Believing and Doubting Game, 9/2

I think that the amount of sarcasm that Arthur Miller puts into his piece "Get it Right"  does work to his advantage. I think that his use of sarcasm helps the reader to agree with him that executions should be made illegal because who would want to actually see an execution happen? I think that one of his main points is that the reason why many American's don't object to executions is because we aren't actually there witnessing it. Many of us are neither the victims nor do we have any relationship with those directly involved. Given this, it is much easier for us to pretend that it doesn't effect us, because, we aren't being directly effected. When Miller says "people can be executed in places like Shea Stadium before immense paying audiences" he stresses the point, very sarcastically, that no one would want to bring their kids to see someone get executed; rather they'd want to bring their kids to a baseball game. When he compares the two like this, it is easy to see why execution should be made illegal and it is hard to understand the idea behind the legalization of this process. I think it's also good that he draws in the question as to why "Americans commit murder more often than any other people?" This then leads to the question that although we have a death penalty, its it really doing anything?

I would have to disagree with Arthur Miller's belief that the death penalty should be made illegal because he doesn't give sufficient evidence as to why it's not doing its job. He never sites any sources that would make the reader believe that the death penalty is insignificant and not functioning correctly. If you have no sources or evidence to back up your ideas with why would anyone agree with what he says? Another thing that Miller says that I don't think is that great is when he talks about executions and baseball games. It's probably true that if  the executions were set like a baseball game no one would want them anymore; however, there's logic and reason behind why they aren't like that. They aren't supposed to be a family affair but more a punishment for the most gruesome crimes committed. Since the death penalty is clearly keeping dangerous people off the streets I don't see why anyone would want it any other way. 

I think that this was a good exercise because it helps you look at both sides rather than just sticking to your one opinion and not even recognizing the other side of the argument. On the other hand it was also hard to do that because it's hard creating an argument for the side that you disagree with. I thought that it was hard to do this exercise for 15 minutes because of two things- 1. there was only so much that I could believe or doubt, and 2. it felt weird to just write exactly what I was thinking rather than write correctly, so I also tried to make my thoughts in correct form. I never felt too uncomfortable arguing either side because I don't have a particularly strong stance on this argument.