H.L. Mencken, in his 1926 historical piece addressed to the American people, “The Penalty of Death,” satirizes the use of the death penalty as an effective means of punishment. Mencken develops his position by writing from a perspective of a patriotic American and refutes the two most common claims against capital punishment and then proposes a solution with his basis for support being the “gratifying relief” felt by the community and victims. Mencken’s purpose is twofold: he uses his refutations and arguments to point out the flaws in the argument for pro-death people and to cause the audience to sympathize with the prisoner when he describes the pitiful state that they are left in. To do this, H.L Mencken uses humor, exaggeration, and understatements to satirize the Americans who support the death penalty and he uses the euphemism “katharsis” to amplify the mocking tone.
I agree with Mencken’s stance that the death penalty is false because of his compelling reasons for disagreeing: the fact that “katharsis” is simply a replacement for revenge and the purpose of the punishment is only to bring pleasure to…show more content… Vowell develops her position by first introducing the story of the actual minutemen in the Revolutionary war, continuing by drawing a contrast between their purposes and actions and the minutemen of today, and then finally concluding by bringing in the idea of the minutemen band. Vowell’s purpose is twofold: to provide a sharp contrast between the noble actions of the revolutionary minutemen and the minutemen of today, thereby ridiculing their actions and purpose for existence and to make obvious the foolishness and futility of the minutemen. To do this, Vowell uses historical examples to logically compare the intentions of the past versus today and mocks the present day minutemen comparing them to children “playing
