Dorothy Otnow Lewis’

GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY:

a rhetorical analysis

Joseph Burello

I. INTRODUCTION

We have all been there. Whether it was in a restaurant, crowded bus, elevator, or any one of a number of social settings, we have all been there when someone with eyes a bit larger than ours, a slightly misshapen face, and a quirky demeanor that screamed “retardation” acted out of turn and against the “norms” of our society. Yet, we probably did not react to that individual in the same way that we would a “normal” person. Had a “normal” person grabbed your purse, laughing while on the subway, you would have screamed for the police, but when the “retarded” person does it we give a sympathetic smile and gently wrestle our purse back into our possession. What is responsible for this inconsistent treatment? Why is it that we view one actor as a thief, and the other with sympathy?

We could simply say that we “feel bad” for the “retarded” person, but then we would have to ask why we feel bad for that person. The most likely answer to this question is that we understand that that person lacks the mental capacities to fully understand what they are doing and the consequences of their actions. The grabbing at a purse to a “normal” person is a means to acquire the treasures inside; the grabbing at a purse to a “retarded” person is nothing more than a game. So the issue becomes one of culpability – the “normal” person understands what they are doing and should be punished for it; the “retarded” person does not understand what they are doing beyond the game and should be helped with sympathy and understanding – but not punished.

It is this lack of culpability attributed to the mentally ill that drove Dr. Dorothy Otnow Lewis to write her book, Guilty by Reason of Insanity. Lewis is a psychiatrist and an internationally recognized expert on violence who has spent the last thirty years studying the minds of killers like Ted Bundy and Mark David Chapman. Lewis believes that anyone could become a killer given the right “circumstances,” and that many of those on death row lack the culpability that would justify their punishments because of these “circumstances.” According to Lewis, these “circumstances” include “certain kinds of neurologic and psychiatric problems, being raised by violent, abusive parents,” etc., that result in changes of the structure and function of the brain.[1]

Lewis’ position against executing the insane and mentally retarded has found favor in United States’ courts; however these same courts are not in agreement as to what constitutes the “insane,” or “retarded.” It is the ambiguity surrounding these terms that creates a fertile ground for rhetoric when arguing whether to categorize an accused as either “insane,” or “retarded” or even as a “murderer.”

Lewis’ use of rhetoric in Guilty by Reason of Insanity is the subject of this paper.

II. EXECUTION OF THOSE WITH MENTAL IMPAIRMENTS

In order to fully appreciate the significant role that rhetoric plays in categorizing the accused as either “insane,” “retarded,” or even as a “murderer,” an understanding of the current state of capital punishment as it applies to these cases is necessary.

A. Execution of the Insane

Historically, the practice of executing a prisoner who has lost his sanity has been consistently acknowledged as “savage and inhuman.”[2] This attitude derives from many different theories including offense to humanity, lack of deterrent or retributive effect, madness being punishment enough, prisoner’s lack of appreciation for the moral significance of his crime and punishment, and unfairness surrounding the execution of someone unable to prepare for their own death.[3]

The Eighth Amendment’s ban against cruel and unusual punishment has given legal significance to the historical attitudes against executing the insane.[4] In Ford v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court concluded that the Eighth Amendment’s protections apply to insane prisoners if the prisoner “does not understand the reason for, or the reality of, his or her punishment…”[5] The conclusion found in Ford has not become the test for determining whether a prisoner is “insane” for Eighth Amendment purposes, but “with regard to insanity, [the Court] leave[s] to the States the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction upon its execution of sentences.”[6] Thus, when it comes to defining the term “insane” for Eighth Amendment purposes, there is very little for the practitioner to rely on. The uncertainty over the term “insane” is, therefore, susceptible to rhetorical construction.

B. Execution of the Mentally Retarded

Likewise, what is deemed “mentally retarded,” in regard to Constitutional protections, is still in its early stages of development and a breeding ground of rhetoric.

In Atkins v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court recently ruled that executing persons with mental retardation was unconstitutional.[7] “All states must now comply with [this] ruling, following standards established by the American Association of Mental Retardation (AAMR) which defines mental retardation as: (1) substantial intellectual impairment; (2) impact of that impairment on everyday life of the individual; and (3) appearance of the disability at birth or during the person's childhood.”[8] Although the AAMR’s definition of “mental retardation” gives more guidance than that for “insanity,” there is still a wide area of latitude in its application. For example, what constitutes “substantial” as appearing in part 1 of the AAMR definition? It is this wide latitude that allows rhetoric to blossom.

III. LEWIS’ ARGUMENT

Although Lewis is very up front with her stance against executing those whom she believes to be the insane or mentally retarded, Lewis never explicitly argues that the death penalty is wrong. In fact, Lewis’ long-time, professional partner through most of her stories is very much in favor of the death penalty. However, Lewis seems to use the art of subtle persuasion through various methods of appeal, and what she believes is the flawed current system of the execution of the insane and mentally retarded, to springboard the reader into adopting an anti-death penalty stance in all scenarios whether the condemned is insane, mentally retarded, or neither.

IV. LEWIS’ RHETORIC

This paper will analyze Lewis’ argument using the classical rhetoric genre of rhetorical analysis as described by Edward Corbett and Robert Connors. Classical rhetoric established the basic theories of persuasion that were taught until the 20^th century. Classical rhetorical theories are still useful today, and the best and most persuasive communicators still adhere to these theories.[9] The leading approach to classical rhetorical analysis today was put forth by Edward Corbett and Robert Connors in Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student.[10]

According to Corbett, in applying a classical rhetorical analysis one must separate a work, whether written or oral, into three parts: 1) discovery of arguments; 2) arrangement of the material; and 3) style.[11] There are many facets under each of these three broad categories that assist the rhetor in constructing the most persuasive argument, as well as assisting the audience in competently disseminating the work.

A. Discovery of Arguments

Lewis’ argument appears to have been realized via Corbett’s “common topics,” as well as her desire to appeal to the audience’s logic, ethic, and emotion.

1. The Topics

Lewis’ experiences in working with violent individuals undoubtedly shaped her views on how to best deal with violent offenders. Lewis has taken the stance that, based on scientific evidence, a large portion of violent offenders did not commit their violent activities with the requisite self control that would lend a properly informed society to extract the kinds of punishments, in particular the death penalty, from those who the same properly informed society would consider to be retarded or insane and, thus, like the example in the introduction to this paper, these offenders should be treated instead of punished as is consistent with the trend in United State’s law and societal attitude.

In the United States it is now illegal to execute those deemed to be mentally retarded and/or insane. Lewis believes that many offenders are wrongfully excluded from these categories. According to the classical rhetor, this argument may best be viewed as based on the classical rhetoric common topic of “definition.” “The topic of definition can be used not only for clarifying the point at issue but also for suggesting a line of argument.”[12] What actually constitutes “mentally retarded” and “insane,” and, perhaps, what constitutes a “murderer?”[13] These are the questions Lewis wishes to answer in a broader scope than that which they are currently being applied; in essence, redefining the terms “retarded,” “insane,” and “murderer.”

According to Lewis, the definitions of “retarded” and “insane” “by rights should belong to the field of psychiatry, not law.”[14] These terms have acquired an “idiosyncratic legal meaning” because the legal system has “adopt[ed] purely moralistic and unmeasurable definitions…forcing psychiatrists to make use of them… [resulting in] peculiar conclusions.”[15] Casting doubt around the legal system’s definitions of these words is central to Lewis’ argument because by redefining these terms in a manner which encompasses more of the mentally ill than currently covered, Lewis can show that the legal system is executing the retarded or insane which is now unlawful. The legal system, however, has developed these definitions based on the court’s prior decisions which relied heavily on expert testimony from psychiatrists like Lewis.[16] Lewis addresses this apparent weakness by explaining that legal “games are played in [the legal system’s] courts by their own rules.”[17] She believes that the legal system tends to manufacture broad rules in regard to defining the mentally ill and that, while broad rules serve a purpose in other scenarios, defining the mentally ill is a science that can be pinned down with some precision and best left out of the wordplay of lawyers.[18]

Lewis’ less apparent argument is that anyone could be a murderer given the right circumstances and that the ultimate punishment of death can not be morally imposed on a prisoner because of society’s duty to learn from that prisoner so as to prevent that kind of behavior in others. To illustrate Lewis’ definition of “murderers” Lewis states that “all those people who stood outside the prison…just before Ted Bundy’s execution, chanting, ‘Burn, Bundy, Burn!’ never for a moment thought that they could murder.”[19] With this statement Lewis is attempting to show the vicious circle of capital punishment and that the proposed solution of executions only breeds more “murderers.” There are many things psychiatrists can glean from convicted murderers and Lewis believes that society is being robbed of this knowledge when a prisoner is executed.[20] Lewis recalls how she “did not rejoice upon hearing of Hitler’s suicide” because she “would [now] never know what made him tick.”[21]

Lewis also makes use of the testimonial common topic of authority; otherwise known as “informed opinion.”[22] Although today’s society gives authority less credence than it once did, authority “still play[s] a prominent part in the conduct of human affairs.”[23] Lewis has spent her entire professional career as a psychiatrist, some thirty years, working with violent offenders of all ages, races, and genders.[24] She has been a research pioneer when it comes to violent behaviors; having started the first and only Juvenile Court clinic for violent adolescents in Connecticut, and with hundreds of interviews and studies of every well-known murderer in modern times from Mark David Chapman to Ted Bundy.[25] Her work in the field has been labeled by peers as being “groundbreaking discoveries.”[26] Lewis’ high stature in the field of violent behaviors has given her insight into this issue that most would have never ventured near. Lewis was one of the first to discover a link between the brain’s frontal lobes and human emotion and self control – the basis behind much of her work. The “authority” that Lewis possesses through her years of experience and frontier research availed her to write Guilty by Reason of Insanity, and submit its subject matter to the general audience who will hopefully be more responsive to her “informed opinion” on a subject for which she is recognized as an expert.

2. Kinds of Appeal

Aristotle described three ways we persuade others: 1) appeal to reason; 2) appeal to emotion; and 3) appeal to personality or character.[27] A writer may use all three appeal methods, or may emphasize one or two over the other.[28] Lewis took advantage of all three appeals in Guilty by Reason of Insanity.

An appeal to reason takes the following form known as a syllogism: if a is true, and b is true, then c must be true.[29] For example, one could say the following:

- All men have eyes.

- Joe is a man.

- Joe must have eyes.

Lewis’ argument takes the following form:

- It is illegal and immoral to execute the mentally ill.

- People with brain damage resulting from physical and emotional trauma are mentally ill.

- It is illegal to execute people with brain damage resulting from physical and emotional trauma.

Lewis’ syllogism is fairly straight forward, however problems arise when one starts to ask questions like, “How much brain damage amounts to being deemed ‘mentally ill’?” To answer these kinds of questions, according to Lewis, one must rely on the psychiatrist more than the law (see above). The bulk of Guilty by Reason of Insanity is made up of stories told by Lewis of individuals who have been executed, or are on death row, and how their physical or emotional trauma to the brain amounted to the level of being “mentally ill,” and how the system failed them by excluding them from that category.

One such story is that of Lucky Larson. Larson killed a store clerk with fifty-four knife wounds. Larson had been incestuously abused as a child and his brain was wrought with lesions that had the practical effect of a lobotomy. Larson’s neurological damage was outwardly visible and “[could be] recognized…even at a distance” as evidenced by his facial paralysis and sunken eye.[30] Lewis stated that “if ever there were a case in which mitigating factors existed and could be demonstrated, this was it.”[31] The court ultimately sentenced Larson to death despite his impairments.[32] According to Lewis, this was an illegal and immoral act because Larson was clearly mentally ill.[33]

The second kind of appeal is the appeal to emotion. “It is perfectly normal… [to be] moved to action through our emotions.”[34] Lewis makes extensive use of the appeal to emotion by attempting to put the reader in the shoes of the murderers. By placing us there, Lewis believes that the reader will be able to identify with the murderer, realize that they lacked self control when they committed their act, and ultimately feel sorry for the murderer; thereby turning what may have been retributive feelings against the murderer into rehabilitative feelings.

The evidence of one such appeal to the emotions is the story Lewis tells of Lee Anne, “a thirteen-year-old black child from the wrong side of the tracks.”[35] One can see from the outset that Lewis’ choice of a minority, economically challenged female sets the stage for an emotional appeal because many readers will instinctively feel sorry for the second best because they were not given the opportunities that many others take for granted. Lewis further exploits the emotional appeal to Lee Ann by spending some seven pages of the book placing us in Lee Ann’s shoes the morning Lee Ann stabbed, and killed, a fellow schoolmate and best friend.[36] Lewis shows the reader the paranoia that engulfs someone with brain damage like Lee Ann by describing the inner battle that raged inside Lee Ann over whether to take the paring knife from the breakfast table the morning of the murder:

“Take it. Take it,” hissed the deeper voice.

“Leave it,” cautioned the gentle voice. She hated it when they disagreed. They made her feel crazy, and all that arguing inside her brain gave her a headache.

“Take it.” It was the deeper voice again.

Swiftly, silently, Lee Ann slipped the paring knife, blade first, into the sleeve of her winter coat…”[37]

Lewis goes on to describe how Lee Ann kept telling herself she would never need the knife, but it was there for protection – protection from what remained unknown. The reader is then taken through the morning at school with headaches, paranoia, and confusion swirling about Lee Ann until she finally is able to go home. Upon waiting to board the bus, Lee Ann’s mind wandered and when it came back her best friend Kesha was there asking what was wrong – or was it Kesha? Her face looked different to Lee Ann. Threatened, Lee Ann grasped the knife and then, “like the arm of a robot,” plunged it into the stranger in front of her before wandering off “like a zombie.”[38] The next few hours in Lee Ann’s life are completely unaccounted for. Nobody, including Lee Ann, have any idea where she was or what she did.[39]

Lewis had taken us on the emotional rollercoaster of Lee Ann’s violent act and demonstrated how Lee Ann lacked self control because it was nothing more than her primitive instinct of survival that prompted her to kill, and not even a conscious act. This description of events elicits a feeling of sympathy in the reader. Questions like, “How could someone murder their best friend for no reason?” are answered, and this understanding was Lewis’ goal in using the emotional appeal tool.

The last appeal is to the author’s personality or character. “Even the most cleverest and soundest appeal to reason could fall on deaf ears if the audience reacted unfavorably to the speaker’s character.”[40] Lewis’ professional credentials were described earlier in this paper, and most readers would probably not question her professional aptitude based on the “M.D.” following her name, however a reader may still question the motives behind Lewis’ argument. Is Lewis’ argument based on real facts, or are her claims fiction so as to make it look like she has discovered something new, but in reality only rehashed known phenomena? What are Lewis’ motives? Is this book only meant to further her career, or is the stated underlying cause the real reason for the book?

Lewis used a very subtle and clever way to gain the reader’s trust – Lewis allowed the reader to witness and follow every major step in her work with violent individuals, and she allowed the reader into her own life as well. In essence, Lewis wants the readers to arrive at their own conclusion, which, in turn, legitimizes Lewis’ motives.

The book begins with Lewis’ graduate work with children and the day she discovered that people can be violent “by nature” when she witnessed a preschool boy inform the teacher that he wanted to go to the costume corner, play soldier, and kill people before he upended a large basin of bubbles and angrily trudge off.[41] Through this narrative the reader now knows how Lewis ended up working in the field, but still knows little about who she is.

Lewis would solve this problem when she started off a story with the line, “as far back as I can remember I have always felt lonely.”[42] She goes on to describe how she was unattractive, a disappointment to her parents, ridiculed and made fun of at school, and amazed that she managed to marry. Through this dialogue, Lewis managed to expose herself to the reader. Lewis volunteered information that was not necessary to her argument, but in so doing gave the readers something they didn’t ask for and most likely earned some of their trust in return.

There are far too many instances of appeal that Lewis made use of in Guilty by Reason of Insanity to describe them all here, but the above examples show how Lewis made excellent use of all three methods of appeal, and usually managed to have all three working at the same time.

B. Arrangement of Material

The second major aspect of classical rhetorical analysis is the arrangement of the material itself. The classical rhetoricians listed five parts to “the usual argumentative discourse: exordium, narration, confirmation or probation, refutation, and peroration.”[43] Corbett, however, gives them the following labels: introduction, statement of fact, confirmation, refutation, and conclusion.[44] Each, as they apply to Lewis’ book, is described below.

1. Introduction

An introduction generally consists of two parts: 1) it informs the audience of the end or object of the discourse, and 2) it disposes the audience to be receptive to what we say.[45]

Lewis made use of the introduction narrative to inform her audience. The introduction narrative is used “to rouse interest in [the] subject by adopting the anecdotal lead-in.”[46] Lewis begins her book with a retelling of an interview with Ted Bundy, a man who had murdered more than two dozen women and often used their decapitated heads as sex toys.[47] The reader is at first struck by the sheer intensity of such a person, and then intrigued by a middle-aged woman interviewing him – alone. “The very best setting for interviewing a potentially violent prisoner is one where guards can see everything and hear nothing.”[48] As if this setting wasn’t enough to keep a reader in tune, Lewis realizes halfway through the interview that the only observation guard had left for lunch and Ted Bundy and her where truly alone.[49]

Lewis used the Bundy episode to capture her audience. In one effort she managed to lay the foundation of her argument and trigger interest at the same time. Why hadn’t Bundy attacked Lewis? He was already sentenced to death and had nothing to lose. Surely, Bundy did not have that kind of unrestrained access to women on death row. By showing the fact that Bundy did not attack her, Lewis has shown that there is more going on in a murderer’s mind than just blatant opportunity. She has further induced the audience into her argument because she chose such a high profile murderer to open her piece. Numerous books have been written about Bundy and his story was widely publicized. People want to know what made Bundy tick and Lewis used this interest to open the audience door to her work.

2. Statement of Fact

The statement of fact “set[s] forth the essential facts of the case under consideration.”[50] Lewis does not set forth a clear statement of facts until the very end of her book in the Epilogue, however her numerous stories throughout the entire book could be viewed as setting out the facts needed to fully understand her clearer statement of facts appearing in the Epilogue.[51]

Lewis’ Epilogue starts with the question, “Could anyone in the world become a murderer? Probably – at least I think so.”[52] She then goes on to describe how the brain is not as resilient as we might think and how damage sustained by it can have very real outcomes in human behavior. This statement would probably have rung hollow to the reader if it had been made at the beginning of the book, but after having “lived” through the stories told by Lewis the reader can more fully understand what Lewis is trying to say in the Epilogue. The reader can now “see” how lesions in the brain can cause a lack of self control. The reader can now see how child abuse can result in multiple personality disorders. Without the earlier stories Lewis’ statement of facts would have most likely fallen on deaf ears so her decision to include it at the end was a much more effective way of setting forth the essential facts.

3. Confirmation and Refutation

Lewis is attempting to persuade the reader into believing that those she writes about should be included in the “mentally ill” category and, thus, spared of the penalty of death. Her opponents believe that the “mentally ill” category does not include those Lewis writes about, at least when it comes to the legal aspects of the death penalty.

In showing that Lewis’ subjects should be included under the label “mentally ill,” Lewis also directly refutes her opponent’s position at the same time. To illustrate this point, recall that the most popular legal definition of “insane” is that the Eighth Amendment’s protections apply if the prisoner “does not understand the reason for, or the reality of, his or her punishment…”[53] Lewis shows that the system is flawed and that even the most apparently insane individuals are executed, even under this current definition, by utilizing the case of Rickey Ray Rector.

“When judges, juries, lawyers, and, yes, psychiatrists set foot in a courtroom, something peculiar happens. They often park their common sense at the door.”[54] Rector shot and killed a police officer, and then, in a botched suicide attempt, shot himself through the forehead which resulted in a “classic prefrontal lobotomy.”[55] Rector spent the remaining years of his life on death row mumbling and barking like a dog with the occasional episodes of screaming the phrase, “Cold Duck, Cold Duck.”[56] The night of Rector’s execution, he told one of the guards that “if you eat grass lethal injection won’t kill you.”[57] He then proceeded to eat his last meal except for desert. “As was his habit, Rector put his dessert aside to be eaten later.”[58] When asked about the dessert, Rector replied that he would eat it later – after the execution. Lewis argues that Rector did not understand the reason for, or the reality of, his or her punishment and that his behavior is glaring proof of this reality. With this example Lewis has shown that the current legal system is not even working by its own rules and that people who are clearly insane are being routinely executed. In so doing, Lewis has confirmed her stance of including individuals like Rector into her definition of “insane,” as well as refuted her opponent’s position of the existence of adequate safeguards in place to protect the execution of the insane.

Rector was only one of numerous examples Lewis used to illustrate her confirmation and refutation in Guilty by Reason of Insanity, but all took the same shape as that of the Rector incident.

4. Conclusion

As previously stated, Lewis’ conclusion, her Epilogue, is closely entwined with her ultimate statement of facts. Lewis’ Epilogue ties all of her stories together and places them into the larger scenario of “what is a murderer?” Lewis questions society’s current view of what makes a murderer, and wishes to instill that same question in the reader. She wishes to show that the imposition of the death penalty does not rid the world of murderers, but actually creates more.

One of Lewis’ last interviews in the book is that of an executioner named Bob Smith.[59] Almost the entire interview is retold in the book, and the reader is immediately struck by the amazing similarities between what was said by the executioner and what was said by those on death row. The similarities were so striking that Lewis ultimately labels Smith’s activities as “serial executions,” and “the line that separated him from [those on death row] was thin indeed.”[60] With this interview, Lewis has solidified her conclusion that the death penalty does nothing more than create a vicious circle, and, thus, alternatives, such as a moratorium on capital punishment and continuation on hers and others work with violence, should be explored.

C. Style

The third part of classical rhetoric is concerned with style. Lewis had to overcome the inevitable problem of explaining complicated, psychiatric settings while at the same time trying to reach as broad an audience as possible with her book. After all, Lewis is seeking support for her position, and her goals are most likely not attainable by limiting her audience to only those versed in psychiatry. The support of the public at large is what ultimately forces the government to change its position, and by alienating those outside of the psychiatric field Lewis will have abandoned her most powerful allies. In order to deal with this problem, Lewis utilized various tools of style first identified by the classical rhetoricians to help communicate with and persuade her audience.

1. Prose

Keeping the goal of mass appeal in mind, Lewis only used informal diction made up of common words. In the few instances where psychiatric jargon was used, Lewis took the time to define the terms in plain language. For example, microcephalic individuals are often overlooked by doctors as being “normal,” and, thus, signs of retardation and insanity go unrecognized. What is microcephalic? Microcephalic means that a person’s head and brain are significantly smaller than they should be. Studies have shown that 95 percent of the time the smaller head circumference and diminished intellect go together.[61]

Lewis also kept the length of sentences and paragraphs short and manageable so as to carry the reader quickly and smoothly through her work.

Lastly, Lewis almost always closed each chapter with a “clincher” sentence that left the reader wanting more. In Chapter 12 of the book, Lewis tells of an interview with a person with a multiple personality disorder where the first question asked inquired as to the individual’s childhood. The patient repeatedly told of horrific events, but when initially asked about each of them she would always initially say that “nothing” had ever occurred. The patient told Lewis about how her grandmother’s best friend murdered her aunt and how she had been raped. At the close of this emotionally riveting chapter, Lewis asked one final question, “How about your dad? Did he ever touch you? Bother you sexually?” The patient’s answer was, of course, “Nothing,” and Lewis then closed the chapter with, “And from her earnestness, anyone would have had to believe her.”[62] The smart closing sentences may have been lost on the casual reader who failed to pay close attention throughout the chapter, but once the reader realized that these clincher sentences were waiting for them at the end it made them pay more attention to the meat of the chapters themselves.

2. Figures of Speech

Figures of speech, in Aristotle’s view, are “graces of language” that “strike that happy balance between ‘the obvious and the obscure,’ so that [the] audience [can] grasp our ideas promptly and thereby be disposed to accept our arguments.”[63] The classical rhetoricians separated figures of speech into two categories: the schemes and the tropes. A scheme is “a deviation from the ordinary pattern or arrangement of words,” and a trope “involves a deviation from the ordinary and principal signification of a word.”[64] Lewis made use of both schemes and tropes in Guilty by Reason of Insanity.

One of the most memorable instances of the use of schemes by Lewis is known as an epistrophe. An epistrophe is the “repetition of the same word or group of words at the ends of successive clauses.”[65] In order to show how the professional community initially viewed Lewis’ arguments with skepticism, she recounts a speaking engagement during which a member of the audience rose to ask Lewis a question and ended every clause with a smug “Doctor Lewis.” In writing about this incident, Lewis actually addresses the epistrophe itself. “This academic seemed to enjoy repeating my name and watching me squirm,” says Lewis.[66]

Lewis also made extensive use of the tropes of metaphor, simile, irony, and rhetorical question. The rhetorical question, in particular, is the “asking [of] a question, not for the purpose of eliciting an answer but for the purpose of asserting or denying something obliquely.”[67] During the course of one of Lewis’ studies she came across a Vietnam veteran who had committed violent acts. During the course of her investigation, Lewis had been stalemated and frustrated by missing records. She was able to find some tenuous links between the patient and the CIA and she began to put together a conspiracy theory of sorts. Lewis then asked the following rhetorical question: “What better way to make a murderer than with an irritable focus in the temporal lobe and the transection of frontal lobe fibers?”[68] Had Lewis made a direct assertion that the CIA had lobotomized her patient in an effort to create a killer, the reader would most likely not have been too persuaded, but by positing an open rhetorical question it plants the seed of possibility in the reader that perhaps the CIA had done something – it forces the reader to ask the question and thus open the door to the possibility.

V. CONCLUSION

Dorothy Lewis created an impressive and compelling argument in Guilty by Reason of Insanity. Whether she was consciously aware of her use of classical rhetoric techniques during the writing of the book is open to question, but the classical techniques provide a valuable means of analyzing her work.

As to the quality of the resulting rhetoric, one only need look so far as to one of the reviews:

[I]n its most pointed passages it cogently questions the responsibility of mentally damaged people for their crimes and asks whether the death penalty, particularly for children, is ever justified. Clearly, Dr. Lewis believes that it is not.... Dr. Lewis powerfully revives the old liberal belief that no excessively violent crime is committed without a good reason. And she makes a strong case that capital punishment is little more than another link in a chain of criminal retribution.[69]

- The New York Times, Christopher Lehmann-Haupt

The fact that Lewis has successfully gotten her message out, as evidenced by this passage, shows the power of rhetoric in even the most polemical issues as capital punishment.

ENDNOTES: