Glaser 1

Collin Glaser

Mr. Skenyon

AP English, Period B

31 October 2016

The Penalty of Death

Capital punishment is an extremely polarizing topic of discussion in today’s society. The

majority of people are very one sided in their beliefs. H.L Mencken is challenged with the

impossible task of changing the audience’s belief to pro death penalty in his article The Penalty

of Death. To achieve this H.L. Mencken removes the emotion from the argument, presents a

specious moral defense and turns the oppositions best argument against them.

Mencken removes the emotional connection associated with the death penalty to

manipulate the audience into accepting his argument. The image of a human execution does not

sit well on any sane person’s conscience. By removing the humanity aspect entirely, Mencken

solves this problem: “Their fundamental error consists in assuming that the whole aim of

punishing criminals is to deter other criminals-that we hang or electrocute A simply in order to

so alarm B that he will not kill C.” Mencken’s substitution of a human being with a variable

removes any emotional response the audience might have pertaining to the death penalty. As a

result, Mencken manipulates the reader into perceiving the death penalty as a lighter topic and

negates a key component in the oppositions argument. Mencken’s command of diction allows

him to continue his goal, the disappearance of violence from execution. “Commonly, it is

described as revenge, but revenge is really not the word for it. I borrow a better term from the

late Aristotle: katharsis. Katharsis, so used, means a salubrious discharge of emotions, a healthy
 Glaser 2

letting off steam.” Revenge is commonly associated with violence and anger. To eliminate this

negative imagery, he replaces revenge with katharsis. Mencken’s euphemism presents them as

synonymous. His connection with the Greek philosopher Aristotle establishes a sense of trust

because the audience will not doubt the authority of one of the greatest thinkers of all time.

Entrusted in his argument, Mencken can now lure the reader into his web of specious reasoning.

After shattering the emotional ties to capital punishment, Mencken presents a specious

moral defense of the death penalty. To state that the feeling of katharsis can only be achieved

through capital punishment is extremely radical. Consequently, Mencken is forced to speciously

use the authority of religion to reach the same conclusion: “But when the injury is serious

Christianity is adjourned, and even saints reach for their sidearm. It is plainly asking too much of

human nature to expect it to conquer so natural an impulse.” Mencken argues that in extreme

cases even Saints would support the death penalty. With Christianity supporting the morality,

behind the death penalty Mencken is able to logically present the idea of killing someone to be a

“natural impulse” without startling the reader. Due to the authority of religion, the audience is

assured that conforming to Mencken’s argument will not send them to the depths of hell. The

more trust Mencken develops with the audience the more specious he can be in his moral

defense: “I know of no public demand for the death penalty for ordinary crimes, even for

ordinary homicides. Its infliction would shock all men of normal decency of feeling. But for

crimes involving the deliberate and inexcusable taking of human life…” Mencken plays off his

previously established authority to manipulate the audience into accepting his logic. As a result,

the audience misses the fact that “homicide” and “the deliberate and inexcusable taking of

human life” are synonymous. Mencken is able to convey his moral defense with no true logic
 Glaser 3

because his specious reasoning is enough to justify the death penalty in the minds of the

audience.

Following his specious moral defense of capital punishment, Mencken attacks the

opposition with their best argument. The opposition’s main argument against the death penalty is

that it is immoral and inhumane. Mencken is able to turn this argument around and claim that to

make a criminal wait for death is immoral: “But it is one thing to die and quite another thing to

lie for long months and even years under the shadow of death. No sane man would choose such a

finish.” Contrary to his earlier approach, Mencken includes a sense of humanity in his argument.

He conveys how immoral waiting “under the shadow of death” truly is by implying that it is

worse than death. Mencken sets this up so that if the audience does not agree with this statement

then they are not “sane.” With the oppositions best argument now questionable, Mencken takes

the opportunity to attack the opposition itself: “Why should he wait at all? Why not hang him the

day after the last court dissipates his last hope? Why torture him as not even cannibals would

torture their victims?” Mencken implies that those who make criminals wait for their death are

worse than “cannibals.” Mencken leads the audience to reach the conclusion that the opposition

is immoral. With this idea implanted into the audience’s mind, Mencken can tear down the fabric

holding together the anti-death penalty argument. Now that Mencken has discredited the

opposition’s argument, he feels confident that he has persuaded the reader into believing that the

death penalty is justified.