Kapfer 1
Melissa Kapfer
Professor Corner
UNIV 112
September 14th, 2016
Materials Towards Mercy
Stevenson advocates for legal reform regarding the death penalty, life sentences without
parole, trying minors as adults, and the treatment of women in prisons in his 2014 nonfiction
novel, Just Mercy. His basis for argument stems from experience and in sharing his interactions
with clients, prosecutors, and police officers, he creates a strong piece of literature that
effectively sways the reader against harsh corporal punishment.
Stevenson’s extensive work with criminal law regards reducing the severity of sentencing
for his clients; a position that Stevenson fights for in a variety of cases he discusses throughout
his novel, particularly one his book centers around, focusing on Walter McMillian- a man falsely
accused of murder. Throughout his book, Stevenson follows the life of McMillian and how the
death penalty process, despite a relatively fortunate outcome, takes a toll on McMillian’s life and
overall wellbeing. This story is woven in and out of countless other cases Stevenson describes in
his novel, demonstrating the extent in which the McMillian case relates to criminal cases- his
situation is extended towards a large variety of circumstances, not just people sentenced to the
death penalty over racial biases as he was. Stevenson’s experience goes even past his clients and
their family members as he, himself, was subjected to racial discrimination by police officers
leading to their close, mistaken arrest of Stevenson. With this, Stevenson is able to create a
personal account against harsh corporal punishment, particularly when sparked by inaccurate,
racially fueled accusations.
Kapfer 2
To begin, Stevenson’s in depth following of Walter McMillian allowed the reader to
emotionally connect with the case the entire way through. By weaving it in and around a large
variety of cases, Stevenson created a clear parallel to his life- the case is always coming back up
to Stevenson, despite a large pile up of many other cases, so he never got a break from the
injustice he needed to fix. Stevenson was, in a way himself, stuck on death row. Similarly, the
family members never got a break from trials and worry. They, as well “[felt] like they done put
[them] on death row, too” (93). Stevenson broadening the negative effects past the criminal
charged helped evoke emotional feelings to counter a potential claim that the criminal got what
he deserved. He raises the argument of: does the family deserve it too? Should 5+ people be ‘on
death row’ simply because of one man’s action? Alternatively to the one actually on death row,
there will never be a date set for the family- they must suffer far past when their family member
is officially executed.
Additionally, Stevenson continues to argue against harsh corporal punishment by
refuting a potential counterargument that states that the death penalty is important to protect the
victim and their family, to make them feel safe. He successfully continues with a direct example
of a woman who was the family member of a victim. In her story, she tells that “those boys [that]
were found guilty for killing [her] grandson, and the judge sent them away to prison.
[She]thought it would make [her] feel better but it actually made [her] feel worse” (307). By
pointing out a potential flaw in his argument and then refuting said potential flaw that victims
need the death penalty to feel safe, Stevenson strengthens his credibility. While this was only one
instance and having more examples would have been more effective, simply pointing out the
counterargument and refuting it- despite how brief- was significantly more helpful in arguing
against the death penalty if considering that any counterargument not refuted must be considered
Kapfer 3
the truth. This story does in fact strengthen his original argument that criminal sentences should,
in general, be reduced- not only for the criminal charged and their families, but for the other side
as well: the victims.
To expand of Stevenson spending a large portion of the novel gaining credibility in
discussing a broad set of cases to argue against the death penalty, he also supports this particular
subset of his main thesis that sentences should be reduced by inserting a personal experience
where police officers confronted him. The police officers search his car and berate him on his
intentions towards his location and reason for sitting in his car for what appeared to them as no
apparent reason. He wasn’t arrested but he questioned what would have happened had he not
been well experienced and instead had allowed fear to control him during this overwhelming
period of his life. He was lucky in his circumstance, helping towards the favorable outcome;
however, had he not been, would there have been consequences for not cooperating? More than
if Stevenson was white? If he had been sent, then so many people would have been left helpless
and would not have received the very simple gift Stevenson has worked so hard to give- just a
little bit of mercy.
Stevenson describes cases he has worked with to build his credibility, acknowledges a
counterargument to clear misconceptions, and recalls personal persecution to strengthen
understanding and bring home his argument against harsh corporal punishment involving the
death penalty and life sentences without parole. Stevenson’s multilevel approach to his argument
gave insight from a wide variety of participants, affectively allowing his writing to influence a
wide variety of readers to understand, if not be persuaded by, his argument. While he does touch
on the logistics of the subject in regards to sentencing a criminal, he primarily focuses on the
emotional response and process in its entire, raw form. The emotional spectrum of the criminals
Kapfer 4
charged, their families, the victims and himself, encompass precisely who needs the mercy:
every single one of us. We all need justice and we most certainly all need mercy.
Kapfer 5
A white man sits playing a black man in chess. The man on the left plays with the white
pieces, which, by the rules of the game, moves first- the white person gets an advantage over
black person. So, it can be said that the black player has a disadvantage, as they do in the trials
discussed in Just Mercy. The law is intricate and delicate, Stevenson had to plan his moves far in
advance to successfully maneuver his way against harsh sentences, much like a game of chess.
The man on the right is like Stevenson, he must wear a watch to keep track of his tightly packed
schedule. Nobody has captured any pieces, there is no clear winner. In a court of law, it is
difficult to predict the outcome and in the case of Walter McMillian, there was no winner. The
people persecuting him lost because he was set free and Walter McMillian lost because he had to
bear death row his entire life- far past when he was released. The man on the right has glasses,
Kapfer 6
the man on the left doesn’t. The man on the left is not able to see as clearly, even when evidence
is right in front of him because he is blinded by the color of another man’s skin. He focused on
the man on the right and his skin color, while the man on the right has only one thing on his
mind: the game.
Kapfer 7
Writer’s Memo
My rough draft as a whole was essentially pretty well put together; however, like
everything, there was room for improvement. What my paper had in flow and sentence structure
variation, it lacked in format, transitions, and clarity. There was a two-week period between
writing my rough draft and beginning to even think of editing for my final draft to which I went
and discussed the paper with my professor and had a chance to then clear my head- a very
important step to writing a paper- before revisiting.
As stated previously, my rough draft had issues in areas concerning format, transitions,
and clarity- all easy, yet vital, changes to be made. The format changes included simply
unbolding the title, changing the font to Times New Roman, writing out the date and eliminating
the space between paragraphs. Similarly, transitions were nothing more than adding one or two
words to the beginning of my paragraphs to signal a shift. Both of these problems were easily
fixed in a span of five minutes. Unfortunately, clarity proved itself more difficult. I read over my
work a few times and was unable to understand what wasn’t clear- I had written it after all, so it
made sense to me. Eventually, I brought it to a friend who hadn’t read the book in discussion and
requested they point out anything they didn’t understand. They asked me plenty of questions
regarding my essay and with that, I was able to go in and incorporate the answers to said
questions in my essays; hopefully, improving the clarity of my work.