How Introductions and Conclusions Work Together
Consider the following introductory and concluding portions of “Death and Justice,” an essay by Edward I. Koch, former Democratic
mayor of New York City:
Last December a man named Robert Lee Willie, who had been convicted of raping and murdering an 18-year old woman, was
executed in the Louisiana state prison. In a statement issued several minutes before his death, Mr. Willie said, “Killing people is
wrong…It makes no difference whether it’s citizens, countries, or governments. Killing is wrong.” Two weeks later in South Carolina,
an admitted killer named Joseph Carl Shaw was put to death for murdering two teenagers. In an appeal to the governor for
clemency, Mr. Shaw wrote: “Killing is wrong when I did it. Killing is wrong when you do it. I hope you have the courage and moral
strength to stop the killing.”
It is a curiosity of modern life that we find ourselves being lectured on morality by cold-blooded killers. Mr. Willie previously
had been convicted of aggravated rape, aggravated kidnapping, and the murders of a Louisiana deputy and a man from Missouri.
Mr. Shaw committed another murder a week before the two for which he was executed, and admitted mutilating the body of the
14-year-old girl he killed. I can’t help wondering what prompted these murderers to speak out against killing as they entered the
death-house door. Did their newfound reverence for life stem from the realization that they were about to lose their own?
Life is indeed precious, and I believe the death penalty helps to affirm this fact. Had the death penalty been a real possibility
in the minds of these murderers, they might well have stayed their hand. They might have shown moral awareness before their
victims died, and not after. […]
1) What strategies does Koch employ in his introduction to engage the reader? Do you want to keep reading? Why or why not?
2) Notice that his introduction is not just one paragraph. Why do you think it takes him more time? What is he trying to
accomplish?
3) Underline Koch’s thesis. How do you know this is his thesis? What are the sentences surrounding the thesis statement doing
to support his claim?
4) Do you have an idea of where Koch will go next with his paper? How much of an idea? Does he give everything away? Does
he give you enough?
Now, let’s consider the concluding portion of Koch’s essay:
Everyone wants his or her rights, and will defend them jealously. Not everyone, however, wants responsibilities, especially
the painful responsibilities that come with law enforcement. Twenty-one years ago a woman named Kitty Genovese was assaulted
and murdered on a street in New York. Dozens of neighbors heard her cries for help but did nothing to assist her. They didn’t even
call the police. In such a climate the criminal understandably grows bolder. In the presence of moral cowardice, he lectures us on our
supposed failings and tries to equate his crimes with our quest for justice.
The death of anyone—even a convicted killer—diminishes us all. But we are diminished even more by a justice system that
fails to function. It is an illusion to let ourselves believe that doing away with capital punishment removes the murderer’s deed from
our conscience. The rights of society are paramount. When we protect guilty lives, we give up innocent lives in exchange. When
opponents of capital punishment say to the state: “I will not let you kill in my name,” they are also saying to murderers “You can kill
in your own name as long as I have an excuse for not getting involved.”
It is hard to imagine anything worse than being murdered while neighbors do nothing. But something worse exists. When
those same neighbors shrink back from justly punishing the murderer, the victim dies twice.
1) How does Koch interweave ideas from his introduction into his conclusion? Do you find this strategy successful or
unsuccessful? Why?
2) Koch does not repeat his thesis statement verbatim, but carries the idea strongly to the end. What sentences serve to
synthesize his initial argument?
3) Look at the last (short) paragraph. How would you describe what he’s trying to do here? (Hint: think about implication,
projection, culmination, synthesis).
4) What makes this a “conclusion” or culmination of an essay? In other words, how does it have the “feel” of a conclusion?
(Scroll down for a side-by-side comparison.)
How Do His Introduction and Conclusion Function Together?
INTRODUCTION
CONCLUSION
Last December a man named Robert Lee Willie, who had been
Everyone wants his or her rights, and will defend them jealously.
convicted of raping and murdering an 18-year old woman, was
Not everyone, however, wants responsibilities, especially the painful
executed in the Louisiana state prison. In a statement issued several
responsibilities that come with law enforcement. Twenty-one years
minutes before his death, Mr. Willie said, “Killing people is wrong…It ago a woman named Kitty Genovese was assaulted and murdered on
makes no difference whether it’s citizens, countries, or governments. a street in New York. Dozens of neighbors heard her cries for help but
Killing is wrong.” Two weeks later in South Carolina, an admitted
did nothing to assist her. They didn’t even call the police. In such a
killer named Joseph Carl Shaw was put to death for murdering two
climate the criminal understandably grows bolder. In the presence of
teenagers. In an appeal to the governor for clemency, Mr. Shaw
moral cowardice, he lectures us on our supposed failings and tries to
wrote: “Killing is wrong when I did it. Killing is wrong when you do it. I equate his crimes with our quest for justice.
hope you have the courage and moral strength to stop the killing.”
The death of anyone—even a convicted killer—diminishes us
It is a curiosity of modern life that we find ourselves being
all. But we are diminished even more by a justice system that fails to
lectured on morality by cold-blooded killers. Mr. Willie previously had function. It is an illusion to let ourselves believe that doing away with
been convicted of aggravated rape, aggravated kidnapping, and the
capital punishment removes the murderer’s deed from our
murders of a Louisiana deputy and a man from Missouri. Mr. Shaw
conscience. The rights of society are paramount. When we protect
committed another murder a week before the two for which he was
guilty lives, we give up innocent lives in exchange. When opponents
executed, and admitted mutilating the body of the 14-year-old girl he of capital punishment say to the state: “I will not let you kill in my
killed. I can’t help wondering what prompted these murderers to
name,” they are also saying to murderers “You can kill in your own
speak out against killing as they entered the death-house door. Did
name as long as I have an excuse for not getting involved.”
their newfound reverence for life stem from the realization that they
It is hard to imagine anything worse than being murdered
were about to lose their own?
while neighbors do nothing. But something worse exists. When those
Life is indeed precious, and I believe the death penalty helps
same neighbors shrink back from justly punishing the murderer, the
to affirm this fact. Had the death penalty been a real possibility in the victim dies twice.
minds of these murderers, they might well have stayed their hand.
They might have shown moral awareness before their victims died,
and not after. […]