Dennis Prager
Dennis Prager is a highly intelligent and opinionated man. His commentary on the subject in his column “Why Do Progressives Want the Boston Bomber to Live?” is what makes me believe so. He states “So, then, a man who placed a bomb next to an 8-year-old boy and blew him up along with other innocent people must not be executed because executing such people is “discriminatory and arbitrary,” is ‘inherently cruel and unusual punishment,’ and because the death penalty provides only an ‘illusion of ultimate punishment.’” It clearly shows that his tone is sarcastic and that he believes that they should be given the death penalty.
Do you agree with Dennis Prager? Do you like his writing style? Do you think that the Boston bomber should be given the death penalty?
Joslyn,
Dennis Prager does seem to be very opinionated as well as sarcastic in tone. I agree with Prager that what the Boston bomber did was cruel and that he deserves a punishment however, I don’t think he should be given the death penalty. I do not believe in the death penalty and I think that if we kill Prager, we are just as bad and as guilty as he is. I do believe he should spend the rest of his life in jail. I don’t really like Prager’s writing style because he only makes it very clear what he thinks and he doesn’t see it from both sides. I also don’t like the way he uses sarcasm to shut down the other side of the argument.
-Colleen K.
I don’t know how to edit this but I meant to say if we kill the bomber, not Prager!
Joss,
I agree with your author. A man who can place a bomb next to a 8 year old boy and around hundreds of innocent people and not feel awful about what they just did or even worse proud, should get the death penalty. This man has shown no signs of guilt for what he did to our city and for that reason he should get the death penalty. His style of writing seems unique. He uses larger words to express his anger and seems to get into the article and seems smart and for that reason I do like his writing style.
Dennis Prager seems to be a good writer and I feel like I would enjoy reading some of his columns because of his writing style. I think that the way he writes grabs people’s attention and he obviously knows how to get his point across. I do, however, disagree with the fact that the Boston bomber should be given the death penalty. I know the story and I know who died but I just don’t think it would solve anything. Yes, it would make the families of the victim’s feel better but I honestly think that’s what the Boston bombers wanted. I think they wanted to cause so much harm and worry that they made people feel like that was the only way to feel better about what happened. They were obviously extremists and that’s what I think they wanted; to die doing something for their country, even though it wasn’t anything good. That’s why I don’t agree with him. I don’t think that we should give the Boston bomber what he wants, or wanted.
I agree with Dennis Prager, what the bomber did was terrible and there should be consequences. Death penalty is just the thing that the Boston bomber needs. The death of all those women, men, and children was a tragedy, but what wouldn’t be a tragedy is if the bomber were to be killed. What makes people think that the Boston bomber won’t strike again? I like Dennis Prager’s writing style and I like how he thinks. Him being sarcastic in this column shows how much he really wants the bomber to get the death penalty.
I enjoy Prager’s writing style, with his heavy use of sarcasm. I believe it heavily emphasizes his views to the reader, and that’s one of a columnist’s main goals.
As for the death penalty, I’m somewhat on the fence. If he wouldn’t receive the penalty, he’d be locked up in prison for the remainder of his life most likely. He’d have to live with what he did every day. However, if he’s given the death penalty, it’ll all be over for him within minutes. Personally, I don’t believe that we should give him the penalty. He did have malicious intent, however I don’t believe he should be given the penalty. I believe he should have to sit in his cell each passing day to reflect on his actions, and just be forced to live with it. Even if he doesn’t have any remorse, he’ll still be forced to live out the punishment, and I believe that will be exhausting to someone who doesn’t regret what they did.
I like Dennis Prager’s writing style because I think his tone makes columns more interesting to read. My columnist, Peggy Noonan, also uses a sarcastic tone in many of her columns. I agree with Prager that it is ridiculous for people to say that giving the Boston bomber the death penalty is an “inherently cruel and unusual punishment”. The bomber killed innocent people, so killing him would not be any more cruel. However, I don’t fully agree that he should be given the death penalty. I think that if we kill him, it would almost be like sinking to his level. I think it would be a better punishment if we kept him alive and in jail. That way, he has to deal with what he did for many more years.
Dennis Prager does seem to be highly intelligent and opinionated. I agree that the Boston bomber should be given the death penalty. I am not entirely fond of the death penalty, but I believe it should be an option for any crimes in which a victim, or victims, have been killed. I believe that anyone who can bring themselves to murder another human being doesn’t value life enough, and therefore doesn’t deserve to retain his. Normally, I would enjoy Prager’s sarcastic writing style, but not along with this topic. I feel that this is too serious of an issue to be writing sarcastically about, even though he probably means well. I think it could rub people the wrong way, especially those who were injured in the bombings.
I like Prager’s use of sarcasm in his article. It allows him to show both his own view, and also satirize the views of his opponents. I also agree with Prager’s beliefs that he deserves to be executed. When someone willingly tries to cause as much harm to as many people as possible when they have personally done nothing wrong to him, they have given up their right to life. If given the chance to live, Tsarnaev will be proud of his actions, believing what he did what was necessary. The murders committed by him should carry the ultimate consequence. If found guilty, Tsarnaev’s punishment should be death.
Joss,
I enjoy Prager’s sarcastic writing style. I think it is a good way to get his point across in his own way. My columnist, Ana Coulter, also uses a sarcastic writing style and I think it makes her writing more entertaining. I do agree with Prager in the fact that a man who is willing to shatter the lives of innocent humans deservers the utter most penalty, but I don’t believe that being killed is that. I think that the death penalty is the easy way out. I believe that rotting in prison for the rest of your life is far worse then dying.
I strongly agree with Dennis Prager’s writing style because he shows emotion towards his topic he is writing about which shows he really loves what he does. Something like that makes you believe that he put his own opinion in there because he feels it is necessary to make sure the reader knows what he thinks about a serious topic such as the Boston Marathon. I also have a more accurate understanding of Prager’s sarcasm in his writings since I have also read and analyzed his columns. I very strongly agree that the Boston Bomber should get the death penalty, not only because he obviously wanted to harm others, but also did not show any remorse for what he did. In the families of the lost victims perspective, you wouldn’t want him to live either.
No, I do not agree with Dennis Prager. I don’t think that anyone deserves the death penalty. I think that it is hypocritical and puts the responsibility of ending lives onto innocent people who shouldn’t have to bear that burden. However, I do appreciate his writing style. I think that sarcasm, especially sarcasm backed up by intelligence can be a very powerful persuasive writing tool. It is a great way of showing how dumb people with uneducated opinions sound, and can help to invalidate their point with just a quick, biting phrase. Moreover, I think sarcasm is a very entertaining and engaging writing technique that keeps the reader interesting and keeps their wits involved, perhaps even helping them to absorb the information you are giving them more thoroughly. But still, though I admire his writing style, I do not agree with him on this particular subject. I do not think that the surviving Boston bomber deserves the death penalty. He was just a dumb kid who was mindlessly following his brother, and he should have to spend the rest of his life behind bars, contemplating what he’s done and perhaps atoning for it and making something of his life after all.