Reading through both articles you can sense the author’s strong arguments. I must admit though that Quindlen’s argument was clearer than Mencken’s. She argued how the death penalty is never equal to the murderer’s victim. Menken basically argued that the death penalty is useless and it wouldn’t affect the murderer at all.

One compelling moment is when Quindlen says “Our most profound emotional response is to want criminals to suffer as their victims did”. I agree with that one hundred percent because if you throw someone off a roof and your penalty is to die by an electrical chair; Those are two different types of pain.

Another compelling moment is how Menken repeatedly uses the katharis to prove his point throughout his piece.

Both authors purpose were to convince their audience that the death penalty does not make anything better, but more importantly that a death of a human will never be forgotten no matter how the murderer dies.

Did any of the author’s know anybody close to them that has been murdered?