Mencken vs. Kroll

I didn't think that either essay (Mencken or Kroll) was persuasive.
The first essay by Mencken wasn't persuasive because of the incorrect usage of logos.  Mencken took an extreme opinion on the death penalty, and basically only used two points throughout the essay.  The main one depicted Americans as greedy vultures who only wanted revenge.  "The thing they crave primarily is the satisfaction of seeing the criminal actually before them suffer as he made the victim suffer."  He didn't have enough real facts to support his claims, plus he didn't appeal to any audience.  After all, what American is going to agree that we just want to see people suffer?
The second essay by Kroll wasn't persuasive to me probably because I need facts in order to be convinced.  Kroll's essay was strictly pathos, with no facts.  He used an anecdote that was filled with bias, which could put some people off.  For instance, his bias toward his friend pushed him toward making the victim's family seem like sadistic monsters.  He uses a slight fallacy in that he only mentions the victim's family in a bad light, not the whole truth--that one of their family members had been murdered by Harris.  I think it's possible that he could have exaggerated on the story, especially when dealing with the victim's family.  "I saw the witnesses from the victims' families being led past our window toward the chamber.  Some were laughing."  Maybe if he had supported his idea with some statistic and facts, he could have appealed not only to the people who are persuaded by pathos, but also the people persuaded by logos.