Section 1

Kaveny, Cathleen. “A Horrific Crime: but is Execution the Answer.” Gale. Literature Resource Center, December 17, 2010. Web. September 3, 2015.

Section 2

            Kaveny writes an article where she tries to argue against the death penalty. She starts with a death penalty case in which two men, Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky, commit horrible acts. She takes this evidence and bases most of her claims on this case. Her main claim that society must look for a way to stop these crimes at the source is mainly supported by this evidence. She also makes claims that there is a point where the death penalty stops being effective and that death by lethal injection is not an appropriate way to give these men what they deserve, which she then supports using the acts of these men. She also uses a statement by Pope John Paul II to support her main claim that we as a society must go back to our roots to stop crimes such as these from happening. In Kaveny’s conclusion she supports her main claim again by implying that society is fighting againsty evil and that the death penalty is not a way that can stop it.

Section 3

            Kaveny’s purpose is to tell the American people that we live in a brutal society and need to make reforms. It is obvious that she wants to speak to all Americans in general this is shown by her informal tone and the fact that she humanizes herself by starting the story off with a report that she saw on the news. The purpose is only made clear when she begins to talk about how the death penalty is not good for our society. She talks about the death penalty and its problems then uses those problems to show her audience the shortcomings of our society as a whole. The only constraints that the author may have to this article is her editor may have only allowed a certain number of words and the edits that the editor makes himself/herself. The problem with the constraints is that they could have hindered the author in saying exactly what she wanted to say. This particular article is interesting because while most of the media on this issue are truly about the subject at hand the author tried to get a deeper meaning using the issue as a gateway into it.

Section 4

“Two traditional goals of punishment are retribution and deterrence. But the evildoing in this case calls both those goals into question.”                 

“The bottom line is that society cannot impose a condign punishment, or an effective deterrent to these monstrous acts, without in some sense recreating and participating in the brutality of the criminals themselves.”