1) The purpose of the article “In love with the death penalty” is twofold. On the one hand is to inform how bad the penalty death is, and the in other one is to make people change their opinion.
To prove that it was to inform for instance, Bryson brings up in the second paragraph Harris’s case who confessed his guilt freely. “Even so it took….13 years of complex and costly trials…to put Harris to death.” From this we can conclude that he wants to inform us of the level of money and time, it was costly.
In addition to the costs, Bryson also want to infer that this penalty is racist. He used minority data: “Those sentenced to death are almost… male….and disproportionately poor, black and their victims are….white”. It was clear from this that people who undergo this penalty are unlawfully chosen on the grounds of their colour, sex, finances, and the race of their victims. Thus discrimination will have an impact on how justice been applied.
Bryson also had doubts about the death penalty. He mentioned the case of “Dennis William, who spent 17 years on death row… he was saved…thanks to the students school project Williams was released”. Blindness to justice has wasted 17 precious years of William’s life in jail. Due to the benefit of federal funds and the time it used to take until the penalty take place; William’s case had a chance to be studied again. But after curtailment many prisoners did not have this chance “Some 69 people who were convicted… have later been found to be innocent and freed. With federal funds for appeals curtailed, few of those people could expect such a happy outcomes now.”
The other purpose of this article is to make people change their opinions. Bryson issued in his article a wakeup call for people to vote no for this penalty for their benefit; “It is waste of money.” He used statistics to show that this money could be spent on more beneficial sectors. “Think what California could have done with that billion bucks if it had spent…