1. Citation 2: Keane, M. (2008). “The Ethical ‘Elephant’ in the Death Penalty ‘Room”’. American Journal of Bioethics, 8(10), W5–W6. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265160802393025

• Summary: In the target article “The Ethical ‘Elephant’ in the Death Penalty ‘Room”’ Author Michael Keane focuses mainly on executions and its righteousness in the event of “ a case of an absolutely brutal murderer, for whom there is absolutely no feasible way that they are innocent and for whom the co-victims are psychologically entwined with the penalty of death” while addressing common perceptions of the physicians mental health as well as building upon and introducing/ giving voice to the idea “co-victims”, which is by definition according to Keane “the relatives, friends and “significant others” of murder victims.  The introduction of the victims’ relatives being taken into account and what they might want in order to reach a sense of clarity/nirvana within themselves is a completely new way of processing the lines between what can be considered good and or bad when pertaining to having to be responsible for taking a life.  In the article Keane quotes the American Medical Association (AMA) defining Physicians as being the ones responsible for: “Healing the sick and alleviating pain” … “The result of an execution, however, clearly harms the executed person without offsetting benefit— no rationale can justify a different conclusion—so physician participation in executions is manifestly unethical.  These quotes introduced are in direct response to each other as Keane contradicts the defined responsibilities/expectations of physicians by once again addressing the prosperity and mental health of the physician’s vs the co-victims in this final quote, in further contradictory fashion to the original quote contradicting the defining of a physicians expectations … “and for whom the co-victims are psychologically entwined with the penalty of death, a physician who obstructs the execution may cause tremendous harm and, therefore, may also be denounced as being unethical.”  Keane essentially is trying to address the “Elephant in the room” without seeming controversial or providing too much of his own opinion.  

• Reflection: I think the introduction of the co-victims is certainly indispensable and vital when trying to provide definition to what seemingly is right or wrong when it comes to the legality and the future of said legality of capital punishment.  Keane’s writing style/ competition allows readers such as myself to start to look at things from all sides of the field as his standpoint of there being no right or wrong answer naturally develops itself throughout the entirety of the article.

• Rhetorical analysis: Keane uses the repeated idea of morbidity and suffering of the co-victims to remind readers not only do the physicians psychiatric health play a large part in coming to the decision of what to deem “right or wrong” but also the family and friends of the victims.

• Purpose analysis:  I believe the purpose of the target article remains to show no answer can be correct, costs and benefits remain, as well as positives and negatives just like most things, the article is written more of an expression of both sides rather than opinion.  Keane provides fact and opinion with the intent of informing in order the give readers the means to make their own stance on the matter rather than to flood the text with his own personal thoughts and ideas in order to avoid any heavy influences.

• Key Quote. The positive effect is a potential reduction in psychiatric morbidity of many (but certainly not all) victims’ families when they perceive that justice has been done (Vollum and Longmire, 2007). Maybe because the word injustice has not been medically codified, the psychological harm it causes is often completely removed from the harm–benefit equation when physicians attempt to halt or prevent an execution. This quote further Introduces the ideology of there being no definite answer, regardless on the decision made it is bound to affect either the co-victims or physicians involved.

1.  Citation 3: S.C. Judge Rules 1944 Execution Of 14-Year-Old Boy Was Wrong.(Broadcast transcript). (2014). In Morning Edition. National Public Radio, Inc. (NPR).

• Summary: In 1944 George Stinney Jr. was convicted and tried for the deaths of 7-year-old Mary Emma Thames and 11-year-old Betty June Binnicker.  Stinney was 14 tried, convicted and sentenced to death with the trial lasting only a days’ time. Lorraine Bailey, sister of Betty June Binnicker recalls the case in 2004: (SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED BROADCAST) “LORRAINE BAILEY: Everybody knew that he’d done it even before they had the trial. They knew that he’d done it. But I don’t think they had too much of a trial.” The quote above is Bailey suggesting that as the state and families of the victims were desperate for justice, considering the time contributing to prejudice, circumstances and skin color of the accused, the likeliness of fair trial is slim to none as the case was completely open and shut considering the time it took to sentence Stinney to capital punishment by electric chair. Stinney was executed the day after trials.

• Reflection: I think that something like this goes to show the lack of empathy that can be used in determining the punishment especially considering the age of the “offender” as well as the lack of qualification that should be taken into account to be responsible for a decision of this magnitude especially considering that the jury doesn’t feel the result of the verdict as heavily as the physicians responsible or co-victims. And in regard to wrongful execution, in any situation how is the country to apologize to the families of those who have been wrongfully executed when 4% of death row inmates are later found innocent.  No amount of money/reward can replace, fix/ make up for the life that has been taken away. I just feel as if there is no apology that can be given to repair a family’s broken heart and suffering.

• Rhetorical analysis: In order to properly and effectively communicate history the radio station uses facts and prejudice to convince listeners of an unjust trial in order to build upon the idea of wrongful execution through further analysis of the story itself by interviewing the sister of the victim years later to get a direct correlation between the verdict and the jury.

• Purpose analysis: I believe the news station reported on wrongful execution in order to spread intolerance of prejudice while informing people of the wrong and pain/suffering that can be an emotional rollercoaster consequential of wrongful or just execution.

• Key quote: WANG: “Now a court has ruled that George Stinney was not given due process. Frank Wu, chancellor and dean of the University of California Hastings College of the Law has studied the case.”

“FRANK WU: Now the story is the young man was put to death by the state for a crime he probably didn’t commit – maybe he did, but certainly there isn’t proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Both selected quotes contribute to my idea of not being able to take back what is already finalized, (death). How can the state of South Carolina apologize and provide a just trial after exoneration remains impossible? The Family of George Stinney Jr. has already experienced the loss of their innocent child knowing the entire time the likelihood of Stinney actually being the one responsible for the crime he has already been punished and executed for.