A Rhetorical Analysis Of Drunk Driving By Bonnie Steinbeck

1057 Words5 Pages

“Drunk Driving” is an article written by Bonnie Steinbeck. Within her article, she analyses a wide variety of court rulings and legal precedent to defend the idea that if a person kills another person while drunk driving, that they ought to be charged with murder. Throughout her article, Dr. Steinbock analyses three major concepts in her argument. The first concept, that drunk driving constitutes malice, is one of the core facts needed to be considered murder. Second, she explores how intoxication can affect both liability and culpability within the legal system. Lastly, Dr. Steinbock analyses different methods of deterring drunk drivers. Dr. Steinbock begins by discussing whether or not drunk drivers display malice. The importance of this can be best explained by the need for malicious intent for a killing to turn into a murder. Dr. Steinbock claims that “The mens rea required for murder is the intent to cause death”, and so many people argue that drunk drivers do not commit murder, as they may not mean to kill those they hit. However, Dr. Steinbock asserts …show more content…

While most people certainly agree that drunk drivers who kill people are bad people, her tone at times loses that professional impersonal voice that many scholarly articles are written. At one point, she compares the act of drunk driving itself to someone who “gets drunk regularly and beats up his wife every time”. She also ends one of her sections with the sentiment that “I feel very little inclination to excuse the chronic alcoholic who drives to a bar, gets loaded, and kills a child standing on the sidewalk.” These statements while agreeable to most people and an effective form of emotional appeal, do remove a bit of credence from the article. These passages rely on disturbing and upsetting the reader, rather than convincing them and represent a jarring change in

Open Document