Rhetorical Analysis Of Pope Francis's Speech

Some think that an eye for an eye is an effective means of punishment, but others believe that such means of punishment are not effective in today's society. In the United States, thirty-three states are currently using the death penalty. Kelly Gissendaner is being executed by lethal injection after the Supreme court denies her stay in life in prison for the murder of her husband in February 1997.
The death penalty is a highly controversial topic, one that separates and unites people from all over. People are against the death penalty because they believe it is immoral and it isn’t right to take someone else’s life, which Pope Francis made it clear when he stated, “Every life is sacred” when giving his speech to congress and stating how the
death penalty should be abolished. However, there are people that agree with the death penalty because they believe that those who committed crimes deserve to feel the pain their victims felt. Both sides of the death penalty argument are reasonable, but it falls on each individual to make the decision as to where they stand. Francis Pope and Senator Ted Cruz stand on opposite sides regarding the death penalty. Pope focuses on logis and Cruz on ethos.
Pope Francis mentioned in his speech to congress how he was convinced abolishing the death penalty was the right way since everyone's life is sacred.
Francis also stated, “Every human person is blessed with an absolute dignity, and society can only comfort from the rehabilitation of those convicted of crimes.” The intended audience would be religious people as well as some democrats and republicans because statistics show 57% percent of democrats are against it and only 24% republicans are. Pope Francis uses the rhetorical appeal of logos in his speech.
Francis argument about the death penalty is effective because of his use of logos. The speech is logically laid out and easy to follow, and it’s easier to understand because it is dialogic. Francis used the golden rule by suggesting the audience to treat others as they would want to be treated giving people “responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of growth.” The pope quickly stated he felt that was meant towards those who have been sentenced for
crimes.
Ethos was used in Senator Ted Cruz speech because he has worked in the public eye. After the Pope's speech Cruz told the press he disagrees with the issue and is for the death penalty. While being interviewed Cruz gave his reason why he is for the death penalty. “ I spent a number of years in law enforcement dealing with the worst criminals, child rapist and murders.” Cruz stated; “I believe the death penalty is a recognition of the preciousness of human life, the ultimate punishment should apply.” Cruz shows his ethos by using personal work experience to prove his point and the knowledge he has on these cases, which allows him to obtain this information. Although it is hard to use pathos when discussing why the death penalty is not wrong, Cruz finds a way to make the audience feel people deserve punishment.

Although both Pope Francis and Ted Cruz use the rhetorical appeals in their speeches about the death penalty, Cruz does a better job at using the rhetorical appeals to convince his readers.
When a reader compares the two statements, it is clear that Cruz uses all three of the rhetorical appeals in his speech, however, Francis use of all three rhetorical appeals is a little harder to see. Cruze uses pathos in his article to make the reader sympathize with the victims of these crimes; whereas Francis uses pathos to try and make the reader sympathize with those that commit these crimes. Both Cruz and Francis use pathos successfully, but Pope Francis has an easier time making readers feel sympathy for the
victim.
The final thing that tips the scale and makes Cruz argument more effective is his dialogic approach. Ted Cruz gives the arguments being made by the other side, and then refutes them effortlessly. This allows a reader to know the arguments being made by the other side while learning why these arguments aren’t valid. An audience may dismiss all of Francis claims because he isn’t thinking about the other side of this argument. It is clear that Cruz does a better job using the rhetorical appeals to convince the audience why he believes the death penalty should not be abolished.
The rhetorical appeals are used well in both speeches; however Senator Cruz does a better job using the rhetorical appeals to convince people that the death penalty is necessary for society. Francis uses the rhetorical appeals to make people feel sympathy and pain for those that have been murdered and those affected by murders. All of the rhetorical appeals are used by Cruz in an attempt to make someone notice that society needs the death penalty to function. Although Franic isn’t as successful in using the rhetorical appeals to convince his audience, he does use them well.
Regardless of a reader’s thoughts on the death penalty, both Francis and Cruz leave the reader with a sense that something needs to be done. Both attempt to answer the questions of whether or not an eye for an eye still works in a modern society. Bruck says that an eye for an eye no longer works and it is an outdated way of thinking, but Koch says that an eye for an eye still works in our society and it needs to exist for our society to properly function.