Lessons From Death Row
Sometime within this quarter you will be writing an argumentative essay about the death penalty. The link below connects you to a Ted Talk's video and I encourage you to take notes to use for your argumentative essay.
After viewing the video, discuss the following by Saturday, Oct. 20th:
What is the "common ground" that the speaker tries to establish with his audience. (Common ground is a Rogerian technique of argumentation in which the speaker or author find what they believe both sides of an argument would agree upon.)
What rhetorical strategies does the speaker use.
Highlight something that struck a chord with you in terms of new knowledge or in terms of your agreement or disagreement with the speaker's thesis.
Finally, respond thoughtfully to two classmates postings by Sunday, Oct. 21st.
The link to the Ted Talk's video is right below.
http://www.ted.com/talks/david_r_dow_lessons_from_death_row_inmates.html (about 18 min. long)
Dear Ms. Carlson,
ReplyDeleteAfter reading David R. Dow: Lessons from death row inmates, I couldn’t help but acknowledge the rhetorical strategies David used. There were many but if I had to choose the main strategy he used it would be to inform. David goes into great detail in what happens before a murder and the process it takes during court and to finalize an execution, along with the opportunities we could use to help make schools in different levels (Elementary, Middle, High school). Going along with the opportunities we could use, I believe that would be the common ground. It’s something that could benefit kids who are troubled, mentally challenged or come from unstable households as like David mentioning Will. It could possibly lessen the amount of murders, and trials leading to execution or life in prison without parole. Something that struck me with new information was the actual before the murder: 1st block being- Murder, Trial, Sentence, Direct Appeal. 2nd Block- State Habeas, 3rd block- Federal Habeas, and last but not least Block 4- Clemency, Commutation, Return to court, and Execution. I knew the process of a trial was long but it didn’t have so many steps and included so many people with it!
Sincerely,
Ashlie Overmyer
Dear Ashlie,
DeleteI agree that Mr. Dow did go into a lot of detail about the process of a murder trial, it was really helpful and shocking. The mentioning of Will also was very helpful in Mr. Dow's arguement!
Respectfully,
Amber Diaz
Dear Ashlie,
DeleteI very much agree that he was trying to inform his audience and didn't take that into consideration (even though your completely correct) until i read your comment.
respectfully,
shannon delaney
period 1
Dear Ashlie,
DeleteI agree with you that the "chapters" he used was very insightful on the death penalty process. It is very heartbreaking but can be avoidable.
Sincerely,
Kulia Blalock
Dear Ms. Carlson,
ReplyDeleteI believe the “common ground” that the speaker attempts to establish with his audience is that in a sense, death penalty is preventable. Dow states, “if we make the picture bigger, and devote our attention to the earlier chapters, then we are never going to write the first sentence that begins the death penalty story.” What he means by this is, if people begin to recognize signs of a child that is potentially heading down the road of juvenile delinquency, then we can guide that child to make better decisions, and change his or her future of possibly becoming a murderer.
Rhetorical strategies that Dow uses include, flashback, when he describes his client, Will’s past, giving critical background information as to possibly why Will murdered someone. He also uses Pathos, at the closing of his speech when he talks about him and Will’s last conversation, when Will described how unforgettable it was to have your own mother chasing you with a butcher knife.
Something that struck me to lean more towards agreeing with Dow’s thesis was the fact that he has been a lawyer for death row inmates for 20 years, and how he has connected that most murderers have had a troubled childhood, and have been brought up on the wrong path. Like Dow, I also believe that doing things such as, providing early child care, can help guide underprivileged children onto better paths for the future, and in a bigger picture, ultimately prevent murders.
Sincerely,
Lexy Stogner
Dear Lexy,
DeleteI also thought that Mr. Dow's common ground was to prevent the death penalty, and that the earlier chapters need more attention. I strongly agree with Mr. Dow and yourself, that guiding troubled children will help prevent murders.
Respectfully,
Amber Diaz.
Dear Lexy,
DeleteWhile writing my response, I didn't take into consideration about how the "common ground" was to prevent death penalty. Now looking back I agree as well. I also thought that he used flashback as a rhetorical strategy.
Sincerely,
Alanna Bauman
Dear Lexy,
DeleteI also found it compelling that Dow had made the connection that muderers being sent to death penalty have most likely been brought up in a horrific environment. When you think about it, it makes a significant amount of sense and I'm glad someone like Dow discovered it and is using his plans to help those people!
Sincerely,
Maria Fish Pd:2
Dear Lexy,
DeleteI loved your whole response! I really agree with everything that you had to say. You are spot on about the common grounds concept too! Thank you for your comments.
Respectfully, Maile Tuttle Period 3
Dear Lexy,
DeleteI am surprised to see the different rhetorical strategies that you used. But I don't feel that David Dow used a flashback, yes he may have explained on a time he had talke to Will before his execution but I don't feel it was one of the main rhetorical strategies that he was trying to point out.
Most respectfully, Kelieann Nuesca Pd. 1
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDear Ms. Carlson
ReplyDeleteThe “common ground” that David Dow establishes with his audience is every child deserves a fair chance in life and the economic benefits of early childhood intervention.
Dow successfully employs Socrates' rhetorical triangle in the organization in his lecture about the death penalty. Dow begins his lecture establishing his credibility with the audience by informing them that he has been a death penalty lawyer for the past twenty years. In doing so Dow firmly legitimizes the Ethos of his argument: himself. Dow then introduces an anecdotal piece about a former client of his a death row inmate by the name of Will. Will's story has a very strong emotional appeal; it looks at the failings of a system through the eyes of one of it's victims. Using Will's story Dow strengths the Pathos element in his argument. He then proceeds to transition his focus on early childhood intervention to the economics of his argument. He looks at one of the leading arguments opponents to investing in early childhood intervention embrace: the cost. He responds by using his opponents argument to strengthen his own. Instead of disagreeing he agrees with their position, however he does so in a manner that disputes his opponents position by providing important statistical data: the cost of early childhood intervention ($15,000) vs. the cost of Death Row ($80,000). It's an incredibly successful way to address the Logos in his argument.
What astounded me the most was the high cost of Death Row compared to early childhood intervention.
Sincerely,
Lars Vali Pd.2
Dear Lars,
DeleteI couldn't agree more that kid's deserve a fair chance in life along with economic benefits, however, i was surprised when you pointed Socrates' rhetorical triangle when it came to David's organization, and how through credibility and experience, he hit all three on triangle; pathos,ethos,and logos. But also yes, i myself was rather shocked by the expensive price tag on death penalties.
Sincerely,
Brandon Jenks Pd.1
Dear Lars,
DeleteI liked that you mentioned David 'establishing credibility' with the audience. I think that understanding this would help the audience better understand his point of view.
Sincerely,
Griffin Madden
Dear Lars,
DeleteI liked that you explained Dow's use of Socrates' Rhetorical Triangle. I feel like the speaker using many different parts of the Triangle helped reach a larger array of people and made the speech much more effective.
Sincerely,
Don Maddock Pd. 1
Dear Ms. Carlson,
ReplyDeleteWhen David Dow speaks about his experiences as a lawyer and his strong opinion about the death sentence, I feel like he connects to both sides of the argument by saying how murders most usually have a past that leads them on a troubled path, that if not corrected, will lead to a bad future. He talks about how early and easily these people can be help and guided to a healthier life. Dow gets his argument across by mainly using Pathos and flashback. Pathos is worked in when he gives a detailed description of his client, Wills background, and how hard of a life he's had. This helps the audience see how Will had came to be the person he was, giving them a different perspective of him more as a person than a straight criminal. Will is also in Dows flashback, when he looks at he's son, then remembers Will at the same age. Then from there he works through his clients child/teenage past, then to the "four chapters of the book".
After watching David Dows argument it gave me a better view of a criminals mind set, how their mind is effected by things they can't control. I also learned how much there is to do for children who could be headed in that direction. And that it is economically correct as well and humane.
Sincerely,
Whitney Beck
Pd.2
Dear Whitney,
DeleteI agree that Will's story and the way Dow talked about his son were both extremely powerful uses of Pathos that helped to drive in his thesis. I also agree that his solution, being both economically and morally correct, is something that should be implemented in all 50 states.
Sincerely,
Casey Nakamura, Period 1
Dear Whitney,
DeleteI liked the point you made about how some criminals minds are effected by things that are uncontrollable, such as being raised or brought up a certain way. I also agree that the way Dow is trying to help and solve things is most definitely a more harmless approach.
Sincerely,
Lexy Stogner Pd. 1
Dear Whitney,
DeleteI completely agree that Dow used flashbacks as one of his rhetorical stratigies which I thought made his speech much more diverse and made the topic more interesting!
Sincerely,
Maria Fish Pd:2
Dear Whitney,
DeleteYou made some really strong points in your response. I liked how you got right down to the point and noticed key rhetorical strategies in Dow's Speech.
Sincerely,
Madisson Hinkel
Dear Ms. Carlson,
ReplyDeleteThe common ground that I believe David R. Dow used in his arguement was that if a crime, specifically a murder, takes place then the person responsible should be punished. That is a statement in which most everyone can agree upon, however Mr. Dow's arguement was that steps can be taken to prevent these crimes and punishments from taking place by intervening in the lives of troubled children.
David R. Dow used many rhetorical stratgies including, persuasion/arguement, Aristotle's Rhetorical triangle, as well asl exemplification. Mr. Dow used a man named Will's personal story and case in order to better explain to the audience his arguement, the use of this strategy helps to create a clearer picture in a persons mind by being able to draw a parallel between Mr. Dow's "chapters" and Will's journey.
What struck a cord with me was how much i agreed with Mr. Dow's thesis by the end of the video. At first I thought in terms of the obvious, someone commits a crime then they're punished end of story, however I never gave much thought to the beginning of that story and that there are ways to prevent some of these crimes from taking place.
Respectfully,
Amber Diaz
Dear Amber,
DeleteFirst off, i agree on the grounds that any person responsible for murder should be punished, however i didn't take into consideration the persuasion/argumentative rhetorical strategy even though it was looking at me straight in the eye. After looking back at the video, i can start to see how David did use Will to strengthen his argument. But also i too agree that i never thought of the beginning of the story, rather than the end.
Sincerely,
Brandon Jenks
Dear Amber,
DeleteI completely agree with you about you common grounds! You were definitely spot on a about that. But I also like your end about what struck a chord with you. I liked how you pointed out that now that we think of it from this speakers point of view that we CAN prevent murders. I think that's pretty cool.
Respectfully, Maile Tuttle period 3
Dear Amber,
DeleteI agree with the statements you made. Death penalty is harsh and life in prison is humane. Who are we to put someone to death? I think that life in prison is a worse punishment actually since the killer knows he ain't getting out till he dies.
Sincerely,
Keliikoa Baclayon
Pd. 3
Dear Ms. Carlson,
ReplyDeleteThe "common ground" the speaker is trying to reach with his audience is, the "corner" where people who are against the death penalty and people pro death penalty have one thing they can't argue over: how in a person's early life, we need to intervene to get them off the path that leads them to commit a terrible crime. He doesn't mean for us to check and evaluate every child in the world, but those that show signs of following the path into juvenile detention facilities.
A rhetorical strategy that caught my attention the most by David R. Dow was pathos. He used pathos in telling a story about one of his clients named Will and his background. By doing this it gives Will a more humane persona versus a monster that kills people. He builds up Will's story in a way to make the audience feel for Will on how hard his childhood was.
I agree with David R. Dow on how, early intervention with troubled and underprivileged kids would be the best way to prevent potential crimes. What struck me the most was how after serving as a death row lawyer for twenty years a strong link tying all the accused together, was a troubled and difficult childhood. Therefore if there were more options for children like Will in housing and care, we would be steering him in a better direction, away from destruction and murder.
Sincerely,
Taylor McGinnis Pd.1
Dear Taylor,
DeleteI agree with what you said about what the speaker was trying to get across to the audience. He most definitely doesn't mean to evaluate every single child on earth, but to simply monitor the ones that have a troubled child hood, or the ones that show signs of becoming criminals.
Sincerely,
Lexy Stogner Pd 1
Dear Taylor,
DeleteI liked the way you worded the "common ground" into a very clear straight forward manner, and I agree with your thoughts. Also the way you wrote " Will a more humane persona versus a monster that kills people" really stood out and made a clear picture.
Sincerely,
Whitney Beck
pd:2
Dear Taylor,
DeleteI agree with you that pathos was a very strong rhetorical strategy used by Dow. Perhaps even the strongest. It's also true that it's unlikely that the need for death row will be completely diminished. Some people are just really messed up.
Respectfully,
Madisson Hinkel
Dear Ms. Carlson,
ReplyDeleteDavid's speech on the death penalty was very thought provoking, and has actually made me change my perspective on the death penalty, because to be honest, i was for it. However, David reached a common ground that we supporters, and abolitionists towards this subject can agree on, we can both agree in that "corner" of the controversy, that either way,the murder of an "innocent" human being is wrong. Now, there were a variety of rhetorical strategies that David used during his speech, however, the one that stuck out the most, and was the most significant, was the "cause and effect" of the death penalty, that because we don't intervene before the "4 chapters" of the death penalty, into the juvenile years, our result is a murderer facing life in prison or execution. Also, in the terms of new knowledge, economically speaking, the prevention of these crimes as David said, are much more cost effective than simply kiiling them; putting morality aside and looking at economics, the 15,000$ we tax payers would pay to get kids like Will on a better path is in contrast with he 80,000$ we'd spend on getting an execution going. To me it's like killing two birds with one stone, we can both prevent the kid from becoming a punk and save the money it would take to even kill him/her.
Sincerely,
Brandon Jenks Pd.1
Dear Brandon,
DeleteI strongly agree that davids "common ground" was as you say" the corner" where we all agree in the controversy.
respectfully,
Shannon Delaney
period one
Dear Brandon,
DeleteAfter originally watching the video, I thought that his use of Aristotle's Triangle was his greatest rhetoric strategy, however after reading your response it changed my mind. I agree that Cause and Effect (or rather Effect and Cause) was his most powerful and effective strategic in his speech.
Sincerely,
Casey Nakamura, Period 1
Dear Brandon,
DeleteI agree with Casey. I haven't really thought of Cause and Effect, or Effect and Cause as one of the rhetorical strategies. David Dow used Cause and Effect when explaining about the life before a murderer actually becomes a murderer.
Respectfully,
Jenny Paleracio
Dear Ms. Carlson,
ReplyDeleteI believe that the "common ground" that David tries to provide in his speech was when he talked about the controversy of the death penalty and provides a statement that all the public can agree on, which is that we all wish that innocent people weren't murdered and that we wish we could prevent it before it goes to the lengths of taking someones life. Davids strongest rhetorical strategy that he uses is "cause and effect" the reason is that he talks about his client that was sentenced the death penalty, not as if he were a murder but as a person he was friends with, he explained all his troubles from his childhood which was a major "cause" in influencing him into the path of self-destruction. When David was talking about his clients last day of life and talking about his mother chasing him with a butcher knife, it struck me when he told David, " you don't forget your mother chasing you with a butcher knife bigger then yourself screaming I'm going to kill you." no matter that he was only 5 years old.
respectfully,
Shannon Delaney
period.1
Dear Shannon,
DeleteI very much agree with you on your rhetorical strategy, I never really thought of that until I read your response! I would have to say though that WIll did not have a very easy or nice life.. I mean being chased down by your own mother is CRAZY!
Sincerly,
Ashlie Overmyer
Dear Shannon,
DeleteI never thought of it as cause and effect but now that i do it makes a lot of sense and i can see very clearly how he uses that strategy. Also, the way that Dow cared about his client and didn't want him to receive the death penalty and worked hard against it made me more compassionate towards a "hardened criminal", especially after hearing his story and terrible upbringing. I believe that in the end after all the things he had done, he would have been very happy if someone would've intervened on his behalf earlier in life.
Respectfully,
Aveilana Saldana
Dear Ms. Carlson,
ReplyDeleteI think that the key point in this talk was that 90% of it was informative rather than argumentative. For most of it, he was stating facts and conjectures that people would have a hard time dissenting on. (ie, the four steps of the death penalty, the statistics, and the fact that we all agree that murders should be prevented.) This was his common ground. You can tell that, from the beginning, his stance is anti-death; however, he puts the issue on the back burner for the majority of his talk and lulls his would-be attackers into a sense of complacency by talking about the why and the how, rather than the act and policy itself. Then in the end, rather than hammering his point in, he talks about solutions that are far more humane and practical and gently implying that if earlier efforts are made, the death penalty will become (in a best-case scenario) obsolete.
There were many rhetoric strategies he used, including incredible usage of diction and Aristotle's Rhetorical Triangle. However, after reading the earlier responses, I must agree with Brandon that cause and effect is by far the most powerful. Dow goes backward and talks about death penalty first, then goes on to detail causes and solutions.
I believe in the death penalty and after watching this video, I still do. I believe that though we as human beings are shaped by our environment, we are autonomous creatures and make choices. The choice to take a life is horrific and must be punished. However, I never thought about the correlation between juvenile justice involvement and murder. I now believe that we have a greater responsibility to troubled children and adolescents, both from a moral and economic standpoint.
Respectfully,
Casey Nakamura, Period 1
Dear Casey,
DeleteI couldn't agree more with you more about seeing the correlation between juvenile delinquency and later involvement with murder. I also agree with you about this talk was very informative.
Sincerely,
Alanna Bauman
Dear Casey,
DeleteI think you meant to say "I believed in the death penalty before and after I watched this video". I can't say I agree with you on that though. Sure they do deserve to be punished, but the death of someone is tragic.
Sincerely,
Kalani Murakami
Dear Casey,
DeleteI don't agree with you on the point that his speech was more informative than argumentative. Although he does inform a lot it was only to build up his argument. I also can't say I'm completely agreeing with you either about the death penalty but in some cases it may seem necessary.
Sincerely,
Kulia Blalock
Dear Casey,
DeleteFirst I must say, great response! Your word choice and the way your response flowed made me wish I could copy and paste your response for my post, but of coarse that would be frowned upon. Also I do agree, very much so, that Mr. Dow relied heavily upon facts to find a common ground with his audience. I thought this was quite clever of him.
Sincerely,
Shania Weiss, Period 3
Dear Ms. Carlson,
ReplyDeleteDavid R. Dow's TED Talk about the death penalty was very convincing and thought-provoking because of his common ground with the audience. The final point he gets to is 'early intervention. Preventing death penalties by tackling the first link of the problem. Most people would agree that stopping a problem before it starts is an effective method of preventing death penalties in America.
David's use of multiple rhetorical strategies strengthens his connection with the audience and allows them to reach a 'common ground' with him. There is prevalent use of the cause-and-effect strategy in David's speech - he uses this to make the solution accessible. This strategy allows the audience to understand why death penalty rates are rising and how this can be fixed. The strategy is especially apparent when he is referring to his 'early childhood' info graphic; this was a visual cause-and-effect representation. He also uses Pathos when he tells the story of his client, Will. By telling this personal story, the audience was able to understand the background of someone with the death penalty and allowed them to connect this story with the many others that so closely correlated with the death penalty.
I learned a lot about the death penalty system in the United States that I did not previously know by the end of this video. I also thought that him bringing up his last conversation with Will was very important to his story because it gave an emotional anecdote that could cause the audience to agree with him more.
Sincerely,
Griffin Madden
Dear Griffin,
DeleteI agree with you and David R. Dow on how the most effective way to prevent a problem is stopping it before it could happen. I also agree that Dow uses Pathos in a strategic way to toy with the audience's emotions. Making them compare their children with Will, as he did with his own son.
Sincerely,
Taylor McGinnis Pd1
Dear Griffin,
DeleteI agree with you, Dow brought up an emotional response from the audience when he talked about this last conversation with his client. This added to the audience agreeing with his argument.
Sincerely,
Sariah Beeby pd. 1
Dear Ms. Carlson,
ReplyDeleteAfter watching this video, I believe that the “common ground” is that no matter what some group of people are going to believe in the death penalty and criminals need to be punished for their crimes.
David R. Dow uses many types of rhetorical strategies while he is presenting. For example, he uses allusions a few times when he first quotes Dwight Eisenhower, and then he refers back to a old cartoon (or commercial) about a guy on the oil can. Also in his speech, he uses a lot of dialog when he flashes back to Will’s story. Lastly, another one of the many rhetorical strategies used was analogy, when he was comparing the problem of the death penalty to rocket science.
While watching this video, something that really stuck out to me was his proposal that society as a whole should help the kids that are in dysfunctional homes before they get to the point of being gang members and criminals.
Sincerely,
Alanna Bauman
Dear Alanna,
DeleteI never thought of that rhetorical device that you found about it being an allusion. Also I think I got my rhetorical devices mixed up when you used analogy to show the relationship between the rocket science and the death penalty.
Sincerely,
Kalani Murakami
Dear Alanna,
DeleteI found that new information about helping the kids who are troubled, have mental disorders, and or come from dysfunctional homes be put into a school that will help them and possibly prevent them from doing something there going to regret(like murder). Who knows thismay be good idea, but we may never know until its actually tried.
Sincedryly,
Ashlie Overmyer
Dear Alanna,
DeleteDid Dow's proposal stick out to you in a good way or a bad way? Personally, i believe that intervening at a young age in dysfunctional families' homes and children would be most beneficial for the children later on in life. It would also be more economically favorable for tax-payers and supporters of the program.
Respectfully,
Aveilana Saldana
Dear Ms.Carlson
ReplyDeleteThe video was rather interesting to watch. The story at the beginning about the boy really drew me on to this. I believe the common ground he was trying to establish was the preventing the death penalty. He really went straight to the point with the chapters about the death penalties.
David uses many rhetorical strategies to his audience. One of them a lot of people mentioned was the cause and effect strategy were he uses that strategy in his "chapters". He says that because of the actions in the previous chapter this happens in the next leading to the death penalty. He also kind of uses a metaphor comparing the complications of rocket science to the complications of death penalty. He then uses this to compare it to the life's of innocent people before they became murderers. He also uses diction when he uses the word "chapters" to show parts in their life instead of saying straight up points in their life. He also uses flashback to show an event in his life that showed example of the point he is trying to show. He uses his flashback of will saying that he doesn't deserve that penalty.
I don't know what to think of the death penalty really. I mean I think people should have a chance again in their live and they should have a right to live on, but at the same time I think that if we were to give them a second chance they might commit it again or if they were to be allowed to live, but they were sentence to jail for life then what kind of life would that be. This video got me thinking about these things again. The thing that most influenced me about this was the story of Will. The life a child lives dictates their choice of actions pretty much in most cases.
Sincerely,
Kalani Mirakami
Dear Kalani,
DeleteGreat response! However, I disagree with you statement, "He uses his flashback of will saying that he doesn't deserve that penalty." I don't think the speaker ever said whether he thought Will should receive the death penalty or not; he was avoiding controversy. Will did, after all, kill someone and his deserving the death penalty could be debated for hours.
Sincerely,
Jessica Meek, P. 2
Dear Kalani,
DeleteI agree with what Jessica had said. I don't remember Dow saying whether Will should die or not either. Your response was really good though !
Sincerely,
Precious Pd. 2
Dear Kalani,
DeleteI agree that Will's story was an effective strategy. I feel it effectively described the story of what most people on death row go though, and it also helped Dow strengthen his point about how stopping his childhood events from happening could have prevented the crime.
Sincerely,
Don Maddock, Pd. 1
Dear Ms. Carlson,
ReplyDeleteI found that the "common ground" in David R. Dow's TED Talk was really aimed at getting his point out to people in general. I feel that his main goal was to find a way to connect to the audience so he could really explain his plan to prevent murder and reduce death penalty cases.
Dow used a considerable amount of rhetorical strategies. One was an allusion. Dow used a quote by Dwight D. Eisenhower therefore making it a historical reference. I also would have to agree with Whitney about the use of flashback. Dow is continually taking us from all his facts and statistics and then bringing us back to his dinner with his son and wife or a story of one of his clients, Will.
Before I watched this video I really did not have a large amount of knowledge on the death penalty and Dow definitely gave me more insight on it.I have never agreed with the death penalty because it is the easy way out for a lot of bad people who in my opinion deserve to live in prison for the rest of their lives (excuse my harsh thoughts). But I agree with Dow that if we are able to reach troubled adolecents before they are exposed to bad events, we can prevent the death of innocent people in the future.I would much rather that than prison or the death penalty.
Sincerely,
Maria Fish Pd:2
Dear Maria,
DeleteYour idea of his "common group" is very creative, and I agree completely that his main goal was to have his audience feel as strongly and he does about the subject. I also never discovered the allusion until I read your response, great job! I must say that I to have gained much knowledge of the subject by watching this video.
Sincerely,
Whitney Beck
Pd:2
Dear Maria,
ReplyDeleteI agree that after watching this video you walk away with a better understanding of the death penalty. I also agree that the best way to help prevent deaths of innocent people is reaching out to troubled children before bad things occur.
Sincerely,
Taylor McGinnis pd. 2
Dear Ms.Carlson,
ReplyDeleteI believe the “common ground” that the speaker attempts to establish with his audience is that death penalty is avoidable.
David uses a variety of rhetorical strategies, but the two that stuck out the most was cause/effect and the use of Pathos. Cause/effect is used he talks about his client that was sentenced the death penalty, not as if he were a murderer but as a person he was friends with. He explained all his troubles from his childhood which was a major "cause" in influencing him into the path of self-destruction. Pathos is worked in when he gives a detailed description of his client, Wills background, and how hard his life was. This helps the audience see Will in a different perspective of him more as a person than a just a criminal.
The one thing that struck me the most was how after serving as a death row lawyer for 20 years, was a troubled and difficult childhood. If there were more options for children in housing and care, we would be directing him in a better direction, not to destruction and murder.
Respectfully,
Angelika Questin
Dear Angelika,
DeleteI agree with you about the fact that if he was directed in the right path that if he got help his future would have been diffrent. maybe he wouldnt have murdered someone.
respectfully,'
Kristen Yam
Dear Ms. Carlson,
ReplyDeleteDavid R. Dow establishes the "common ground" that "the best possible version of his story would be a story where no murder ever occurs." Whether a person is for or against the death penalty, they could agree with that statement.
Dow uses anecdotes, describing parts of the life of one of his clients, Will. This provides the viewer with a clearer picture of a life of a real person facing the death penalty. He also uses ethos, telling the viewers the hard life of the boy who became a murderer. This evokes an emotional response, causing viewers to feel sorry for this person facing the death penalty.
I was struck by Will's story. A mother trying to kill her child is about as backwards as a circumstance can get. With that kind of childhood, no wonder he ended up facing the death penalty. This really made me think. Why aren't we devoting more time and resources to saving these abused children before they become murderers?
Sincerely,
Jessica Meek, P.2
Oops! Pathos, not ethos.
DeleteDear Ms. Carlson,
ReplyDeleteI believe that the speaker makes an attempt to find common ground under the pretense that everyone believes there should be no murder of innocent people in the first place. If murder could be avoided, stopped before it occurred, then there would be no need for the death penalty controversy. Dow uses the rhetorical strategy of logical argument to explain why prevention is the best path. Rather than fighting almost uselessly for clients who have received the death sentence already, it would logically be more productive to nip the bad behavior in the bud, before it spirals into a death sentence. Also, it would be economically logical to spend money intervening early on, to save money in the long run.This is also an example of common ground because everyone wants to save money. Something that struck a chord with me was the story of his client's, Will's, life. An upbringing like that is sure to have negative effects on a child which is why i agree that it is so important for an intervention earlier in life.
Respectfully,
Aveilana Saldana (Pd.2)
Dear Ave,
DeleteI totally agree with you. I didn't notice the logical side of the argument, so caught up was I with Will's story. Now that you mentioned it, however, it does make a lot of sense. Also, I liked your figurative writing ("nip the bad behavior in the bud, before it spirals into a death sentence.") Good response!
Sincerely,
Jessica, P.2
Dear Ms.Carlson,
ReplyDeleteI feel that the common ground David Dow was trying to establish was that the death penalty CAN be prevented. He repetidedly says that it all starts when they are a child. Whether it was coming from a bad family, not being around good influences, or just choosing to do the wrong things from the time they can remember; somehow it can all be prevented. An example he gives to make solve this problem is by "makiing the problem bigger". What he means by this is that he wants us to go back to when the person on death penalty was a child, and see their records of any patterns or bad behaviors that could lead to crazy crimes and spontaneous murders.
One rhetorical strategy that is not really super noticeable but helps with him getting his point across, is repetition. Throughout Dows whole speech he would repeat the same concepts and solutions to make his argument more convince able . One thing he noticed he would say over and over is that we have to go back to when they were a child. What were they like? What background and family did they come from? I think he did this to stress the significance that we consider the past which all led up to them doing horrible, cruel things.
The thing that stuck out to me was how all of these murders can actually all be prevented! Like who would think that we could stop all of these terrible things from happening and actually help the world become a better place.
Sincerely,
Maile Tuttle. Period 3
Dear Maile,
DeleteThat stuck out to me as well ! I didn't know Death Penalties can be avoided ! Like who knew right ?
Sincerely,
Precious Pd. 2
Dear maile,
DeleteI agree that he uses repetition to get his point across.I noticed in his speeches and such he repeats the same concepts and solutions to problems.
sincerely,
Alexis Vicente
pd.2
Dear Ms. Carlson
ReplyDeleteThe common ground that David Dow established was that everyone can agree that a murder of an innocent human is bad or wrong. He then uses this common ground to show how the death penalty can be prevented. He uses the rhetorical strategy ethos to show how society can help prevent the murderers from ever murdering. If society was to help do the right thing for kids who grew up in broken homes, such as Dows client, they could help put them on the right path at an earlier age to prevent them from ever walking down death lane. Dow points out, which was shocking for me to discover, that if people where to spend 15,000 dollars on help for children growing up in disfunctional homes to be properly taken care of it would later save 80,000 dollars in the court system. Dow brings to surface the lack of help for children at an earlier age while also giving solutions to the problem to help prevent innocent murder in the first place.
Sincerely,
Abi Rae Stine. period 2
Dear Abi,
DeleteYou brought up a good point in commenting on how much money the court would save. This makes it a win win for both sides.
Sincerely,
Sariah Beeby pd.1
Dear Abi,
DeleteYou made some very great points on the money saving, like Sariah said before me, good job on your research of the money.
Sincerely,
Shianne Schorr
period 2
Dear Abi,
DeleteI couldnt agree more with the statistic that you pointed out. I feel that spending a mere $15,000 to help children in abusive homes, will not only save money for the courts later on, but will also be able to better a childs life, and give them opportunities they could have never had before.
Respectfully,
Brooke Spencer, Pd.1
Dear Ms. Carlson,
ReplyDeleteThe video from David Row the death penalty both sides- can agree that the death penalty is a bad thing even though they are getting punished it doesn’t mean we have the right to murder a human being. Something that stuck out to me was the fact of how these people came to commit things that they had done. For example the fact that will’s mother had been taken away from him and he had never known his father and the fact that his brother committed suicide when he was very young. That is very traumatic for a child and someone could steppe in like he had suggested. I believe out of the many rhetorical strategies he used he used flash back because since he is a lawyer for the death penalty he’s talking about his experiences and what he has seen in his line of work.
Sincerely,
Kristen Yam
Dear Mrs. Carlson,
ReplyDeleteThe "common ground" that David R. Dow tries to establish with his audience in the video is that death penalty can be prevented. There were many rhetorical devices Dow used in the video, but the ones that stood out to me most were to inform and flashback. Dow uses flashback when he saw his old client Willie in his son. Willie would have been the same age as his son and he was already living on his own. Dow informs the audience really well on what happens before the murder and how it's handled in court. What amazes me the most is that I had no idea at all that death penalties were preventable.
Respectfully,
Precious Custodio
Period 2
Dear Precious,
DeleteI didn't realize a possible strategy was "flashback" until you mentioned it. There really is an array of strategies being used in this piece. Also, you really expanded in detail the way it supports, flashback. Nice job!
Sincerely,
Jimmelle Parong
Dear Precious,
DeleteAs so does everyone, i also agree that Dow uses a lot of rhetorical devices i uses flashback in the sense of rein-acting the night of the murder.
sincerely,
Alexis Vicente
pd.2
Dear Ms. Carlson,
ReplyDeleteThe "common ground" that the speaker, David Dow, establishes with his audience was that nobody wants to see a homicide. Dow felt that this can be avoided if we do something with those sentenced to death row beforehand.
My favorite rhetorical strategy that Dow incorporated in his speech/presentation was his use of flashback. Especially when he began to talk about talking to his client before he was to be executed. You could feel the sympathy when he spoke. This also brings to my attention on his use of Aristotle's Rhetorical Triangle. It was almost a perfect balance of ethos, pathos, and logos.
Something that really pained me was on how that most of these people on death row were in juvenile justice. This fact makes me be a little more on edge at school because possibly the person sitting next to me in class could potentially be a murderer.
Sincerely,
Kulia Blalock
Period 3
Dear Kulia,
DeleteI also think that Dow did a great job with using the rhetorical strategy of flashback. It helped to enhance what he was saying to make it more understandable and relatable to the listener.
Sincerely,
Cassie Wilson
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDear Kulia,
DeleteI liked your comedic undertone in your last thought. Also, Arisotle's Rhetorical Triangle fits in with the way Dow put into words, like you said "sympathy". I definitely see what you mean and I agree!
Sincerely,
Jimmelle Parong
Dear Ms.Carlson,
ReplyDeleteThe common ground that David Dow establishes is that we can prevent the death penalty from happening. If we prevent the murder from happening in some way then we can avoid the four chapters of the death penalty and saving a few more lives. A rhetorical strategy that Dow has used in his speech was flashback. He used flashback to show his own experience with working with a client that is marked for a death penalty. Dow explained how his client's past wasn't great which may of caused him to kill innocent people. It really shocked me how many people have been sentenced to death. Especially juveniles. Knowing that anyone you cross may be a murderer. But knowing that there may be a way to prevent it makes me want to help prevent future murderers and death penalties.
Sincerely,
Carli Haddock
Period 2
Dear Ms. Carlson,
ReplyDeleteThe common ground that David Dow tries to establish with his audience is that the death penalty can be prevented. The rhetorical strategies that the speaker uses is pathos and cause and effect. The way that Dow uses these strategies throughout his speech is to show that he is not choosing a side or showing the different stances that you can take on this topic but the actual facts and information about death row. With pathos Dow attracts his audience with the story about his client Will and the facts about the different chapters that are involved with the death penalty. He shows that the death penalty, no matter how you feel about it, can be prevented. The way that Dow uses the strategy of cause and effect is by showing all the different chapters not only involved in the death penalty, but preventing it early in life, long before getting to the death penalty at all. While watching this video I learned that in Texas, some months there would be 40 executions and on average there are 2 per month. I am shocked that there could be so many murders that there would need to be this amount of executions.
Sincerely,
Nikki Ramos
Period 1
Dear Ms. Carlson
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the video, I was heartbroken for David's client Will because he was executed for a reason that should've been argued more greatly over. Innocent lives has been taken away by tragic murders, it's bad and its wrong and the person responsible for that murder should be punished, thats a common ground people could agree upon.
David uses many rhetorical strategies, some of which are allusion., David references a historical quote from Dwight D Eisenhower. Also as many have stated is cause and effect. And he uses pathos when told a story about his former client Will.
One of the things that struck a chord within me is David's story of Will, it made me feel very sorry for him I think that his life shouldn't have ended the way it had, it really did pained me.
Respectfully,
Jeric Manzano pd:3
Dear Jeric,
DeleteI too was heartbroken with the story of David's client! It was similar to how I feel towards Perry in the book In Cold Blood that we are currently reading in class. Although you know that these men were killers, you cant help but take pity upon them because their lives were so messed up that crime was nearly imminent! Nice blog response!
Sincerely,
Maluhia Kinimaka
Pd. 1
Dear Jeric,
DeleteI agree with you on David's story of Will because it also made me feel sorry for him. Will had a rough childhood, and it affected him in a way that possibly could've been a reason to why he became a murderer. His life started with violence, and sadly his whole life continued with violence.
Sincerely,
Jenny Anne Paleracio
Dear Ms. Carlson,
ReplyDeleteThe "common ground" David Dow talks about is that everyone could agree on the fact that not having a murder in the first place would be the ideal situation. The rhetorical strategy that he used was to inform, through out the video he provided facts as well as his own opinion supported by the facts. Dow made me realize the bigger picture, taking acts of prevention towards society at a young age will make a big impact decreasing the number of homicide cases. Creating programs to prevent this type of behavior could possibly be a challenge, as well as getting the funding for the programs.
Sincerely,
Sariah Beeby pd. 1
Dear Ms. Carlson,
ReplyDeleteI believe that the common ground Dow established with his audience was that crime, especially one such as murder, is a bad thing, and people that commit such horrible actions such as murder should be punished because there should be justice for the people and for the innocent life that was taken.
The rhetorical strategies that i've noticed was used by Dow was he started off with his personal account/flashback with his son, reminding him of a case with one of his clients, willie. He builds off of this flashback as its setting of his arguement as his son and willie were both kids faced with a problem. His kid trying to solve a math problem while doing homework, and wille, faced with crime due to a bad childhood. Another strategy that was effective to the reader was the process and analysis organization to his arguement, as he viewed the process of execution and death penalties and analyzing it to see that there are other solutions such as resolving the problem before it leads up to that during their troubled childhood, which in most cases is the root of the crimes that they commit. Dow also informs, giving a lot of information, graphs and statistics, and knowledge to help the audience understand the problem better. I also noticed that Dow uses Aristotle's Rhetorical Triangle to strengthen his arguent. He was strong in all areas: ethos, logos, and pathos.
What struck me most was the fact that the root of the problem in majority of cases were that the children experienced a bad childhood, and if they were helped and in willie's case, taken out of the home and its traumatizing atmosphere, and if they were cared for by the government instead if having to fend for themselves, many of death sentencing could be prevented. The fact that in all reality the murderer is actually the victim saddens me, for as not everyone is privileged, and these troubled kids don't know any better because they grew up knowing only violence and hate. For them, they are emotionally and mentally scarred and these kids could easily be someone nearby and u wouldn't even know, and one day they could someday commit an act such as murder worries me. I feel that murder in general is wrong, but so is killing an individual for simply being a victim themselves. Both murders and death penalties could be resolved by helping the troubled children and saving lives, but yet the death penalty is still used, a negative solution used by society, which makes me wonder why is it that a positive opportunity has arose but there are still death penalties and executions being sentenced and murders still being committed as it never really solved the problem. I feel that the murderer, before the murder, was just a victim, and society is all for justice and rescues but the justice is pursued after the crime, instead of before the crime even arises; helping them as kids is a much better solution as for it is a win-win situation in a sense, and it is better to identify the root of a problem and solve it before the problem escalates to severity as in death on any part.
Respectfully,
Jalissa Rapozo-Carveiro
Pd. 3
Dear Jalissa,
DeleteYour response was very well written and thorough! I completely agreed with your views on how striking the subject was concerning troubled children. Who knew that so many would grow up to be very serious crime offenders?? I certainly was shocked to learn that.
Sincerely,
Maluhia Kinimaka
Pd. 1
Dear Ms. Carlson,
ReplyDeleteI believe that the "common ground" in this video would be that we can prevent the death penalty. If we can prevent some of the crimes from happening than we can prevent some lives from ending.
Dow's key rhetorical strategy was flashback. As he goes through the interview he had with his client it allowed us to see the true emotion and how the author felt about the situation. This enabled viewers to create their own ideas and beliefs.
Learning that a lot of these death penalties were sentenced to juveniles kind of surprised me.This goes to show that teens and young adults that have been through some rough things have a chance of causing bigger trouble and eventually death. It scares me that these things could happen at random times, you never know when someone will lose there mind.
Sincerely,
Kaikea Sonoda
Dear Kaikea,
DeleteI never noticed that he was using flashbacks until I read your comment. I definitely agree with you on that!
Sincerely,
Jonathan Paleka
Dear Ms. Carlson,
ReplyDeleteI believe the “common ground” (or the area in which both supporters and opposes of the death penalty would agree upon) the speaker was referring to within his speech was the fact that the murders should never have occurred in the first place. To simplify that even more, the speaker believes that death penalty does not necessarily need to happen. He states that “there are five points of intervention during pre-adulthood in which society could intervene and nudge [the death row inmates] off the path that lead to murder”. By this he means that if money could be invested into mediating troubled children early on, the murders could necessarily be avoided and the solution of death penalty could be solved, satisfying both supporters and opposers, without heinous crime committed.
The speaker uses the rhetorical strategy logos in his informative talk. For example, when he says, “for every 15,000 dollars spent intervening in the lives of disadvantaged kids early on in life, we save 80,000 dollars in crime related costs down the line”. This would only persuade users towards his views when they understand how economically logical this is for America.
Personally, I agree with what the speaker is saying because he makes a well-balanced argument in a way that accommodates everybody. Not only do we save money, but we also save innocent human lives. And in my opinion, that seems like the best solution possible.
Respectfully,
Maluhia S. Kinimaka
Period 1
Dear Malu,
DeleteI agree that Dow has a very good point. His argument makes everyone happy. It helps to save peoples lives and prevent bad things from happening in the first place.
Sincerely,
Cassie Wilson
Dear Malu,
DeleteI like the way you used many quotes from Dow and got evidence to back them up. It is also very hard to disagree with Mr.Dow because his argument makes complete sense.
Sincerely,
Kailer Scopacasa Period 1
Dear Ms. Carlson,
ReplyDeleteIn the compelling TED video, David R. Dow builds "common ground" with the audience as the murder of a person being immoral. Dow stated that whatever you believe, that they can all agree that homicide is wrongdoing. One rhetorical strategy out of a few is, exemplification. Dividing the death penalty into parts of a "story" makes it very comprehensive. He provided solid statistics in the state of Texas showing the executions with a line graph, in example to one shown. The comparisons between Death sentences, Executions, and the Murder rate in the U.S. give a good idea of how the three relate to each other. He gave clear samples of each. What stood out to me in terms of the new knowledge is that by adding in his personal story/stories (with Will) and him being a lawyer; he strongly upholds his disagreement with the death penalty.
Sincerely,
Jimmelle Parong
Period Two
Dear jimmelle,
DeleteI agree with your position that the common ground that dow builds with the audience was that muder is wrong and should not occur or be acceptable under ang circumstance. I believe everyone can agree on that, and he mentions several times what he was establishing as common ground in his argument.
I also agree that he uses exemplification, however I haven't realized that until reading as mentioned in your posting that this was one of the rhetorical strategies he used. I also ike that you gave examples to support your reasoning.
Respectfully,
Jalissa Rapozo-Carveiro
pd.3
Dear Ms. Carlson
ReplyDeleteThe common ground in this video that David Dow uses is, like many of my classmates have said, is that most of these crimes and death row sentences can be prevented. Dow shows us a chart of the life of a juvenile delinquent who becomes a death row inmate, from before the child is born to when he is put into the juvenile delinquent system. He relates to the points on this chart to points in the inmates life when “our society could have intervened in their lives and nudge them off the path they were on...” The rhetorical strategy that he uses in his presentation is to inform us on the whole topic of death sentences. Throughout his whole presentation he’s showing us charts and graphs and statistics. He’s throwing at us information and details of death row inmates. Something that struck me was that 80% of all the death row inmates are juvenile delinquents before they become murderers. That’s a lot of kids!!
Sincerely,
Jonathan Paleka
Dear Jonathan,
DeleteI definitely agree with you that the common ground is that these crimes and death penalties can be prevented and that he shows a lot of info and details with charts, graphs and statistics. I liked that you quoted from the video to support your statements.
Sincerely,
Nikki Ramos
Period 1
Dear Ms. Carlson,
ReplyDeleteThe "common ground" David Dow establishes is that the death penalty can be prevented by taking action before the actual crime is committed. This plays on the viewers desire for peace, a characteristic among most people, rather than their actual opinion on the death penalty. The most prominent rhetorical strategy that stuck out for me was his concept of "chapters". He chronologically lists common events for a person in death row. Initially, his "story" starts with four chapters. He says that people that got help in the first chapter were better off than those who got help later. When he introduces the concept of even earlier chapters, he states that helping then from the very start would be even more beneficial. This helps to drive his purpose of persuading people to handle the situation early at the very roots of things and prevent the crime from ever being committed. Personally, I felt that his solution made a lot of sense. it would seem like a no-brainer that no crime is better than having to deal with crime. Unfortunately, things are rarely ever as simple as an idea. There are many obstacles with his solution, and I feel like the actual execution of his plan would not go very smoothly. I still feel that the concept is good and if put into practice would be fine tuned to be excellent.
Sincerely,
Don Maddock Pd. 1
Dear Don,
DeleteI also found it interesting how he used chapters to explain the events of a death row inmate, like it's standard procedure. I think that these people should get help ASAP before the crime is even committed.
Sincerely,
Kailer Scopacasa Period 1
Dear Don,
DeleteI found your response very relatable and your views similar. The breakdown into chapters was very useful and interesting in the sense of perspective.
Sincerely,
Peter Sizelove Pd 1
Dear Ms. Carlson,
ReplyDeleteThe common ground Professor Dow creates with his audience is in the belief that the execution of murderers can and should be stopped before the murder happens. Throughout his speech, Dow touches on the ethics not of the death penalty, but why executions haven't been stopped before the initial murder occurs, the logical reasoning behind why intervention is best, and the emotional account of his client, Will, who was executed after murdering someone. I believe that, as Benjamin Franklin so eloquently put it, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,” in the sense that there would be less harrowing tales of those like Will, executed early for their wrongdoings, if there was some form of prevention happening at an earlier point in time.
Sincerely, Aidan Moore, period three
Dear Aidan,
DeleteGreat quoting and opinions relating to the issue and assignment, you made a good point.
Sincerely,
Shianne Schorr
Dear Ms. Carlson,
ReplyDeleteDow, in his talk, first tries to find "common ground" to make sure that all audiences will listen to what he has to say. The "common ground" is that no matter what, the murder of a person is wrong and immoral. It is also said that the wrongdoing of the criminals in the death row are preventable, which ultimently would solve the issue and controverys of the death penalty.
Dow uses many rhetorical strategies throughout his talk. Some of the more outstanding strategies he uses are pathos, flashback, and exemplification. All of these strategies are well used and help to improve his talk. One thing that struck me in Dow's talk is how most of the criminals in death row have a history of bad behavior steming from a bad childhood. It's interesting to see how things that happen during the growing stages of life can have such a big impact on who the person grows up to be. It's a little scarey actually.
Sincerely,
Cassie Wilson
Dear Cassie,
DeleteI also find it interesting that those in death row, did have a troubled childhood. I feel that if we can prevent children from abusive homes, and a bad chilhood, we can possibly lower the rates of homicide in the future.
Respectfully,
Brooke Spencer, Pd. 1
Dear Ms. Carlson,
ReplyDeleteI think that the speaker finds common ground to reach his listeners in a way so that they will agree that people should't be murdered whatsoever. The speaker uses rhetorical strategies and logical arguments to explain his point of preventing murders. The speaker takes his problem and makes it a "larger issue" instead of breaking it up and making it smaller like he explained and quoted. For example he explained the money that would be saved if the issue is taken care of early versus the money most likely spent in the future along with many less lives. Another large example the speaker used through common ground was the emotional effect he gave his listeners when telling the story of the young boy who was executed. The speaker looked at his issue and found ways to reach and fund the possible solution to the issue so that there are more lives around and murders being avoided for the future by reaching the people at their sources and earlier times in their lives.
Sincerely,
Shianne Schorr
Dear Shianne,
DeleteAlthough, in my opinion, the Rhetorical strategies used by Dow weren't clearly stated in your posting, I liked the examples you included from his arguement.
Respectfully,
Jalissa Rapozo-Carveiro
pd.3
Dear Shianne
DeleteI agree with you that Mr. Dow was using a argumentative tone, I mostly think that it was hidden under the fact he was trying inform the audience to cover over being argumentative, so he wouldn't fight with people's opinions.
Sincerely, Cody Palmer pd 2
Dear Ms. Carlson,
ReplyDeleteI thought this video was quite interesting, as it made me take a step back, and view the death penalty in a way different then I had been.
In the video Mr. Dow has a clever way of finding a common ground with his audience. He continuously delivers facts. For example, Mr. Dow mentions various statistics and goes on to speak of the four chapters of the death penalty. Then as the audience is on the path of agreeing with Mr. Dow’s indisputable facts, they follow on to meet him at a common ground: that if possible, the prevention of murders would be splendid.
Throughout Mr. Dow’s speaking, he uses many rhetorical strategies. Besides his well executed use of Aristotle's Rhetorical Triangle, Mr. Dow uses cause and effect. He first speaks of the effect, the death penalty, then goes back to list the causes that have led up to the effect. Also, to support this, he draws attention to a flashback of one of his prior clients, whom displayed the very characteristics Mr. Dow described in the cause and effect relationship. These strategies make for a strong piece.
Mr. Dow’s piece as a whole led to many questions arising about the society in which I live. The way Mr. Dow focused upon how 80% of murderers grew up in unstable dangerous homes, led me to having an epiphany. I realized that many have yet to make the correlation between those who have been exposed to inhumane behavior as children and their actions later in life. For I have always assumed that humans were all born to be good human beings, and those who committed such inhumane actions, such as murder, must have been brought up around such behavior. So the fact that Mr. Dow had to spend so much time emphasizing this point causes me to think of society differently. Does society not believe that each child is born “good”, and that the environment in which they are brought up in will guide them along the path they shall take as adults, and therefore it is not entirely the child’s fault, but society’s?
Respectfully,
Shania Weiss, Period 3
Dear Ms.Carlson,
ReplyDeleteDow explains to the audience at the beginning of his speech that will find common ground for everyone to agree on as he says his speech. This "common ground" is essentially the basis for his speech because he isn't taking sides at all, he's talking about something that everyone wants and can agree upon. Instead of talking about whether executions are right or wrong, Dow goes back in time before these people are sentenced. Dow wants to stop the murders before they happen by helping children stay out of trouble in their earlier years. Everyone can agree that they want less murders and that they want children to grow up to be outstanding members of society.
Dow uses great rhetorical strategies in his speech. One of the rhetorical strategies he uses include a flashback. Dow uses the rhetorical strategy of a flashback to tell the audience the story about the last time he spoke to Will. Dow uses this flashback to further inform the audience that Will can never forget his past and he also uses it to end the speech because it is such a strong closer.
What surprised me the most, or should I say shocked me the most, was the fact that Will remembered the incident with his mother so well. I guess I could say it didn't surprise me too much that he remembered that so well, it's just that I think it's very sad that he went through his life remembering that incident up until the day he was executed.
Sincerely,
Kailer Scopacasa Period 1
Dear Kailer,
DeleteYour response was well thought out and structurally pleasing. You stated in your 3rd paragraph about how Will remembered it so well. I would agree with you that is rather surprising how he answered Dow's question but at the same time a memory such as that is sometimes repressed to prevent emotional/psychological damage. One might say bury the hatchet if it's going to interfere with moving forward.
Sincerely,
Peter Sizelove
Dear Ms.Carlson,
ReplyDeleteFrom reading the passage it seems that Dow, being a lawyer working with death row inmates, uses his insight to establish a very "outside looking in" feel by using past interactions with convicts but staying at a none controvesial level to establish a "common ground" with the audience. He uses it seemlessly by spoon feeding the listener a dose of information that would otherwise would be shunned or not fully understood if that common ground was not established.
Dow goes on to discuss not only the death sentences themselves but he discusses something a bit more closer to home: prevention. He goes on conveying his personal story of Will and stragetically inserts this emotion into the listener; preparing the listener for the long haul leading up to his conclusion.
Dow in all terms is fantastic speaker. He established common ground, he spoke on no bias throughout his lecture but as he began to conclude he spoke of what WE can do. Dow said that there are many chances to nudge the troubled youth off their paths to prevent crimes but that what is one of the biggest hold backs is money. It is true that economically speaking America is not at the tippy top of the food chain but the US should have the time and will to invest in not only a safer future but a stronger America. If not morally, then economically we should help these young trouble people because overall the less money we spend on prevention, the more money we spend on the aftermath.
Sincerely,
Peter Sizelove Pd 1
Dear Ms. Carlson,
ReplyDeleteI feel that the common ground that Professor Dow tries to establish with the audience is that the crime of murder is immoral and could have easily been prevented from the very beginning, therefore bypassing the controversial issue of the death penalty all together.
Some rhetorical startegies that Dow uses are flashback, which helped to give readers background information, as well as cause/effect which helped to give reason as to why the murders had been committed.
I was in much agreement with Dow over taking action now as youth, I feel that if we act now, we can make a difference and prevent crimes, such as murder, from happening in the future.
Sincerely,
Brooke Spencer, Pd.1
Dear Brooke,
DeleteI agree with you that Dow uses flashback as one of his rhetorical strategies. I believe that he uses this strategy to make a connection with his audience as well as the reasons that you have stated. I liked that you added that we can help prevent these things now so that they do not happen in the future.
Sincerely,
Nikki Ramos
Period 1
Dear Ms. Carlson,
ReplyDeleteI feel that the common ground that David Dow establishes with his audience is every child deserves a fair chance in life and the economic benefits of early childhood intervention. Dow begins his lecture by stating to his audience that he has been a death penalty lawyer for the past twenty years. The rhetorical strategies used are persuasion or argument, Aristotle's Rhetorical triangle, as well as exemplification. He compared it to a man named Will's personal story and case in order to better explain to the audience what he was arguing about, and what he was trying to get across to his audience.
Respectfully,
Kayla Tokuda Period 2
shfhfoafodsf
ReplyDeleteDear Ms. Carlson,
ReplyDeleteDavid Dow's common ground was to inform his audience about his own opinion on the Death Penalty. Dow is trying to make his audience understand that people should consider and think about the life of a murderer, before that person was a murderer and try to tie it into why they are the person that does horrible things like murdering.
A rhetorical strategy David uses is to inform his audience. Throughout his talk, he informs the audience with a lot of facts. For example, Dow discusses the stages of Death Penalty, and also includes graphs about Execution and Death Penalty rates in Texas.
What really struck something in me was when Dow talked about his patients, and it really stuck to me how he was so caring and willing to defend murderers and trying to prevent execution.
SIncerely,
Jenny Paleracio Period 2
Dear Jenny Anne
DeleteAlthough I do agree with you that Mr. Dow was strongly trying to inform the audience, I believe he was also trying to be argumentative but it was shadowed as a hidden message to the audience as a way for them to agree with him without their opinions in the way, hence finding a "common ground".
Sincerely, Cody Palmer pd. 2
Dear Ms.carlson,
ReplyDeleteI believe that the common ground that Professor Dow tries to establish in his speech was to tell the audience how all of these crimes,and death penalty can be prevented. The rhetorical strategy in his speech that I felt he used was flashback, for example, in the beginning of his speech he was explaining when he looked at his son it made him think of his old client willie that was the same age as his son , by using flashback it gave the readers a whole lot of information. After watching Dows speech I gained so much respect for him ! It made me really think that there's hope to prevent all these wrong doings in the world and to help the children in need.
Sincerely,
Kanani Colburn
Period 3
Dear Ms. Carlson
ReplyDeleteIn this video Mr.Dow seems to be using informative with a first glance but when one looks deeper one can see that its actually arguementative, as he is trying argue for a change in focus from what he calls the '4 and 3 Step' to the beginning where all can be prevented.
Mr.Dows story about a boy named wille and his life really tugged on my heart strings as it breaks my heart thinking how the only reason he was put to the wire was because of his enviorment and lack of consel. This brings me to my next point in which Dow's common ground with the death penalty is how we ALL want to prevent deaths and new members going into death row, and he explains by preventing a downhill course early when the possible inmates are a youth.
Respectfully,
Shiloh Begley
Dear Shiloh,
DeleteI find it interesting that you brought up being affected emotionally. Thank you for your response.
Respectfully,
Kekai Gonsalves
Dear Ms. Carlson
ReplyDeleteIn the video David R. Dow provides audiences with a new way at looking at the death penalty in our country and to avoid arguments and disputes with people's opinions by finding a "common ground" that a general audience can agree and relate to. This "common ground" is that lawyers who intervene with a death penalty case earlier has a better chance to save their clients life, this he says is an example or uses it to prove that we should intervene even further and "nudge" or save children from an abusive or dangerous environment because in theory this would prevent the children to grow up into murderers. Using flashbacks and hiding his argumentative tone with one that tries to inform the audience, he makes the audience want to agree with him or to make them think they aren't agreeing with anything new or controversial by finding his "common ground". Although I personally think that his theory is flawed by the fact of having the state "nudge" children at a younger age and taking away their liberty by stepping in too far to try and force a better path upon these already troubled kids. Not a bad idea but it may be slightly unrealistic.
Sincerely, Cody Palmer pd 2
DeleteDear Cody,
DeleteYour opinions are very strongly stated, thank you for taking the time to elaborate on the ideas and form your thoughts. It's helpful to hear many different views.
Respectfully,
Kekai Gonsalves
Dear Ms. Carlson,
ReplyDeleteThe reference to the speaker’s argument and “common ground” used in this speech is the ideal that murder should not even occur. Murder leads to talk of much penalty, including the controversial, ever-discussed issue of the death penalty. Supporters and opposers to the speaker’s words must agree that murders should not be committed or executed in the first place. Both sides can also agree that actions can be taken in order to help troubled people that could possibly get involved in awful and dreadful crimes.
The speaker is very keen to attack the audience’s logic. When he spoke of the possible help that can be given to troubled Americans that could likely commit crimes he says, ““for every 15,000 dollars spent intervening in the lives of disadvantaged kids early on in life, we save 80,000 dollars in crime related costs down the line”. Any citizen would view and read these words and logically connect pre-assistance to saving money in the long term.
The speaker provides a balanced argument to please everyone that may hear his words. His content was very clear as well- save money but most importantly save lives.
Respectfully,
Kekai Gonsalves
Dear Ms. Carlson,
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the “common ground” that David Dow, was trying to establish with his audience is that death penalty is unnecessary and can be avoided.
The most two prevalent rhetorical strategies that Dow uses are passion(pathos) and cause and effect. When the speaker explained the tough background of this client Will, it provided a clear example that helps the audience visualize Will as a person, not just a stereotypical criminal. Cause and effect is used when Dow shares Will’s cause, his hard childhood and how it influenced him to grow up in such a way that would most likely end up with doomed future, and the effect being him sentenced to the death penalty for murder.
something that “struck a chord” with me was that Dow made a connection that majority of the murderers put on death row have been brought up in harsh environments. If you really think about it, most of the people growing up in unstable places usually end up with a hard life.
Respectfully,
Podma Phillips
Pd:3
Dear Ms. Carlson,
ReplyDeleteThe "common ground" that David Dow, is trying to establish to the audience is the fact that the "death penalty" can be easily avoided.
One rhetorical strategy Dow uses, is the use of argument. He uses this strategy by showing us the view of the delinquents. The fact that they were willing to do a life sentence without any visitors, than facing the death penalty.The town of Alaska was not in favor for their deal, it shows how harsh it must feel for them to face the fact they have a minimum amount of time to live. Yet it is what they deserve, for they did the crime they can do the time.
I didn't really realize how the criminals felt about the "death penalty," and now that i do i think that they death penalty should not exist. I agree that they should be punished for whatever they have done, but they should live a life in prison than be put out in there misery.
Respectfully,
Alexis Vicente
Pd.2
Dear Alexis,
DeleteI am very glad on how you pointed out on the fact that we should just ban the whole death penalty thing. Because for me I connected with that piece of information as well. I feel that death should not be put on anyone that doesn't deserve or even people that do. I realized that yes they did the wrong doing but they shouldn't lose there life they should just stay in prison.
Sincerely, Kelieann Nuesca Pd. 1
Dear Ms. Carlson,
ReplyDeleteDavid Dow is such an inspirational speaker. The reason why I say this is because he doest only go into grave detail about the deaths of either well deserved punishment, but also the non deserved. The common ground that I feel Dow was trying to point out was that there has been great devastating cases regarding deaths happening in Texas. The reason for this is because of the fact that they as in the lawyers, as well as the federal government only focus on the 4 chapters that actually lead up to the "death row," or execution. 1.) Murder, Trail, Sentence, Appeal. 2.) State Habeas. 3.) Federal Habeas. 4.) Clemency, Commutation, Return to the court, then finally EXECUTION. The lawyers back then only wanted to help out certain cases that were already into stage 4 because it was the closest to the death sentence and there really isn't much to do. The rhetorical strategy that I feel best fits in to the video as well as the topic would be to inform. I feel best fits because Dow did go in to detail to explain further about his topic. For example he stated that people now still support the death penalties, he feels that it could well be all "rocket science." What that means is even though the problem is difficult the only way to resolve it is to make the problem bigger! So as Dow was analyzing he noticed that the death rates went from 60% - 80% which was a good change. The most interesting thing that stuck out to me while viewing this video was that even though teenagers, or children go to prison they still have that ability an opportunity to go to school and et a proper education. Even though it wasn't as fast as regular public schools at least thy were still having a decent education for dysfunctional juvinials who did wrong, right?!?
Aloha, Kelieann Nuesca, Period : 1
Dear Ms. Carlson,
ReplyDeleteIn David R. Dow's TED talk "Lessons From Death Row", he attempts to reach a "common ground" with his audience. His goal is to appeal to both supporters and non-supporters of the death penalty by providing them with an idea that they can agree upon. Instead, of asking the audience to focus on the crime the offender committed and it's aftermath, Dow asks his audience to consider the leading events in the criminals history that could've resulted in the crime in the first place. An example of such leading events include being physically abused as a child or having to fend for themselves to survive on their own at a young age. Dow attempts to put a entirely different perspective on the death row. He calls this the "corner".
Dow uses a series of rhetorical strategies in his appeal to the audience. One particular strategy that I believe strengthened his speech was the use of an allusion. Authors often use allusions to better their audience's understanding of their topic or point, and that's exactly what Dow did when did when he referred to a quote by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. other strategies he used that also strengthened his speech was the use of a cause and effect format, pathos, and the use of strong background information.
I agree with Dow that early intervention in a criminals life can help prevent potential crimes from happening and the need for death row. The part of Dow's speech that struck me the most was his recollection of his client Will. When Dow informed us that Will and his schizophrenic mother were abandoned by his father before his birth, the fact that his mother then tried to kill him with a butcher knife and he was then placed under the custody of his elder brother who eventually committed suicide by way shooting himself in the heart, resulting in his affiliation with a dangerous gang. His life just seemed like a very unpleasant series of unfortunate events. This evoked a pretty severe emotional response in me and I even felt myself sympathizing over a man who had committed murder, had killed innocent people. My personal reaction surprised me pretty thoroughly.
Respectfully,
Madisson Hinkel
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDear Ms.Carlson,
ReplyDeleteAs a person who values art, this video was very interesting because of its discussion about viewer interpretation. As the group discussed the hidden meaning of the painting which was later revealed to be of David an Goliath, an audience member brought up the soft expression of David as he held the head of Goliath, and another pointed out the illusion of heaviness that David had as he held the head. The death penalty, in my opinion, is a brutal and outdated punishment system. Just as David held the heavy head of Goliath, the inmates facing the death penalty hold the heavy guilt of their crimes. They are not given the opportunity to heal themselves and grow to be better people because they are put to death. I don't feel it is justice to be sentenced to die by a small group of randomly selected people known as the jury. A persons life is something too valuable to be voted around and put on trial. It also seemed ironic that David's expression mirrored that of Dick and Perry in the final scenes of Capote.
Respectfully
Amanda Althouse
Period 2
Dear Ms.Carlson,
ReplyDeleteAs I listened and comprehended the video "the death penalty", i came to the conclusion that the common ground that the speaker tries to establish with his audience is, that we should try to help the young in the juvenile while we still can, before they become murderers. 80% of people on death row where once in juvenile.
Rhetorical strategies that the speaker uses are his example of a story that has four chapters. Murder, state, federal, and execution.
Something that caught my attention in terms of a knew knowledge with the speakers thesis is that in the years of 1980-2010, the number of annual executions has remained high, but the number of death sentences has gone down.
Respectfully
Lianna Patey
Period 2