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?

Christine Mitchell

Sarah Ostiz

English 101

The Penalty of Death (1926) by H.L. Mencken &

Execution by Anna Quindlen (response)

Is the death penalty a justified punishment? Or is it just justice to those who were inflicted pain upon by losing a love one? In the article “ The Penalty of Death” H.L. Mencken speaks that yes the death penalty may seem unjustifiable to some, but to others it’s as he called a “Katharisis” it helps mend the pain one is dealing with in losing a daughter, by seeing justice prevail itself by taking the life of the one who caused the pain. He also stated people may see the death penalty unpleasant and revolting, but at the end it’s a job that has to be done. Then we have the article “Execution” Where Anna Quindlen states that sending a criminal to death is not justice at all, it’s more injustice. She states why death should be justified with death.

A piece that stood out to me in “ The Penalty of Death” was “ Any lesser penalty leaves them feeling that the criminal has got the better of society—that he is free to add insult to injury by laughing” (H.L. Mencken). For me depending on the crime I feel if one is able to take one’s life, then they should have the life of their own taken. To the ones that are left with the pain it’s a slap in the face when justice is not inflected, and it leaves the criminal thinking he has won and beat the system.

Something else that stood out to me in “The Penalty of Death” is “Commonly, it is described as revenge, but revenge is really not the word for it. I borrow a better term form the Aristotle: Katharis, so used, means a salubrious discharge of emotions, a healthy letting off steam” (H.L. Mencken). For me this quote kind of was personal to me, losing a sister by the hands of her then boyfriend all my family wanted was justice to be done and to some it seemed more like revenge, but it was more than that.

Now in the article “Execution” in some ways I agree with Anna Quindlen, why should we punish death with death, but then again why shouldn’t we? Something I like and agreed with was the line that read “I am hypocritical about the death penalty”, “But if my daughter had been the one clubbed to death as she slept in a Tallahassee sorority house, I would with the greatest pleasure rip out ted Bundy’s heart” (Quindlen). And I 100% agree with Quindlen this is a normal reaction for any mother, father, son ect… who has lost someone in their life you want to find that person and inflect the same pain and hurt then have inflected on you.

Another piece that stood out to me was “There is nothing anyone could do that is bad enough for an adult who took a 5-year-old boy away from his parents, perhaps tortured, then murdered him and cut off his head. Nothing at all. Lethal injection? The electric chair?” (Quindlen). For me yes there is by sending them to death, why should he be allowed to continue to walk this earth. The death penalty was put here for justice to those who commit wrongful death, it may seem sinister to some, but for me it’s justifiable.

I believe the author’s purpose of both these article was share and show the views people have on the death penalty; to persuade people to be against it or to be for it. The death penalty may not be justice to some, but may be justifiable to others.

1. The death penalty is used to deter others from the same crimes.
2. There’s many people against the death penalty.
3. People have a wait period after the decision of death. It may be months or years until the execution takes place.
4. Law abiding citizens don’t feel secure until a community criminal is taken down.
5. Most people want criminals to feel the suffrage of their victims.

1. “I don`t believe deterrence is what most proponents seek from the death penalty. Our most profound emotional response is to want criminals to suffer as their victims did.” After the tragic series of current events (innocent lives being taken) many people believe that life in prison or the death penalty is too easy of a punishment.
2. “He must have time to make peace with God.” This is ironic that the same people who decided to play God (by taking away a life), are the same people who decided to allow a criminal to make spiritual peace.

1. Do you not believe that taking away a criminals life is equally wrong?
2. Do you think legal judicial execution is totalitarianism, if a “law abiding citizens”, can not do the same?

1. The authors wrote these articles to defend, and persuade readers on their beliefs in death penalty. There’s obviously two standpoints on execution, there’s pro death penalty and abolitionists.