Capital Punishment In George Orwell's A Hanging

Capital Punishment can be thought of as a cruel but necessary action, but to be the one to actually execute the punishment provides a different outlook on this seemingly imperative act. George Orwell utilizes his own experience as an accomplice in Burma to fuel his strive for change. Orwell orchestrates his essay, “A Hanging,” with the intent to evoke a feeling of animosity from readers towards capital punishment. His detached point of view, depicting the animal like treatment the prisoners endure yet never revealing the reason for their captivity, allows readers to focus on the justice of the punishment instead of the abomination of the crime.
In this essay, it’s not who the author is, it’s who the author isn’t. By having a detached point of view, Orwell is able to establish his credibility with his readers while being an effective narrator with his descriptions. Because he is not the criminal on trial, Orwell is automatically granted ethos among his readers and by posing
himself as an objective participant he is able to voice his opinion without much scrutiny. His quote “ I saw the mystery, the unspeakable wrongness, of cutting a life short when it is in full tide” will be taken into consideration among the readers, not automatically cast off as discreditable as any other roles statement could be (Orwell). Because of his detachment, Orwell was able to identify the hypocrisy of his situation when comparing it to his personal views, thus being able to provide credibility for himself and his argument. Orwell never mentions the crime or even selects words that would give the impression of guilt. He does this with the exact purpose to take away any moral judgement and the power it gives the readers. He constructs his narrative in this way to direct his audience towards a path that only argues against taking a life, no matter the crime. Because of his ambiguity, the readers cannot make a pure judgement, skewing their decision as Orwell intended. He knew that if the crime was very serious, such as a mass homicide, the readers would be less inclined to be swayed in the favor of abolition, rather than if it were as small as stealing a piece of bread. As a result of this acknowledgment, Orwell deliberately chooses not to mention the crime because of the natural instinct to make a moral judgment when the circumstances are unknown and as a result creates a more impactful piece upon his audience.
To be likened to an animal has forever been seen as an insult by writer and reader alike.
Orwell plays off of this well known thought and exaggerates it to cause a greater impact upon the readers and influence their pathos, which, as a result, manipulates their judgement. The details of the conditions the people endured are of no consequence to Orwell’s opposition to capital punishment, they aren’t facts that add or detract, but they do help to influence the reader’s reactions. By comparing humans to an animal in a derogatory manner, it causes a feeling of indignation to come about. In phrases such as,“like men handling a fish” or “He was very troublesome” or even something as simple as “like small animal cages”, Orwell deliberately manipulates these emotions knowing the disbelief readers will experience and uses it to fuel his argument against capital punishment. Orwell’s play on human indignation strengthens his pathos and enhances his narrative against what he perceives as the ultimate
crime.
Despite his lack of details, Orwell manages to present to his readers an impactful piece, filled with powerful pathos and embedded ethos. By objectively narrating on the treatment of the prisoners, he is able to draw the reader's attention to the punishment at hand and not the monstrosity of the crime committed and thereby form a compelling argument against the ultimate crime, capital punishment.