In the essay Bring Back Flogging Jeff Jacoby talks about flogging, the act of beating someone with a whip or stick as a form of punishment or torture. Flogging can be traced back to Jesus, yet was most commonly seen in the 16th century by Puritans, navels, and slaves. Although most think corporal punishment of criminals vanished with the Puritans, this is false. Delaware did not repeal it until 1972. Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for the Boston Globe, a daily newspaper from Boston, Massachusetts, which was founded in 1872. This article Bring Back Flogging was originally published on February 20, 1997. Based on the information given in the essay I do agree that flogging would be an effective alternative to jail time for non-criminal charges.
In Bring Back Flogging Jacoby claims that we should bring back flogging because the current ways of incarceration are not effective, the price, and the crime rates in prison are increasingly high.
Jacoby has been with the Boston Globe since 1987 as a columnist, and has received the following awards: the Breindel Prize in 1999, and the Thomas Paine Award in 2004. Before he worked for the Boston Globe he briefly practiced law and was a commentator for WBUR-FM. Based on this information, it shows that he not only does his research on the history of flogging and how it could be beneficial, but shows that he has knowledge regarding the topic. He also, throughout the essay, explains how corporal punishment can be effective because the lack of efficiency that incarcerating criminals shows. He addresses the opposition that corporal punishment is a faster and more cost effective process but backs up his argument using information about the amount of crime committed in jails too.
The current ways of t...
... middle of paper ...
...ould be an effective alternative to jail time for non-violent offenses. Though Jacoby’s arguments regarding the current ineffectiveness of the system, the price, and the crime rates in prisons, there have been many accomplishments with gaining people’s rights. For example, the eighth amendment about cruel and unusual punishment is in place because of forms of punishment like flogging. However, for a non-violent crime, I do think many would prefer this even punishment over jail time because of the risks within jails. Therefore, Jacoby’s argument is not reasonable, even in todays day in age.
Works Cited
Boston Globe. "Staff List." BostonGlobe.com. Boston Globe Media Partners, LLC, 2014. Web. 15 Jan. 2014.
Jacoby, Jeff. “Bring Back Flogging.” Current Issues and Enduring Questions. Ed. Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau. Boston: Bedford St. Martins. 1010: page numbers.
Every civilized society makes laws that protect its values, and the society expects every single citizen to obey these laws. Whenever a citizen of a certain society breaks one of these laws, the rulers of the society dish out punishments they dim fit for the kind of crime committed. With this kind of justice system in place, criminals are either locked up in prison cells, whipped, or exiled from the society. In the essay, “Bring Back Flogging”, columnist Jeff Jacoby argues that flogging is much more superior to imprisonment and should be brought back as a method of punishing crime offenders like the Puritans did in the past. He is convinced that the shame associated with flogging would prevent offenders from going into crime professionally. Jacoby believes that whipping criminals has more educational value compared to locking them up in cells and that it saves a lot of money. Throughout the essay Jacoby attempts to build ethos even though it fell apart due to misconceptions. He relied mostly on the use of pathos by appealing to his reader’s emotions and using this as a base ground for his logos.
In this article, a young American boy, Michael Fay, who lived in Singapore, was convicted of vandalism and was sentenced to a flogging. The author of this article, Mike Royko, was American, and was on Fay’s side, he thinks that a flogging is wrong.
Randa, Laura E. “Society’s Final Solution: A History and Discussion of the Death Penalty.” (1997). Rpt.in History of the Death Penalty. Ed. Michael H. Reggio. University Press of America, Inc., 1997. 1-6 Print.
In Jeff Jacoby’s essay Bring Flogging Back, he discusses whether flogging is the more humane punishment compared to prison. Jacoby uses clear and compelling evidence to describe why prisons are a terrible punishment, but he lacks detail and information on why flogging is better. In the essay, he explains how crime has gotten out of hand over the past few decades, which has led to the government building more prisons to lock up more criminals. His effort to prove that current criminal punishment is not perfect or even effective is nicely done, but he struggled with discussing ways that flogging could lower the crime rates and provide a safer environment for America. Jacoby makes many claims about how crime in the United States has grown and the how faulty America’s justice system currently is.
In “Bring Back Flogging”, Jeff Jacoby argues why the current criminal justice system in America is not effective or successful. As a solution, he suggests that America should bring back the old fashioned form of punishment once used by the puritans, flogging, as an alternative to imprisonment (198). This article originally appeared in the op-ed section of the Boston Globe newspaper. Therefore, the primary audience of this article is people who want to read arguments about controversial topics and have probably read some of his other articles. His argument that the current criminal justice system is not working is extremely convincing. He appeals to pathos and uses statistics to prove that thesis and to persuade the audience.
Unfortunately, the strategy of punishing a criminal by putting them into a jail cell with nothing to bring them pleasure doesn’t quite work as well as flogging. There will always be two different sides to this argument, but image being beat or burned to the point where the feeling of death comes upon you compared to the feeling of being alone in an uncomfortable cell just doesn’t compare. Criminals would rather have to deal with other criminals and sleep in uncomfortable situations rather than get beaten, as Jacoby states “For tens of thousands of convicts, prison is a graduate school of criminal studies: They emerge more ruthless savvy when they entered” (Pg. 192). With that being said, the thought of our government spending tons of money on criminals who aren’t turning out for the better and are actually turning into more violent and law breaking citizens, would make tax payers pro flogging instead of pro jail. Sadly, within the essay “Bring Back Flogging” Jacoby is extremely biased, because of this while reading Jacoby’s essay it is easy to not fully agree with what he believes, but with the strong points that Jacoby has the reader will find themselves siding with Jacoby more and more as they read. Even though flogging has become extinct within the United States, the death
During seventeenth century flogging was a popular punishment for convicted people among Boston's Puritans. Fortunately, those times have passed and brutal and inhuman flogging was replaced by imprisonment. Columnist for the Boston Globe, Jeff Jacoby in his essay "Bring back flogging" asserts that flogging is superior to imprisonment and advocates flogging as an excellent means of punishment. He is convinced that flogging of offenders after their first conviction can prevent them from going into professional criminal career and has more educational value than imprisonment. He also argues that being imprisoned is more dangerous than being whipped, because the risk of being beaten, raped, or murdered in prison is terrifying high. Unfortunately, Jeff Jacoby made some faulty assumptions and his article "Bring back flogging" is filled with misconceptions.
To begin with, Jacoby’s assumptions can be seen as ill... ... middle of paper ... ... ffective at all. He does not take into account the fact that flogging could actually cause more crimes in present society. Crimes have evolved and punishment must evolve as well.
Mandatory sentencing is not anything new. It began in the 1970s. The main purpose for mandatory sentencing was to try to get rid of the drug lords and to eliminate most of the nation’s street drug selling. It was to impose that the same crime would have the same sentence all over the nation. Some of the negatives that rose from mandatory sentencing were nonviolent drug offenders and first time offenders who were receiving harsh sentences. Inmate populations and correction costs increased and pushed states to build more prisons. Judges were overloaded with these cases, and lengthy prison terms were mandated to these young offenders. Mandatory sentencing is an interesting topic in which I would like to discuss my opinions in going against mandatory sentencing. I will show the reasons for this topic, as well as give you my personal brief on which I support.
When the our criminal justice system introduced punishments, sanctions for criminal behavior tended to be public events which were designed to shame the person and deter others. These punishments included ducking stool, the pillory, whipping, branding and the stocks. As years progressed, these punishments have slowly started disappear from our penology and capital punishment was introduced. According to Kronenwetter,
More are sentencing options are great because just like every person is different, so is the crime. Prison may not always be the most effective response for people, so If courts have options other than incarceration, “they can better tailor a cost-effective sentence that fits the offender and the crime, protects the public, and provides rehabilitation” (FAMM, 2011). Findings have also proven that alternative saves taxpayers money. “It costs over $28,000 to keep one person in federal prison for one year1 (some states’ prison costs are much higher). Alternatives to incarceration are cheaper, help prevent prison and jail overcrowding, and save taxpayers millions” (FAMM, 2011, para. 3). Lastly, alternatives protect the public by reducing crime. There is a 40% chance that all people leaving prison will go back within three years of their release (FAMM, 2011). “Alternatives to prison such as drug and mental health courts are proven to confront the underlying causes of crime (i.e., drug addiction and mental illness) and help prevent offenders from committing new crimes” (FAMM, 2011, para.
In “Bring Back Flogging,” Jeff Jacoby, a journalist, argues why the current criminal justice system in America is not effective or successful. As a solution, he suggests that America should bring back the old fashioned form of punishment, flogging, once used by the Puritans as an alternative to imprisonment (198). This article originally appeared in the op-ed section of the Boston Globe. Therefore, the primary audience of this article is people who want to read arguments about controversial topics and have probably read some of Jacoby’s other articles. His argument that the current criminal justice system is not working is extremely convincing. He appeals to pathos and uses statistics to prove that thesis and to persuade the audience. However, he provides no reason why corporal punishment is the best alternative to imprisonment and never offers any other options. Additionally, he does not make an effort to explain why corporal punishment would be more effective or successful than imprisonment. Thus, in “Bring Back Flogging,” Jeff Jacoby successfully informs his audience of the dangers and problems with imprisonment by using verbal irony, appealing to the emotion of pity, incorporating logical
Prisons are not places where nonviolent offenders can serve time and then be released a better person, more fit for society. The prison environment is wrong, and as a result a nonviolent offender will leave unimproved. It is my belief that the alternatives of community control programs, rehabilitation programs, and restitution programs are the answers to the sentencing of nonviolent offenders.
Coyle (2005). The 'Standard'. To say whether using prison as a form of punishment has aid in the quest of tackling the crime problem, one must first consider the purposes of the prison.... ... middle of paper ... ...
Jacoby believes the death penalty protects society by threatening future murders with fear. Gaes believes the death penalty is necessary because the overpopulation in prisons causes emotional and physical distress. The stronger side of the debate seems to be that the death penalty does not discourage crime at all nor does it help the victim’s family heal. It would be useful to know whether or not death-penalty states as a whole have lower rates of crime than non-death penalty states when arguing for the death penalty.