Recently, the execution of two of the Bali nine has been addressed in the Australian media extensively. The opinion piece by Amy Cordery, titled “ three excuses for Bali nine death penalty – and why they’re all sickeningly wrong” on the 5th of February 2015, in the Sydney Morning Herald., contends that the death penalty for the Bali nine is out of proportion of the crime. Amy Conderoy persuades the reader through presenting a three argument structured article. This article targets mainly politicians and people who are concerned with the execution. Her overall tone is judgmental and incredibly questioning of our values.
Amy expresses her ideas about the execution of Chan and Sukumaran. She begins by suggesting that it has become “fashionable” that the two deserve the death penalty, which imply that people are not thinking about their opinions, however, they are following what others believe is right. The reference to “public who have come out to call for their death” is an exaggeration the writer uses to dramatically reinforce the situation and also to gain attention from the reader. The writer gives a graphical representation of the killing stating “bullets will rip through their flesh, slashing their blood vessels”, suggesting their death is “torture” and “slow”. This evokes a sense of sympathy in readers mind and stir their emotions. The writer’s use of words like “all morality” and “good sense” appeals to justice to persuade the reader to stand agents the executions, where the executions are described as “bloodlust” which is a strong negative association.
The writer expresses her believes about the Indonesian laws through a judgmental tone to accuse the Indonesians. Amy uses quotation marks “right” to imply that the Indonesian law is wrong. This is reinforced by the rhetorical question, “why we would agree with its enforcement that involve the death penalty?” which positions the reader to disagree with the Indonesian law. The writer provides an extreme example of “woman who is sentenced to be stoned to death due to having sex” which is used to give the reader another situation of a penalty that exceeds the crime. This reinforces the fact that all death penalties are out of proportion in the readers mind. This point is further emphasised when the writer uses the word crime in quotation marks suggesting that it’s not a major crime that deserve a death penalty. Amy uses the words “sickened” and “torture” to associate the Indonesian laws negatively in the readers mind. The writer suggests that death penalties are considered to be a major issue in the Indonesian law.
Amy explores into the death penalties through a questioning tone. The writer accuses people who believe that Chan and Sukumaran “were drug dealers, and drugs kill people” by referring to “retrieving back to eye-to-eye punishments in the Babylonian times”, the writers reference to history implies that the death penalty is old fashioned and inconsistent with the life we live in the present time. The writer believes that the death penalty should be introduced to “drunk drivers, or tobacco industry executives” this is an example of hyperbole
