Peter Saunders (1) makes the case that something must be done to halt the escalation of the crime rate in Australia which has occurred in the last 40 years, positioning Australia behind England and Wales on the rate of victimization and higher than any other country with regard to crimes such as robbery and assault. The paradox he addresses is that while crime has increased significantly, Australia has become less willing to send offenders to prison and by the mid-1980s, about 30 individuals were incarcerated for every 1,000 serious crimes as compared to 120 offenders per 1,000 serious cries in 1964. Saunders (2-3) goes on to make the case that: 1) the reduced risk of imprisonment may explain the continuing rise in crime; 2) in four countries (Australia, New Zealand, England, Wales, and the United States), as the rate of imprisonment for each crime fell, the number of crimes continued to rise; 3) in the United States, a get tough stance on crime led not only to a higher per capita prison population, but also a plummeting crime rate; and 4) prison deters while also incapacitates criminals and removes them from the streets.
Using the Aristotelian rhetorical concepts of logos, ethos, and pathos, this particular article can be analyzed to determine its rhetorical validity and approach. Cockcroft and Cockcroft (23) point out that a persuader like Saunders generally fulfills an ideational function by using language that relates to the experience of the audience. In addition, Cockcroft and Cockcroft (40-41) make reference to effective emotional engagement or pathos and in this instance, Saunders (1) engages the reader emotionally by emphasizing the dramatic increasing crime occurring in Australia which speaks to the question of how safe Australians should feel. He then uses what Cockcroft and Cockcroft (59) suggest derives from Aristotle's discussion of political arguments in which an argument is defined, its causes and effects ...