A Death for a Job

I think I can recall, in our earlier lectures Mr. Seago described an incident where a judge from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied an appeal. Well, it just so happens that this event gets to be discussed further. I am not fully talking about the editorial written by the Austin American Statesman's staff on February 22, 2009. I am speaking of the literal fact that the judge will be having a trial coming up to evaluate her actions. To bring us to this up coming event an anonymous writer of the article, "Texas judge Keller should stand trial for rejecting an appeal filed after hours," bluntly states their views on this topic. Now, does this anonymous person show some wit in their editorial or not?

Let me summarize the situation before I critique her, just in case there is any Texan lurking around that begins to get confused. On September 25, 2007 an attorney was trying to turn in an appeal for his client when he started to have computer problems. He called and asked Keller if they could keep the office open later, so that he could stop by and turn in the papers personally. He was turned down, due to the fact that the office closed at 5 p.m. Michael Richard was executed that very day because of an unfortunate deadline. Since then, this action has been very controversial. The state legislature has now begun the process of impeachment. Keller still has the chance to stand trial, or to resign, but she has been charged with five counts of violating her position.

I feel that the writer is reaching out to the democrats that populate Austin, the humanitarians that want justice, and the people against lethal injection.He or she, adequately reaches out to his audience through his vivid vocabulary. For the humanitarians he depicts the judge's actions as "a heartless approach to justice." He plays with the republican court as having a "reputation for rubber-stamping convictions." He even brought up the lethal injection in his article.

For his argument, he continues to play on the values of his audience. I mean, we our a nation with checks and balances, so why not put this naughty judge to the test of trial. He certainly wants justice served in the way our nation was built on it.For his evidence he builds in the facts. A judge made an uncalled for denial, she went around her fellow judges, and is already convicted.

This writer's conclusion that we should let Judge Keller go to trial is well argued.First time reading the article I kind of felt unsure, but after truly reading the article I think he persuaded me. I even believe an eye for an eye is a death for a job, and lets give the judge to the judges.