After educated analysis, the editorial, A Death Penalty Advocate’s Sad Argument, represents Dale Cox’s argument. Dale Cox is an acting district attorney for Caddo Parish, La. “Caddo Parish won more death sentences per capita than anywhere else in the country” (The Editorial Board). This means Dale is already in a punishable environment. Cox begins his claim by mentioning, “The purpose of the death penalty is not to deter crime, but to exact revenge” (The Editorial Board). He later denies, “… that the death penalty is racist or arbitrary.” This is an effective approach because it points towards judgement being not of selection, but instead, a punishment for the punishable. He then uses a pathological appeal, to connect to the audience: “His concern…show more content… By this, he brings his stance to a common ground that makes readers understand his point and join his side. He seeks for the audience to want revenge (mentioned earlier). Cox is pulling you towards the side of capital punishment, but then he sees this counter argument: “Mr. Cox himself used to be opposed to capital punishment. Raised Catholic and educated in a Jesuit school, he left an earlier job in the district attorney’s office because of his discomfort with such cases” (The Editorial Board). His opposing observation shows how those taught right from wrong, would see the wrong doing within the death penalty, but this then became rebutted. “Over the years he changed his mind, he explained, in reaction to the cases of unspeakable brutality that he was exposed to as a prosecutor. “The nature of the work is so serious that there’d be something wrong if it didn’t change you,”” (The Editorial Board). This statement is admiring the fact that some crimes are so far beyond today’s correcting, that capital punishment shows the individual the wrong doing and also shows the other free