Language Analysis!

[LelouchViBritannia]

Hey everyone,

I have my first SAC on Wednesday, and I was wondering if anyone could read over my piece and give me a points of critique?

This was the first one I've done timed, and so I was wondering if anyone also had any tips on how to work under pressure and time constraints?

Thanks everyone!

Articles: https://a.pomf.se/alhohn.pdf

The proposed laws to keep Julian Knight in prison, the man who committed the fatal shootings on Hoddle Street in 2987, is an issue that has sparked an outcry of debate in the Australian media. In his opinion piece, headlined 'Killer must not walk free but we need due process' (Herald Sun, 20/2/14), Julian Quill, in a rational but pejorative tone, contents that the proposed laws keeping Julian Knight in jail are irrational and is "going too far." Adopting a near identical standpoint is an editorial, headlined 'Knight: A matter for justice, not parliament' (The Age, 21/2/14),where in an often biting tone, the writer argues that the law created to keep Knight in prison is to "appease community prejudices", rather than doing what is just. However, a cartoon, titled 'Having served his time, Julian Knight finally gets out," takes a different stance on the issue to the two articles, depicting Julian Knight riding a horse and carriage with a coffin behind him, arguing that he will forever carry the burden with him, and implying that he should not be released for the crime he committed.

Justin Quill's opinion piece contends that the proposed laws introduced to keep Knight in prison are unjustified. Immediately, before stating his contention, Quill states to his readers that Julian Knight is a "killer" who "should never be released from prison." By explicitly adding this before stressing the fact that the proposed law is "wrong", Quill demonstrates to his readers of his rationality in handling this issue. This is likely  to position his readers to place their trust in him and his views, in that he has considered both sides of the story. To add to this, he describes Knight as being worse than a "monster", "coward", and "scum", and one which is "still a danger to society", thereby exposing more of Knight's flaws. Following this, Quill references Knight being declared as a "vexations litigant", as a result of him suing defendants to a point where he describes Knight's attitude as one which "doesn't suggest that he feels any remorse", further showing to his readers of the psychopathic traits that Knight exhibits. Quill also provides his readers with an anecdote of when he personally met Knight, referring to a pen that Knight used and "how much damage he could do to me with it." Such descriptions again, reinforces the brutality of Knight's crime to his readers, such that one could be so "paranoid" from simply being "inches away" from him.
However, Quill then brings forward his contention, that his lack of support for the proposed law comes from "the lawyer in me", again, showing his readers his rationality and fairness in handling the issue. He argues that a criminal such as Knight, a "depraved" individual who committed a "horrendous crime", should still deserve a process that would be used for "you and me." This is employed to remind his readers that Knight is still a human being, and thus, deserves to be treated as one, where the "ends do not justify the means." Finally, Quill implores his readers to "have faith in the justice system", and "allow due process to take place", and that although Knight's crimes are nothing short of "heinous", he should be given the same rights, and be treated as a basic human being.

Employing a similar standpoint is the editorial published in The Age, contending that the laws against the "Hoddle Street mass murderer" should be reconsidered as they are doing nothing but "appeasing community prejudices". The writer establishes that it is the role of the judiciary to judge whether an individual is "worthy to re-enter society". By labelling this as a "fundamental tenet of our legal system", the writer attempts to position his readers to share his sense of outrage at this situation of the government's blatant breaching of this sense of true justice. Similar to Justin Quill's opinion piece, the writer emphasises that Knight has "shown no remorse" for his crime, and that his release from prison would "cause further trauma" to "long-suffering victims and their families." By doing this, the writer reinforces to his readers that they have not forgotten of his crimes against humanity, and he should never be forgiven for any of it. Returning back to the issue at hand, the writer labels the proposed law as a "law and order quick-fix" which "usurps conventional judicial process," again stressing the potential for backlash that this can have if the law is passed. The writer also provides a solution to the problem, recommending that the government "safeguard the institution of an independent judiciary", rather than acting based on emotion, and "repeating history." This shows to his readers of his genuine concern towards the issue, and that he is not criticising the government simply for his own amusement.

On the other side of the spectrum, the cartoon published in the Herald Sun, depicts Julian Knight riding on a horse and carriage, with a coffin directly behind him. Firstly, the horse seems to be struggling to drag the weight along, which can be used to represent two things. The first, is that combined with Knight's expressionless face, it emphasises his lack of remorse, signifying to his audience of the similar attitude he showed to his victims. Secondly, it can be used to show the degree of horror to which his crimes were committed, where the horse may be struggling to drag along all of the victims that he killed both physically and emotionally, including family and friends. Lastly, the fact that he is riding a horse and carriage on his way out of prison is likely to be intended to show to his audience that Knight was let out far too soon to make just for the crimes he committed.

Overall, in a calculating but critical tone, Justin Quill's opinion piece seeks to demonstrate to his audience that the proposed law to keep Julian Knight in prison is one which is "unfair." Taking the same viewpoint is the editorial published in The Age, which argues that the proposed law is a matter for "justice" to deal with and decide, not for the government. However, having views that are contrasting to both articles is the cartoon published in the Herald Sun, which upholds the view that Julian Knight's "time" is far too short to make amends to those who he has severely damaged for life.