In Favor of Capital PunishmentJacques Barzun Aims: 1)Improving students ability to read between lines and understand the text properly;2)Cultivating students ability to make a creative reading;3)Enhancing students ability to appreciate the text from different perspectives;4) Helping students to understand some difficult words and expressions;5) Helping students to understanding rhetorical devices;6) Encouraging students to voice their own viewpoint fluently and accurately.Teaching Contents1) Background Knowledge About the Author and His Works 2) Literature Type: Argument 3) Detailed Study of the Essay 4) Organization Pattern 5) Style and Language Features 6) Special Difficulties 7) DebateTime Allocation:1) Background knowledge (15 min.)2) Detailed study of the text (180 min.)3) Structure analysis (15 min.)4) Language appreciation (15 min.)5) Free talk (30 min)Background Knowledge1) A brief introduction to the author, Jacques Barzun www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jpriestley.htm 2) Capital punishment 2) The difficulties should be overcome instead of being ignored;3) The safeguards could be found to really meet the difficulties;Para.4The author states that he himself considers the present way of implementing capital punishment is revolting but this cannot be an excuse for the abolitionist to against capital punishment.Question: Whether capital punishment is justifiable if there is a painless, sudden and dignified death?Para 5: The four main arguments advanced against the death penalty are:1) punishment for crime is a primitive idea rooted in revenge; 2) capital punishment does not deter; 3)judicial error being possible, taking life is an appalling risk; 4)a civilized state, to deserve its name, must uphold, not violate, the sanctity of human life.Para 6-7 Explanation of writers agreement on the first pair of propositions.Para.8-11Abolitionists: capital punishment violates the sanctity of human life.Barzun: capital punishment protects the sanctity of human life.1) If capital punishment violates the sanctity of human life, how about the war, the perfect means of killing, launched and supported by these abolitionists? 2) If capital punishment violates the sanctity of human life, how about the bystanders killed by the police who are so excited that he misses the target? 3) If capital punishment violates the sanctity of human life, how about the sanctity of the victims lives?Conclusion: The absolute sanctity of human life is, for the abolitionists, a slogan rather than a considered proposition.Personification“ No anger, vindictiveness or moral conceit need preside over the removal of such dangers.”Para 8 Both Barzun and the abolitionists base their arguments on a brief in the sanctity of human life.Para12 -14 The fallacies of the abolitionists should be disposed of.Fallacy: The victims of violence are easy to forget1) Social science: forgetting the victim and paying greater attention to and showing more concern for the criminal who is supposed to be mentally troubled, abnormal or a problem case.2) Psychiatry and moral liberalism: believe that criminals are sick people who should be cured rather than punished.3) Modern literature: only interested in people who are mentally and spiritually troubled.4)The determinism of natural science: strengthens the assumption that all evils in a society have been brought about by the existing conditions and circumstances of that society.5) French jurist: It is society alone that should be held responsible for the criminal and his crimeSarcasm“ it is too bad.” Cvek alone seems instructive,” Determinism: the doctrine that everything, especially ones choice of action, is determined by a sequence of causes independent of ones willThe authors argument: Since so many ordinary peoples lives are deprived by the criminals, where does the sanctity of life begin?Para15-19 The frivolities of the abolitionists should be disposed of. Question: What are the frivolities the abolitionists cling to?Hypotheses: the criminals misdeed is “the fault of society”, Can criminal be cured?1) The “scientific” means of cure are more than uncertain.2) Imprisonment only increases the killers antisocial feelings.3) Reformatories and mental hospitals are too full to hold the criminals and these institutions are inclined to release their inmates.4) Once be released, they will be killer again.Conclusion: Society has failed twice to protect the victims when convicted murderers are released to commit violent crimes a second time.Authors standpoint uttered in Para.16 is: _. Irratio