Life without parole is more punishing than the death penalty.
Killing McVeigh will not bring back his victims.
2. There is no credible evidence that the death penalty deters crime.
3. Execution gives McVeigh a historic soapbox from which to claim martyrdom. Life without parole would deny him of that.
4. Life without parole would leave hope of finding out the true extent of the bombings conspiracy.
5. If new evidence appeared, McVeigh would be around to confront it.
6. Life without parole would have affirmed the value of life, even the most hateful one. .
Analysis: The premises support the conclusion very well. They point out exactly why this person believes that life without parole is a much harsher punishment than the death penalty. The author points out reasons why supporters of the death penalty oppose this idea but backs his views up and proves why supporters should support it. .
The weak premise is that is new evidence appeared McVeigh would be around to confront it. In reality, the likely hood of that happening is slim to none. Why exactly would you want to confront McVeigh about it? He could have made this premise a little better if he would have just combined with it the fact of possibly finding out the extent of the bombing conspiracy. .
Section 2: Language.
Logical fallacies: I do not believe there were any false statements in this editorial. Things are said in the authors opinion and not as facts. .
Use of language: The author uses language to persuade the reader. He does a very good job of stating the opposing view then proving why he believes it is wrong. He uses questions to bring up points that opposing views do not see. Such as "why should he suffer less than the lifetime to which he has sentenced the surviving victims of his monstrous act?" Using some questions gives people a new outlook on their views and invites them think in a different way. .
Section 3: Opinion.
I agree with the editorial that supports life without parole.