No death Penalty, No Easter BunnyDeath penalty is not something people are used to hear or talk about, even though it is not far from our history as mankind. USA is the only country in the western world there still practices Death Penalty even though it has been forbidden in all the countries around them. A prisoner judged to death proximal waits in prison for 20-30 years for his penalty. In 2016 there were 2.902 prisoners convicted to Death Penalty according to the American Death Penalty Information Center.No Death Penalty No Easter Bunny is written by Colin Cohen in 2003. The topic of the essay is clear as the title. Cohen comes with different statements for Death Penalty in a humoristic tone which are so outrageous that it is funny. The interesting thing about Cohen is he uses irony, humor and sarcasm to make his point clear and it works. It seems like the narrative is for Death Penalty but throughout sarcasm and humor, he shows that he is actually against Death penalty and even provokes the people who support the Death penalty.
The vibe throughout the whole essay has a sarcastic tone and that is something that allows the narrator to be critical against the death penalty and with those who votes for it, without making someone angry. Colin Cohen uses his humor by saying that without Death penalty there would be no Easter Bunny hiding eggs for the children. “The truth is that the death penalty lies at the foundation of Christian religion: and without such a policy, we would not only be without Christianity, but we would also be without Easter bunnies.” Cohen claims here in a humoristic way that because of the Jews death penalty against Jesus Christ and his risen from the dead, there will no more be Easter bunnies. This is a humoristic and sarcastic way to prove his point against the death penalty. He makes fun of people who argue for the death penalty by using the Incongruity theory which makes people laugh because this does not match reality and it is exaggerated. In the same time, he also uses The Relief Theory because he is talking about death which is a taboo which people do not normally talk about. Therefore, laughter also deals with shame by releasing nervous energy. And laughing at our taboos creates a distance, which makes us feel that we are in control.
The death penalty is a topic that is often avoided or not openly discussed, despite its historical significance. While many countries around the world have abolished the death penalty, the United States remains one of the few Western nations that still practices it. In 2016, the American Death Penalty Information Center reported that there were 2,902 prisoners convicted to the death penalty in the United States.
Colin Cohen, in his essay "No Death Penalty, No Easter Bunny" published in 2003, takes a unique approach to discussing the death penalty. He employs a humoristic and sarcastic tone to make his point against the death penalty, without directly angering those who support it. By using irony, humor, and sarcasm, Cohen challenges the arguments in favor of the death penalty.
One of the most notable statements Cohen makes is that without the death penalty, there would be no Easter Bunny. He humorously claims that the death penalty lies at the foundation of the Christian religion, and without it, there would be no Christianity or Easter bunnies. This statement is an example of Cohen’s use of incongruity theory, where he presents an exaggerated and unrealistic scenario to highlight the absurdity of arguments in favor of the death penalty. By using humor and sarcasm, Cohen aims to provoke thought and challenge the beliefs of those who support the death penalty.
In addition to incongruity theory, Cohen also employs the relief theory in his essay. The topic of death is often considered taboo and not openly discussed. By using humor and laughter, Cohen creates a distance from this taboo subject, allowing readers to feel more in control and release any potential feelings of shame or discomfort. Laughter becomes a way to deal with the taboo and release nervous energy.
Overall, Cohen’s essay provides a unique perspective on the death penalty by using humor, sarcasm, and irony to challenge the arguments in favor of it. His approach allows for critical analysis without directly angering or alienating those who support the death penalty. By incorporating incongruity and relief theories, Cohen creates a thought-provoking and engaging essay that encourages readers to reconsider their stance on the death penalty.
Cohen’s use of the relief theory in his essay adds an additional layer of understanding to his exploration of the topic of death and the death penalty. The relief theory, first proposed by Sigmund Freud, suggests that humor and laughter serve as a release valve for pent-up emotions and tensions. In the context of Cohen’s essay, the topic of death is often associated with feelings of fear, sadness, and discomfort. By injecting humor and laughter into his writing, Cohen creates a psychological distance from the taboo subject, allowing readers to feel more at ease and in control.
Humor has long been recognized as a coping mechanism for dealing with difficult or uncomfortable situations. In the case of death, which is often considered a sensitive and emotionally charged topic, humor can serve as a way to alleviate the tension and provide a sense of relief. By employing humor, sarcasm, and irony in his essay, Cohen enables readers to approach the subject of the death penalty with a degree of detachment and levity. This can help to release any potential feelings of shame or discomfort associated with discussing such a taboo topic.
Furthermore, laughter can also serve as a way to release nervous energy. When faced with topics that challenge our beliefs or make us uncomfortable, it is not uncommon for individuals to experience a sense of unease or anxiety. By incorporating humor into his essay, Cohen provides readers with an outlet for their nervous energy. Laughter becomes a mechanism through which readers can engage with the challenging ideas presented in the essay while also alleviating any potential discomfort or anxiety they may feel.
Cohen’s use of incongruity theory, in conjunction with the relief theory, adds depth and complexity to his exploration of the death penalty. The incongruity theory suggests that humor arises from the unexpected or incongruous elements within a situation. By presenting arguments in favor of the death penalty in a humorous and ironic manner, Cohen creates a sense of cognitive dissonance for the reader. This dissonance prompts readers to critically analyze the arguments being presented and reconsider their stance on the death penalty.
Overall, Cohen’s essay is a masterful example of how humor can be used to engage readers in a thought-provoking and challenging discussion. By incorporating the relief theory, Cohen allows readers to approach the taboo subject of death with a sense of control and releases any potential feelings of shame or discomfort. Through the use of incongruity theory, Cohen encourages readers to critically analyze their own beliefs and reconsider their stance on the death penalty. This combination of humor, relief, and incongruity creates an essay that is both engaging and impactful, challenging readers to think deeply about a complex and sensitive topic.