Hit enter after type your search item

“To Kill a Mockingbird” and “A Lesson before Dying ” through logos, pathos, and ethos (appeals to logic, emotion, and credibility).


“To Kill a Mockingbird” and “A Lesson prior to Passing away” through logos, pathos, and values (interest logic, emotion, and credibility).

There is constantly more than one method to set about solving any provided issue. The closing statements of Atticus Finch in To Eliminate a Mockingbird and another attorney in A Lesson before Dying differ in lots of aspects regarding how they go about arguing for the same purpose: the acquittal of their offenders. In the end, Atticus Finch’s argument is, objectively, more convincing. Unlike the other lawyer, Atticus draws on reasoning to support his accused’s position, putting him as an equal of the jury, and asking the jury, above all else, to do their responsibility.

Easily the most striking difference between the two arguments is the place that the orators try to position their accuseds. Atticus, who plans to use reasoning as his weapon, treats his client with regard. He never insults his intelligence, and even indicates that his customer felt pity, a condescending feeling, toward the chief witness: “And so a peaceful, decent, modest Negro who had the unmitigated temerity to ‘feel sorry’ for a white lady has needed to put his word against 2 white individuals’s. On the other hand, the other legal representative, acutely playing on the bias of the jury, explains to them why his client is so beneath them as to be deserving of their pity and mercy. He constantly refers to him as a “fool.” He even dehumanizes him, stating that his customer is “A thing to hold the handle of a plow, a thing to load [the jury’s] bales of cotton, a thing to dig [the jury’s] ditches, to slice [the jury’s] wood, to pull [the jury’s] corn. While Atticus uses this placement as a device to engender the equality in between the jury and the accused that benefits the frank, sincere, and logical usage of the law, the other attorney utilizes it as an argument, “in and of itself”. Possibly the only strength of his argument comes just from the reality that the white juries that command these two trials of black males are easily swayed by bias, for while Atticus’s argument is damaged by prejudice, a psychological phenomenon, the other lawyer’s entire case depends on it.

The specifying distinction in between the two arguments, nevertheless, is the sort of “evidence” that they use. Atticus tells the jury that his customer ought to be acquitted because he has actually provided accurate evidence that proves that he might not have dedicated the crime in concern: the criminal offense was devoted by somebody left-handed, though the accused does not have making use of his left hand. He likewise mentions that “The state has not produced one iota of medical evidence to the impact that the criminal offense [the defendant] is charged with ever occurred. Simply put, he shows that the burden of proof has actually not been fulfilled. On the other hand, the other lawyer’s argument is that the offender is too foolish to have prepared a murder or a burglary. Whereas Atticus relies on the very convincing facts, the other attorney invokes emotion and implores the jury to, “For God’s sake, be merciful.” In a just court house, where the law allegedly reigns supreme, only one of these arguments would stand an opportunity: Atticus’s. Numerous minor resemblances, other than the basic function, exist between these two conclusions.

First, both attorneys deal with the juries with regard. Whether it is as basic as describing the jurors as “gentlemen” or feeding them the idea that they are a lot more “civilized” than the “fools” whose fates they choose, both lawyers realize that angering the jury is a fatal mistake. In addition, both make the connection between the fate of the defendant and the fates of the defendant’s household. Atticus does it briefly when he asks the jury to “… review without passion the evidence [they] have heard, come to a decision, and restore this offender to his household. The other legal representative, though, makes it the 2nd largest part of his argument. He asks the jury to aim to the second row, where the accused’s mother sits, and know that “… [the defendant is] her reason for existence.” Maybe the degree to which this argument is made is essential, nevertheless, given that this emotional appeal is much more heavily relied upon in the other lawyer’s argument, staying within the motif of that entire closing declaration. The persuasiveness of these two arguments can be seen in two various contexts.

In the context of the law, objective and a great equalizer in between all guys, Atticus’s accurate argument greatly surpasses the other attorney’s baseless and helpless appeal for pity. Nevertheless, Atticus’s affirmation that a court is only as great as its jury holds true to the effect that a white jury, while deciding the fate of a black person charged with an act of violence versus a white, might allow their feelings to supersede what they know realistically is best. This suggests that not just is all fact in the eye of the beholder, however that fact itself in various kinds and levels in every consciousness.

This div height required for enabling the sticky sidebar