rhetorical analysis

In Jon’a F. Meyer’s article, Retributive Justice, he gives a lot of insight the retributive purpose of punishment. He makes a great attempt at informing his reader about his topic, he uses a lot of solid evidence to explain what retribution is about in the justice system. He takes the reader through a step by step look at its evolution and effects on punishment. Meyer’s main claim is that retribution style punishment focuses on how people should be punished based on what crimes they commit, and how that is the best form of punishment. Meyer supports his claim by using a lot of logos and ethos throughout the article.

The second paragraph starts with retribution being used in ancient time. Such as, “Retribution appears alongside restorative principles in law codes from the ancient Near East, including the Code of Ur-Nammu, the Laws of Eshnunna, and the better-known Babylonian Code of Hammurabi.” Here, he articulates specific moments in history in which retribution was practiced. His main purpose for it being good in this part of the article is that it has been around since the beginning of punishment itself. Meyer’s even quotes the bible, stating that retribution punishment practices ‘an eye for an eye” rationality.

Right in the third paragraph Meyer’s show his first sign of ethos. He uses the terms actus reus and mens rea, which mean guilty act and guilty mind, to show his knowledge of the criminal justice system. He says, “No other punishment philosophy gives so much importance to actus reus and mens rea.” In using these terms, he shows his credibility not only for the topic at hand but for the criminal justice system as a whole. He proves that he is familiar with both and can speak on it. He goes into how in order to fall under retributive punishment both mens rea and actus reus need to be present. Meyer’s main form of supporting his claim is through logos.

His usage of facts and examples from the beginning up until the end of the article are key factors to him attempting to convey his stance towards retribution. Meyer’s gives a great example when explaining the need for both mens rea and actus reus. He explains, “Those who plan a murder but succeed only in wounding a victim, for example, should not be punished as harshly as those who actually carry out the murder.” This is a perfect example of logos, he is appealing to the logical mind of the reader, why would they receive a serious punishment if the crime ended up not being so serious?

Another instance of him using logos is when he refers to religion using forms of retribution punishment. He mentions how Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden because they violated God’s rules (para. 12) In this same paragraph, he points out how the Qur’an they believed in retribution as well, all that were “disobedient and wicked” would be punished (para.12). This appeals more to logos because they are direct examples from the Bible and the Qur’an, which may not entirely be true but it is a source. With that being said you can tell the author sides with retribution style punishment over the other types of punishments.

In several parts of the article, it is apparent that Meyer is in favor of retribution style of punishment. His verbalism throughout a lot of it illustrates his personal emotions towards the topic. Back in paragraph five, “The value of retribution cannot be cheapened by using it to compensate for inadequacies of the justice system.” This statement really shows how he feels towards the misuse of retribution and how it cannot be blamed on the type of punishment, but rather on how the punishment is be executed. Another great example of this is in the 7^th paragraph, Meyer’s talks about how deterrence form of punishment allows for “pardoning” of guilty acts if it “somehow” is better for the community. The word somehow really shows that he cannot fathom how it would be okay to let any crime slide, even if it is for the greater good. Meyer’s did a great job conveying his ideas towards retribution and had great evidence to support his claim.

In summation, Meyer’s was able to successfully write an article on how retribution is the best form of punishment. He did have a small section that argued his claim. “Others note that punishing criminals just because they have acted inappropriately does not address any underlying issues that may have lead them to crime.” (Para. 9) Using valid statements to argue his claim make him sound like he is educated in all aspects related to the topic. Due to this the reader, should still side with him because he truly studied and knows what he is talking about.