Juveniles Don't Deserve Life Sentences

      Its crazy to think that a juvenile as young as 13 or 14 years old could receive a life sentence without parole for committing certain crimes. However, "nationwide 79 young adolescents have been sentenced to die in prison" (NYTimes.org). How could the government allow for these kids to be placed in prison for life, even if they did commit a crime. It has been proven that adolescent brains are not as developed as adult brains, meaning that they do not fully understand the consequences of their actions. Therefor, how can we as a county put them away for something that they truly do not understand. It is ruining a life to lock them up forever, and these laws put in place by the government are way too harsh. It is not the law about a life sentence, as that applies to all "adults", but it is the law that lowers the age that a child can be tried as an "adult." By lowering the age, it is opening up the harsh ability to put the youth of America behind bars for life.

      Gail Garinger seems just as outraged as myself. Because of this, her pathos appeal is the strongest in this article. But it is a strange pathos appeal, as it isn't her own emotions that get the reader, but a different technique. "These children were told that they could never change and that no one cared what became of them" (NYTimes.org). Obviously, this idea that they were shut off from the world and that no one cared was meant to target the emotions of the reader. However, there are other appeals in this article as well. Being that it is about government laws, a logos appeal adds another dimension. "Young people are biologically different from adults. Brain imaging studies reveal that the regions of the adolescent brain responsible for controlling thoughts, actions and emotions are not fully developed" (NYTimes.org). This scientific citation shows that adolescents are different than adult, and it does well to prove Garinger's credibility and show that it is more than just an angry rant.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/15/opinion/juveniles-dont-deserve-life-sentences.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Give the Ref a Gavel

Many of you may have heard about "bounties" that take place in the NFL. If you haven't, a bounty is the targeting of a specific player in order to injure them. Sometimes they are known as hitlists, but either way they are still a very talked-about subject. Eldon Ham, the author of this article, discusses his experience with bounties, as he was a lawyer for the Chicago Bears' quarterback Jim McMahon in 1986. McMahon was "slammed to the turf" by a defensive player from the Packers, and injured his soldier. Ham states how he wanted to sue, but in a game of such brutality it was almost impossible. And that is the main complaint. We see football as manly, and because of this we seemingly accept when awful things like this become normal. And Ham argues that legislation must step up in order to make it easier to process issues like this in courts. Obviously, he sees this as a major issue, and yet almost every team still does it. In fact, the New Orleans Saints, praised for being a good-hearted and fun-natured team, have just been discovered to have put out "bounties" on players from the 2009 to 2011 season. Obviously this proves that bounties are more common than many may think.

Ham seems very passionate about this topic. This pathos appeal probably comes from his personal experience being a lawyer for a bountied player. He definitely feels as if these acts are near criminal, as he uses words such as "ruthless" and  "tragically" to show his disappointment in the league and the players involved. He also shows his feelings about legislation and his own opinions when he says that "this criminal conspiracy should be punished beyond the N.F.L fines and suspensions that loom." Clearly, Ham feels that the government isn't doing enough to make processing these attacks easy, and being a lawyer he uses this to his advantage to try to push his issue. In the end, it seems as if this is a persuasive article, as instead of complaining, he actually poses a solution, which in turn gives him more credibility as a writer instead of a complainer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/opinion/prosecute-excess-violence-in-sports.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss