In Favor of Capital Punishment

In Favor of Capital Punishment Jacques Barzun

Objectives of Teaching • To comprehend the whole text • To lean and master the vocabulary and expressions • To learn to paraphrase the difficult sentences • To understand the structure of the text • To appreciate the style and rhetoric of the passage.

Aims: • 1)Improving students’ ability to read between lines and understand the text properly; • 2)Cultivating students’ ability to make a creative reading; • 3)Enhancing students’ ability to appreciate the text from different perspectives;

4) Helping students to understand some difficult words and expressions; • 5) Helping students to understanding rhetorical devices; • 6) Encouraging students to voice their own viewpoint fluently and accurately.

Teaching Contents • 1) Background Knowledge About the Author and His Works • 2) Literature Type: Argument • 3) Detailed Study of the Essay • 4) Organization Pattern • 5) Style and Language Features • 6) Special Difficulties • 7) Debate

Time Allocation: • 1) Background knowledge (15 min.) • 2) Detailed study of the text (180 min.) • 3) Structure analysis (15 min.) • 4) Language appreciation (15 min.) • 5) Free talk (30 min)

Background Knowledge • 1) A brief introduction to the author, Jacques Barzun www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jpriestley.htm • 2) Capital punishment & life imprisonment

Argument • Type of literature: a piece of argument http://teachnet-lab.org/santab/jeff/sbargue_index.htm http://homepages.iol.ie/~laoistec/LENGLISH/lpers.html

Pre-class task: • 1)Appreciation of the Movie “ The ShawShank Redemption” • 2)Give a description of the roles and their fate of the prisoners, and voice your opinion on the Capital punishment and imprisonment respectively to decide whether you are for or against Capital punishment. • 3)Prepare a debate on In favor of capital punishment vs. In favor of imprisonment.

Detailed study of In Favor of Capital Punishment

Para.1-2 • Introduction and admitting that many people of much talent and enlightened goodwill are abolitionists.

Transferred epithet • “ The letters, sad and reproachful, offer me the choice of pleading ignorance…” • “ The assemblage of so much talent and enlightened good will behind a single proposal …”

Parallelism • “ I am asked…” • “ I am told…” • “ I am invited…”

Para.3 • The author states that he could be convinced to abolish capital punishment on the condition that:

1)Some fallacies and frivolities in the abolitionist argument are disposed of; • 2)The difficulties should be overcome instead of being ignored; • 3)The safeguards could be found to really meet the difficulties;

Para.4 • The author states that he himself considers the present way of implementing capital punishment is revolting but this cannot be an excuse for the abolitionist to against capital punishment.

Question: Whether capital punishment is justifiable if there is a painless, sudden and dignified death?

Para 5: • The four main arguments advanced against the death penalty are: • 1)punishment for crime is a primitive idea rooted in revenge; • 2)capital punishment does not deter; • 3)judicial error being possible, taking life is an appalling risk; • 4)a civilized state, to deserve its name, must uphold, not violate, the sanctity of human life.

Para 6-7 • Explanation of writer’s agreement on the first pair of propositions.

Para.8-11 • Abolitionists: capital punishment violates the sanctity of human life. • Barzun: capital punishment protects the sanctity of human life.

1)If capital punishment violates the sanctity of human life, how about the war, the perfect means of killing, launched and supported by these abolitionists? • 2)If capital punishment violates the sanctity of human life, how about the bystanders killed by the police who are so excited that he misses the target? • 3)If capital punishment violates the sanctity of human life, how about the sanctity of the victims lives?

Conclusion: The absolute sanctity of human life is, for the abolitionists, a slogan rather than a considered proposition.

Personification • “ No anger, vindictiveness or moral conceit need preside over the removal of such dangers.” • Para 8 Both Barzun and the abolitionists base their arguments on a brief in the sanctity of human life.

Para12 -14 • The fallacies of the abolitionists should be disposed of. Fallacy: The victims of violence are easy to forget

1) Social science: forgetting the victim and paying greater attention to and showing more concern for the criminal who is supposed to be mentally troubled, abnormal or a problem case.

2) Psychiatry and moral liberalism: believe that criminals are sick people who should be cured rather than punished. 3) Modern literature: only interested in people who are mentally and spiritually troubled.

4)The determinism of natural science: strengthens the assumption that all evils in a society have been brought about by the existing conditions and circumstances of that society. • 5) French jurist: It is society alone that should be held responsible for the criminal and his crime

Sarcasm • “ it is too bad.” Cvek alone seems instructive,…”

Determinism: the doctrine that everything, especially one’s choice of action, is determined by a sequence of causes independent of one’s will

The author’s argument: Since so many ordinary people’s lives are deprived by the criminals, where does the sanctity of life begin?

Para15-19 • The frivolities of the abolitionists should be disposed of. • Question: What are the frivolities the abolitionists cling to?

Hypotheses: the criminals’ misdeed is “the fault of society”, • Can criminal be cured?

1)The “scientific” means of cure are more than uncertain. • 2) Imprisonment only increases the killer’s antisocial feelings. • 3)Reformatories and mental hospitals are too full to hold the criminals and these institutions are inclined to release their inmates. • 4)Once be released, they will be killer again.

Conclusion: Society has failed twice to protect the victims when convicted murderers are released to commit violent crimes a second time.

Author’s standpoint uttered in Para.16 is: ________________.

Irrationally taking the life of another ↓ crimes passionnels maniac banker robber ( forgiven) ( sentenced to death)

“ This confused echo of modern literature and modern science defines the choice before us….” • —The psychology of this killer is a confused representation of the influence of modern literature and science. This psychology of the killer describes exactly the choice that lies before us.

Question: What is the choice? • —capital punishment • —abolition of capital punishment • —treating the killer as a sick person who is to be cure.

“ …but also a re-education of the mind, so as to throw into correct perspective the garbled ideas of … of our times.”

—to cure this type of killer one must also change his way of thinking so that he can judge and interpret correctly the ideas of Freud, Nietzsche, Gide and Dostoevski which he distorted or misunderstood. This killer, with a mania for power, and people of his sort got their garbled ideas from the culture and mood of our times.

“ if psychiatry were sure … the shooting start.” Sarcasm “ Failing a second birth …less hypocritical?”

Para. 20: • Our society is far from civilized institutions.

Assumption: Establish a law sentencing to death the people who violate the sanctity of orderly discourse in arriving at justice, … The suggestion of a such a law sounds ludicrous.

Para21-24 • Imprisonment is worse than death.

Exemplification: • 1) Wilde’s Defundis • 2) Charles Burney’s Solitary Confinement • 3) John of Arc • 4) Mr. Leslie Hale, M. P.’s Hanged in Error

Conclusion: Both capital punishment and imprisonment are irrevocable sentence.

Question: • 1)Pick out the words and phrases used to describe how terrible the imprisonment is. • 2)How do you understand of the “ I shall believe in the abolitionist’s present view only after he has emerged from twelve months in a convict cell.

3) Barzun states a “model prisoner (is) first a contradiction in terms, and second, an exemplar of what a free society should not want.” Why?

Para.25-28 • The fault in the present system is not the sentence but the fallible procedure.

Question • 1) What are the specifics of the Dr. Samuel H. Sheppard, Jr. case? Why was he freed? • 2) What reforms in judicial procedures does Barzun suggest?

In Favor of Capital Punishment