Analyzing Two Newspaper Pieces Using Rhetoric

According to Aristotle, there are three main forms of rhetoric: pathos, logos, and ethos. In her article, “Adult Crime, Adult Time,” Linda J. Collier argued against the leniency of the current juvenile system. She used logos, pathos and her ethos to persuade her readers on the needs to change the current lenience juvenile system to punitive juvenile system. On the other hand, The New York Times’ editor argued for a more lenient juvenile system. He used logos, pathos and his ethos to convey to his readers the harshness of the current juvenile system. Linda J. Collier’s ethos, alongside her use of logos and pathos are better than The New York Times, editor’s ethos and his use of logos and pathos at conveying and persuading her position on the juvenile system to her readers.

In the article, “Adult Crime, Adult Time,” Linda J. Collier makes better use of pathos than the New York Times’ editor in his editorial, “Little Adult Criminals,” to persuade her readers than the editor. Collier’s use of diction evokes her reader’s emotions of horror, anger, pride, and plays on his American value of righteousness. Collier’s introduction of the issue of juveniles committing adult crimes includes the word “slaughter,” which imprints the image of a horrifying scene on the reader (601). She later reinforces these emotions with extreme examples of the types of crimes juveniles commit; “murdering, raping or assaulting someone with a deadly weapon” (Collier 603). While reinforcing a terrifying image, she creates insecurities within the reader. She exploits these insecurities further by stating the lightness of the juveniles’ punishment, a “slap on the hand” (Collier 603). This not only infuriates the readers, but questions their American values of righteousness and fairness. The author wants the readers to ask, “How can anyone commit such a horrible crime and not get the maximum sentence for his crime regardless of age, race, or gender?” She then challenges the readers’ common sense by asking, “What’s to ponder?” (Collier 603). This particular question allows the readers to reflect on their own value and question the fairness of the juvenile court system. After exploiting the readers’ moral and social insecurities, she exploits the parental instinct of the reader from her two choices of juveniles’ slaughter cases, which happened to occur in school. To parents, school is a place where they can send their children without the fear of them getting hurt, but with these two incidents occurring in school, parents are left to wonder; what if that was my child? The combine image of a horrifying image of a slaughter and the image of their children in the same situation dramatically helps persuade the reader that the juvenile court system is not fit to prosecute violent juvenile delinquents. On the other hand, the editor’s use of diction does not extract as much emotion from the reader as Collier does. Although he is able to obtain some sympathy from the readers by referring to the offenders as a “child” rather than an adolescent, teenager, or minor, Collier is able to bring an overwhelming feeling of insecurity to the readers so that sympathy plays little to no role in deciding the fate of the offenders.

With her use of logos, Collier once again shows a more efficient skill than that of the editor in persuading her readers that the current juvenile system is not fit to prosecute the new wave of violent juvenile delinquents. Collier supports her statements and opinions with relevant information from credible sources. Through the use of government statistical data of crimes committed by juveniles, Collier is able to state that “crimes committed by juveniles have increased by 60 percent since 1984,” reinforcing her position that there is a need to use an adult court system to try juveniles (602). Some of these crimes are violent crimes such as rape, murder, and assault. She shows the frightening statistics that “Since 1965, the number of 12-year-olds arrested for violent crimes has doubled and the number of 13- and 14-year-olds has tripled” (Collier 602). Collier uses many different government statistic and state and federal laws to reinforce her position in the article. These undeniable facts and statistical data from government agencies increase her credibility with her readers. It allows the readers to refer back to the original data if they decide to do so.  In contrast, The New York Times’ editor’s lack of citation for medical research he mentions in the editorial, which claims that teenagers do not “understand the consequences of their actions” because their brain did not fully developed yet (“Little Adult Criminals” 594), weakened his ethos.  Without any citation, the readers are left wondering where the editor obtains his information.  Not only does the editor forget to cite his source, he uses a politician, who lacks M.D. or Ph.D., to analyze the psyche of an adolescent. His logical reasoning and argument can be easily brought to question by the readers, which dissuade the reader of the editor’s position rather than persuade them. Due to his lack of citation for supporting details, as well as specific research data, the editor demonstrates a weak use of logos.  

Furthermore, Collier clearly demonstrates a higher level of ethos than that of the editor when it comes to persuading the readers of a certain position on a particular topic. Her knowledge of federal and state laws as well as statistical evidence from the U.S. Department of Justice further strengthen her argument, which demonstrates her level of ethos. Not only does she show a high level of understanding of the subject at matter, she also shows good-will to her reader as she describe her unbiased position on juveniles. She also has an understanding of the situation juveniles have to go through, which further supports her ethos. In addition, her experiences as a representative of “children as a court-appointed guardian ad litem” increases her credibility with the readers (Collier 602). To show the flaws in the juvenile court system and institutions, she offers an explanation of how a juvenile system operates in comparison to an adult correctional institution. In addition, she offers good will suggestions to improve the juvenile system. However, the editor has a weak ethos as he forgets to cite his sources as well as his lack of research and understanding of the subject matter in comparison to Collier. Furthermore, his use of a politician as a substitute for a respected psychiatrist hurts his credibility with the readers.  Also, his lack of descriptions in accusing prosecutors as wrongly being granted “too much discretion” leaves the readers wondering the discretions he is referring to (“Little Adult Crime” 594). This leads the readers to question the editor’s research and evidence. The editor’s ethos is weak. His lack of evidence, research, and confidence leads the reader to wonder how credible his argument is. Yet Collier, not only shows good will to the reader, but also cites the source of her statistical evidence and has a wide range of knowledge on laws to fortify her position on the juveniles delinquents and juvenile correctional institutional.  

Although both Collier and the editor use Aristotle’s art of rhetoric in their work, Collier clearly shows a higher proficiency in it. She understands the subject matter in detail and has personal experiences to reinforce her argument, which the editor lacks. In addition, she is not afraid to challenge the reader and is confidence in her researches and evidences. Collier’s experiences, insights, and well researched data allows her to fully employ her ethos, enhance her use of pathos and logos in comparison to the editor, whose lack of experiences, insights, and citations weaken his ethos, degrade his use of pathos and logos.

Works Cited:

Collier, Linda J. "Adult Crime, Adult Time." Pattern for a Purpose: A Rhetorical Reader. Fifth    ed. Barbara Fine Clouse. Boston. 2009. 601-604. Print. [Orig. Washington Post Article]

"Little Adult Criminals." Pattern for a Purpose: A Rhetorical Reader. Fifth ed. Barbara Fine         Clouse. Boston. 2009. 593-595. Print. [Orig. New York Time editorial]