

140 countries have abolished the death penalty and there are 196 countries in the world if you do count Taiwan, but the United States does not so you can say there are 195 countries. The United States is related with 54 other countries which have a similar commitment to death  including Iraq, Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen and North Korea,that still today provides the death penalty in prisons.We are not getting any better at doing the death penalty, and we are put in the same category as those countries.  All in all keeping or abolishing the death penalty has been a prolonged issue. Time Magazine wrote an article titled The Death of the Death Penalty. Time stated, “In Arizona on July 23, prison officials needed nearly two hours to complete the execution of double murderer Joseph Wood. That was not an aberration. In April 2014, Oklahoma authorities spent some 40 minutes trying to kill Clayton Lockett before he finally died of a heart attack.” Since 1700 there have been multiple different ways of executing prisoners and the long search to find the perfect killing way leaves witnesses watching a squirming in their seats having to watch individuals gasp for air.  According to Time Magazine writer David Von Drehle that since the American death penalty is so inconsistent, the system is so slow, it then becomes inefficient and way more costly than life without parole. Death sentence cases require not just one trial but two, which is very costly, on top of all those court costs like lawyers, investigators and

DiRoma 4

judges the government is going broke and all prisons have tight budgets, but the cost of incarceration is minimum. David Von Drehle stated in Time Magazine, “When I examined the cost of Florida’s death penalty many years ago, I concluded that seeing a death sentence through to execution costs at least six times as much as a life sentence. A more recent study by a federal commission pegged the difference in the costs of the trials at eight times as much.” Using the death penalty is not super costly to taxpayers, it is also a whole lot more costly to the government too.

Pope Francis also believes that the death penalty should be abolished. He called out to congress in a conference where he stated his own beliefs about the death penalty. This was not the first time Pope Francis has spoke his mind about the downfalls of the death sentence and the worries he has for it to still stand, he has written a letter to the International Commission Against the Death Penalty where he called the practice of capital punishment “inhumane” and “unacceptable”. Pope Francis believes regardless of the crime it is inhumane to use capital punishment and that people are deprived of their freedom which is one thing we have that should never be taken away from us, and an amendment we will stay by to keep and fight for. The Pope addressed at a joint meeting of congress, “I am convinced that this way is the best, since every life is sacred, every human person is endowed with an inalienable dignity, and society can only benefit from the rehabilitation of those convicted of crimes.” Every life is a living breathing person and no matter the crime it doesn’t make sense, and doesn’t make it okay to kill people because they are killers. People believe that it is

DiRoma 5

good way for the victims families to cope with what happened with their family member. or friends killer which is true, but that isn’t the only way for the killers to never be out of a prison cell again. People this year have struggled when they have been injected with the drugs that should easily put them to rest but it has a bad reaction and they don’t die peacefully like they are supposed to. Life in prison can also be a benefit by using rehabilitation methods and not abusing their freedom by killing them.

Many people believe keeping the death penalty is beneficial and that no one should even consider abolishing the sentence. They may not know that it is actually very costly to taxpayers and the government, it is inhumane, it is taking away a person’s freedom forever even though they have a tiny bit being locked up in prison in the first place. There have been cases of wrongful convictions and race plays a part in the sentence. Instead of spending the time and money to maybe eventually carry out a death sentence keeping the prisoner for life without parole is a more beneficial punishment. It is inhumane, unjust, and costly and already 19 states have banned the death penalty, the United States is still on the list with Iran, Iraq, Somalia and North Korea of still practicing the death penalty. The death sentence is not a practical punishment and it undermines the very purpose of the criminal justice system, it should be abolished and we could hopefully have a better view of benefits for prisoners.

DiRoma 6

Sean, McElwee “It’s Time to Abolish the Death Penalty” Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, n.d. Web 8 July 2013

Mark, Berman "Pope Francis Tells Congress ‘every Life Is Sacred,’ Says the Death Penalty Should Be Abolished." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 24 Sept. 2015. Web. 19 Nov. 2015.

David, Von Drehle “The Death Of The Death Penalty” Time. Time.com, n.d. Web 8 June 2015

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/09/24/pope-francis-tells-congress-the-death-penalty-should-be-abolished/

http://time.com/deathpenalty/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-mcelwee/abolish-death-penalty_b_3557782.html

http://www.icomdp.org/arguments-against-the-death-penalty/

In-Class Lab: page 66

Ad 1:

• How does it appeal to you or why does it fail to appeal?
• Because even though some people do not stand for abortion or do not like it at all that is not what Planned Parenthood is about. It is for the importance of women to make their own choices about their own bodies and Planned Parenthood could be helping them even if individual people don’t agree.

• What kinds of words, images or sounds does it use as support for its position?
• This ad uses words like “fight, choices and mores” to show that people are fighting to get rid of a group who supports women when they really have no other choice in their mind and go to planned parenthood when they need help. Using these words help support its position because they state that the fight against planned parenthood is not about abortion because abortion is not everything that planned parenthood is about, the fight is really about women’s own sexual choices and their own mores.
• If you were going to revise it for a different audience, what would you do?
• If I were someone that is against planned parenthood I would not talk about women’s own sexual choices and mores, I would just bring up the abortions because that is what most people that are against planned parenthood are actually against, they are not against women having their own choices but the fact that women choose to have abortions.

• If you were going to create it in another medium, how would it be different?
• I would make this a short video with a young woman saying this exact sentence and looking straight at the camera. She would continue on and talk about how women’s sexual choices and mores are subject to change depending on the person. She would make it clear that there are no ‘right’ sexual choices or mores. That those kinds of questions (what is sexually correct and incorrect?) are complicated depending on the individual who is asking. She would make it further clear that no one in the world should have the right to tell women what is correct and incorrect to do with their bodies.

Ad 2:

• How does it appeal to your or why does it fail to appeal?
• Because the wording is so cut and dry. They stand with Planned Parenthood. The position they took is one in support of the organization.
• What kinds of words, images. or sounds does it use as support for its position?
• The words “I stand with Planned Parenthood” are in a speech bubble, making the statement personal to the reader. It makes it so that it is as if YOU are the person who stands with Planned Parenthood. The hashtag links the support of Planned Parenthood to something bigger; social media. The hashtag lets people know that the stance with Planned Parenthood is more of a movement than anything else.
• If you were going to revise it for a different audience, what would you do?
• If I were going to revise it for an audience that did not support Planned Parenthood I would add the words ‘DO NOT’ after ‘I’.
• If you were going to create it in another medium, how would it be different?
• If it was a poster or a billboard or a sign on the street I would make the background not bright pink, but a metalic, reflective surface so that when the viewer looked at the speech bubble, their face would be reflected right next to the words. So that it looks like the speech bubble is coming out of their mouths.

Ad 3:

• How does it appeal to you or why does it fail to appeal?
• In the ad below, Planned Parenthood has taken a story of a real woman and her journey, and how they helped her along the way. It appeals in a real, raw way that can be related to others, because it is purely true.
• What kinds of words, images, or sounds does it use as support for its position?
• It uses words such as “save” and “life” in the same sentence, which itself gets your attention. The image of this lady and her expression shows the power of Planned Parenthood and how they were able to help her. If this were a digital or video ad, it could use clips of her in her everyday life, and how this journey has beneficially helped her.
• If you were going to revise it for a different audience, what would you do?
• It depends on the audience directed, but if for example an audience that didn’t   support Planned Parenthood, I would have a different story for this ad, one that more people can relate to.  
• If you were going to create it in another medium, how would it be different?
• With this ad being from a true story, this could easily be changed to a video or commercialized ad. This woman could explain her story and how Planned Parenthood helped her, with her own words, her own emotions, and her own story.

Bibliography

“Planned Parenthood.” Advertisement. Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood. 5 Nov. 2015. Print.

Summarize reading of pages 269-284

No matter what, we are all an author of arguments if we know it or not. We argue about stuff without even knowing it, whether it be your first cry, asking for more or taking positions.When you really think about it we argue about something every day. There is certain things at stake when being in an argument, and there are claims when dealing with arguments.

Revised Paper #3

DiRoma 1

Kayla DiRoma

Dr. Sonia Begert

English 101

24 November 2015

Position Paper

Eighteenth Century B.C. was the first established date of death penalty laws in the Code of King Hammaurabi of Babylon, it then codified the death penalty for 25  different crimes. Britain influenced America’s kickoff of the death penalty more than any other country since the time when European settlers came into the new world they brought the practice of capital punishment. Does it actually make sense to kill people because they may deserve it since they killed people? Aren’t they on the death sentence for killing people in the first place, and killing is bad? The death penalty condescends itself for killing killers when they can just be kept in prison for all their lives instead with no chance of parole. There have been multiple cases of people being charged with the death penalty and even minutes before execution have been convicted of being wrongfully charged and turn out to be innocent, but also there have been cases where individuals have been found to be innocent after the fact that they have already been executed. The death penalty should be abolished not only because of wrongful convictions but it is unjust, costly for taxpayers, and there are better alternatives to take down the prisoners who do not deserve to see the light of day again.

DiRoma 2

In a piece written by Sean McElwee on the Huffington Post, he takes a position of the death penalty being abolished or not. Sean states, “The United States needs to abolish the death penalty. It’s archaic, costly, ineffective, and most importantly, unjust... The purpose of our criminal justice system is to deter crime, rehabilitate convicts, and incapacitate hardened criminals. Philosophically speaking, life in prison serves these functions better than the death penalty.” Just like Sean says, there are multiple valuable reasons the death penalty should be abolished. Some people believe that God created the death penalty because Genesis 9:6 says, “whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” Which is really just saying that if anyone kills a man, than it would be no other than to kill the killer. But people say God also commanded “Thou shalt not kill.” When the people who inject the medicine into the prisoner are killing the man. Sean McElwee also gives another good point by saying, “However, while it brings no benefits, the death penalty does seriously undermine the criminal justice system for three reasons: racism, false incrimination, and revenge.” It has been known that those who murdered whites have been more prone to receive the death penalty than those who have murdered blacks, there have been a great deal of times when prisoners have been falsely incriminated. If a prisoner has been put on the death penalty and was falsely incriminated that is a huge strain on the prisoner himself thinking that he is going to die in the prison and what if the prisoner is not found guilty until after he has been killed, you cannot take it back life is forever. With supermax prisons escape is no longer a stable possibility. Death is final and life in

DiRoma 3

prison creates for rehabilitation, it does not mean prisoners are getting away with anything by not getting the death sentence, they still will never see out of the prison gates just like people who have to get killed while in prison.

140 countries have abolished the death penalty and there are 196 countries in the world if you do count Taiwan, but the United States does not so you can say there are 195 countries. The United States is related with 54 other countries which have a similar commitment to death  including Iraq, Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen and North Korea,that still today provides the death penalty in prisons.We are not getting any better at doing the death penalty, and we are put in the same category as those countries.  All in all keeping or abolishing the death penalty has been a prolonged issue. Time Magazine wrote an article titled The Death of the Death Penalty. Time stated, “In Arizona on July 23, prison officials needed nearly two hours to complete the execution of double murderer Joseph Wood. That was not an aberration. In April 2014, Oklahoma authorities spent some 40 minutes trying to kill Clayton Lockett before he finally died of a heart attack.” Since 1700 there have been multiple different ways of executing prisoners and the long search to find the perfect killing way leaves witnesses watching a squirming in their seats having to watch individuals gasp for air.  According to Time Magazine writer David Von Drehle that since the American death penalty is so inconsistent, the system is so slow, it then becomes inefficient and way more costly than life without parole. Death sentence cases require not just one trial but two, which is very costly, on top of all those court costs like lawyers, investigators and

DiRoma 4

judges the government is going broke and all prisons have tight budgets, but the cost of incarceration is minimum. David Von Drehle stated in Time Magazine, “When I examined the cost of Florida’s death penalty many years ago, I concluded that seeing a death sentence through to execution costs at least six times as much as a life sentence. A more recent study by a federal commission pegged the difference in the costs of the trials at eight times as much.” Using the death penalty is not super costly to taxpayers, it is also a whole lot more costly to the government too.

Pope Francis also believes that the death penalty should be abolished. He called out to congress in a conference where he stated his own beliefs about the death penalty. This was not the first time Pope Francis has spoke his mind about the downfalls of the death sentence and the worries he has for it to still stand, he has written a letter to the International Commission Against the Death Penalty where he called the practice of capital punishment “inhumane” and “unacceptable”. Pope Francis believes regardless of the crime it is inhumane to use capital punishment and that people are deprived of their freedom which is one thing we have that should never be taken away from us, and an amendment we will stay by to keep and fight for. The Pope addressed at a joint meeting of congress, “I am convinced that this way is the best, since every life is sacred, every human person is endowed with an inalienable dignity, and society can only benefit from the rehabilitation of those convicted of crimes.” Every life is a living breathing person and no matter the crime it doesn’t make sense, and doesn’t make it okay to kill people because they are killers. People believe that it is

DiRoma 5

good way for the victims families to cope with what happened with their family member. or friends killer which is true, but that isn’t the only way for the killers to never be out of a prison cell again. People this year have struggled when they have been injected with the drugs that should easily put them to rest but it has a bad reaction and they don’t die peacefully like they are supposed to. Life in prison can also be a benefit by using rehabilitation methods and not abusing their freedom by killing them.

Many people believe keeping the death penalty is beneficial and that no one should even consider abolishing the sentence. They may not know that it is actually very costly to taxpayers and the government, it is inhumane, it is taking away a person’s freedom forever even though they have a tiny bit being locked up in prison in the first place. There have been cases of wrongful convictions and race plays a part in the sentence. Instead of spending the time and money to maybe eventually carry out a death sentence keeping the prisoner for life without parole is a more beneficial punishment. It is inhumane, unjust, and costly and already 19 states have banned the death penalty, the United States is still on the list with Iran, Iraq, Somalia and North Korea of still practicing the death penalty. The death sentence is not a practical punishment and it undermines the very purpose of the criminal justice system, it should be abolished and we could hopefully have a better view of benefits for prisoners.

How Things Mean

Symbols of Patriotism

• What do they suggest? How do they suggest it? Which elements of each image work on the viewer in various ways?
• Eagle: the eagle has an outline of the US on it’s face and the US is covered by a picture of our flag. It suggests extreme patriotism because it has 3 elements of our country that are core to our physical identity. This works on the viewer in various ways. It just screams America.
• Bulldog: The bulldog is a symbol of power for Great Britain. In this picture it’s in an English setting; a nice park on a lovely afternoon. It looks like he’s standing on the flag, so the whole thing reminds us of a protective guard dog, protecting the nation’s flag.
• Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite: These three words date back to the founding of France as a nation. The fact that they are enshrined in a building shows just how deep and long-lasting the meaning that those words have on the French. The words will never go away.

Peace Sign Buttons

• What do they suggest? How do they suggest it? Which elements of each image work on the viewer in various ways?
• Peace/Make Love Not War: There’s so much war in the world, so these buttons suggest that we don’t need to keep fighting and that we can be happy with the Love and Peace that we have. They suggest that we have the power to change violent trends in our society. The circles of the button give the viewers a more complete feel, very inclusive.

Thesis: Both sets of pictures have powerful connotations to them although they represent two entirely different things.

Reading Sources Critically

Reading sources critically:

1. What arguments does the author make?

• He argued that no other race should say the N word at all and that if you are in any kind of group that has an offensive label then you are the only person that can say the offensive label, and if you are outside of the group then it is not your place to say it.

2.    How persuasive do you find the argument?

• There is historical evidence of the argument he expressed, like how the term was used back in the day and how degrading it was and how “white folk” shouldn’t call their friends the N-word loosely. There really isn’t any citations or links, it was just Tim Wise at what it seemed a conference. He was citing that there actually is history how the term was used and it was offensive and how he sees people throw the word around when it shouldn’t be.

3. What is the author’s stance?

• He does use multiple examples of different types of people, “Black folk”, Redneck and also about him being Jewish, he didn’t only talk about the N word. He did have a particular bias about no one using terms that are derogatory or offensive even if they think it may not be offensive, people of that certain group like being a redneck can call themselves and others that but not people that are not redneck is what he says. He is using only one viewpoint saying that terms calling people a certain name isn’t okay.

4. Does the publisher bring a certain stance to the work?

• He brought up Jeff Foxworthy and how really all he talks about when he is doing comedy is redneck jokes and it is okay for him to do that because he is from the South and he actually is a redneck and he calls himself one so it is okay, if a different comedian Jerry Seinfeld were to crack jokes publicly then it is not okay.

5. Do you recognize ideas you’ve run across in other sources?

• Yes white people cannot say the N word. It should be common sense not to use offensive words like that.

6. Does this source support or challenge your own position -or does it do both?

• This source would support our own positions, we do not say the N word, or any other derogatory words that we know would offend or make others feel bad.

7. What can you tell about the intended audience and purpose?

• The intended audience would most likely be anyone actually because he does not only talk white people or black people the main purpose is to inform everybody of how to not be racist and to watch what you say, don’t use offensive terms and all people need to be aware that people do get offended by what others say and not to say words about labeling people in an offensive way.

In-Class Lab: Analyzing an Argument

Annotations, Laura Combs

Laura takes a position on raising the amount of minimum wage in America. She believes that it wouldn’t hurt anyone to try it and that people who make minimum wage, especially ones with a family deserve to make more money than they do. She includes information from the Daily Caller News Foundation by saying that Bernie Sanders is hopeful to raise the amount to $15 to “protect the least powerful members of our society from predation.” She includes efficient sources and protects her position.

1.What is the claim?

a.The main point the writer is trying to make is that the minimum wage in the United States should be raised.

b.Yes there is a clearly stated thesis, it is at the end of the first paragraph, the writer clearly says what their position is on the topic by saying “the minimum wage in this country should be raised.”

2. What support does the writer offer for the claim?

a. The reasons given to support the writer's claim is that certain people and companies have more control and power over others which really impacts where and who the money goes to and that people who are working minimum wage jobs especially who have a family deserve to make more money.

b. There are examples in the piece by having exact amounts of how much the minimum wage was and how much it has gone up before. In the piece the writer brings up how Bernie Sanders is hopeful to raise minimum wage to $15 an hour.

c.the reasons are plausible and sufficient, they are exact and include sufficient sources and people who said the examples.

3. How evenhandedly does the writer present the issues?

a.There is a counter argument about how people believe it is pointless to raise minimum wage but what is the hurt in trying.

b.The writer doesn’t have many counterarguments but they do respond to them reasonably, the writer should add in a few other counter arguments into their paper.

c.the writer does treat other arguments respectfully they say what is the hurt and doesn’t back talk what other people have to say about it.

d.their own arguments are appropriately qualified and incorporates their words in terms to not offend the other side of the position.

4.What authorities or sources of outside information does the author use?

a.each one is used by after incorporating the information puts the source in parenthesis so we can clearly tell where what the source is, also at the end of the paper cites all sources.

b.The sources seem very credible by using a Daily Caller News piece, Forbes.com and a research article.

c.the sources are recent

5.How does the writer address you as the reader?

a.the writer doesn’t seem to assume the reader knows too much about the subject, they start off the paper with saying how much the economy has changed and with the economy changing so does the minimum wage price.

b. the words the writer uses seem to include me, the writer does not say I and says words that seem to include me and want to draw me into keep reading.

c. I think the author and I both do have the same kind of beliefs because I also don’t see why it would hurt to raise the minimum wage amount I think it would be a good idea as well.

Annotations, Micah Nelson

Micah takes a position on cutting down the amount of energy we use in our daily lives. Because of fossil fuels and enormous amounts of energy usage and factories our air is getting polluted, people are getting sick and our land is deteriorating. in the paper it is stated that, “Our best weapon against global climate change is clean energy.”

1.What is the claim?

a.The main point the writer is trying to make is that we should cut back on the amount of energy we use in our daily lives.

b.there is a clearly stated thesis and it is in the first paragraph the writer lists economic issues then clearly states “all of these major complications could be avoided if we simply cut back on the amount of energy we use in our daily lives.”

2.What support does the writer offer for the claim?

a.the reasons given to support the claim is that there is many problems caused by the amount we use energy like air pollution, health problems, damage to precious land, environmental deterioration and water pollution.

b.there is evidence to support the claim, that being statistics that in 2014 the U.S. generated about 4,093 billion kb. of energy and about 67% was from fossil fuels which the gases from that makes the air polluted. There are statistics on how much people use water.

c.the reasons are plausible and sufficient

3. How evenhandedly does the writer present the issue?

a.not really any counterarguments

b.not really any counterarguments

c.treats other arguments respectively by adding in how beneficial it is to the world we live in to cut back on our energy usage

d.the writer’s own arguments are appropriately qualified, they add in lots of statistics and even pictures to really help make their position strong

4. What authorities or sources of outside information does the writer use?

a.after stating where the information was from the writer puts into parenthesis what source was used, and in the end of the paper cites all the sources they used.

b.the sources seem very credible, Association of Homebuilders, Energy and Climate Change, Energy Information Administration.

c.They are current

5. How does the writer address you as the reader?

a.the writer doesn’t really assume people know much, they give a lot of background information before stating their opinion.

b.the writer uses a lot of “I’s” and it kind of excludes me by using themself in their paper.

c.I think we share beliefs because i think it would be a great idea to cut down on energy usage and that we really should start treating our environment better.