Flogging…What is it? What purpose does it serve? For those of us who have never heard of flogging, flogging refers to “beating with a whip or strap or rope as a form of punishment” (“Flogging” 1). Throughout the 1600s, flogging was utilized by “Boston’s Puritan Forefathers” (Jacoby 1) as a method of corporal punishment for various crimes. Progressing forward, Jeff Jacoby, columnist for The Boston Globe, provides readers with his view of “Boston’s Forefathers’” system of punishment in his essay, “Bring Back Flogging.” Within the contents of his work, Jacoby describes how flogging was utilized as punishment in its day. One such example he utilizes involves a woman who pleaded guilty to committing adultery. He writes that her punishment was “fifteen stripes severally to be laid on upon her naked back at the Common Whipping post” (Jacoby 1). In his piece, Jacoby argues for the revival of flogging and Puritan style punishment in the United States. As well as this, the author illustrates how imprisonment has become society’s general form of punishment and has now become outdated. Jacoby proposes that in order to cut costs and prevent future crime within first time offenders the turn to flogging must be taken. Jacoby’s logic to his argument is that since crime rates are rising, keeping prisoners locked up is expensive, and “the penal system is choked to bursting” (Jacoby 1), prisons should be done away with and flogging should take the reins as the new form of corporal punishment. Bearing in mind the above, Jacoby’s argument on bringing back flogging is unconvincing for the reason that his assumptions are incoherent and flogging itself is inhumane and could prove to be ineffective.
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. Reverting back to flogging, a primitive form of punishment, would counterbalance the efficacy of crime prevention. Clearly, times are different. Both people and the crimes they commit have changed and flogging as the popular process of edification for convicted criminals is of the past and jail time is of the present. In actuality, people should be investigating ways to inhibit crimes from occurring rather than seeking out ways to punish people. All in all, criminals whether convicted for murder or tax evasion are still criminals and will serve imprisonment accordingly. To end with, as the 1970s TV series, Baretta, once stated, “Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time” (“Baretta” 1).
He suggests flogging, but he gives no evidence as to why flogging would be more effective. Since Jacoby does not consider any other alternatives to prison such as community service, loss of privileges, or in extreme cases, exile, his argument that flogging is the best alternative is unconvincing to the reader. Also, he fails to define flogging or give proof that physical punishment would lower the high crime rate in the United States. Thus, while his article raises compelling concerns about the American prison system, Jeff Jacoby fails to persuade his audience that flogging is the best alternative to
In Western cultures imprisonment is the universal method of punishing criminals (Chapman 571). According to criminologists locking up criminals may not even be an effective form of punishment. First, the prison sentences do not serve as an example to deter future criminals, which is indicated, in the increased rates of criminal behavior over the years. Secondly, prisons may protect the average citizen from crimes but the violence is then diverted to prison workers and other inmates. Finally, inmates are locked together which impedes their rehabilitation and exposes them too more criminal
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.
According to Jacoby, flogging is faster, cheaper, and a more effective alternative to prison. Many young criminals would be less likely to become career criminals if punished through public embarrassment than through prison. Prison can be a sign of manliness or a “status symbol” (Jacoby 197). He says “prison is a graduate school for criminals”, providing evidence that criminals want to be convicted and be in prison, to strengthen their status (Jacoby 197). Jacoby knows how to properly get his view across to the reader, by saying that ...
Jacoby does not provide any backing for this warrant and gives no evidence of corporal punishment decreasing crime in other countries. Instead, he just assumes that the experience of immense physical pain would decrease crime. Jacoby’s failure to back up his warrant of physical pain being a deterrent of crime causes the reader to dismiss his argument of using corporal punishment as an alternative to imprisonment. Additionally, he never defines the term “flogging.” This lack of specification is confusing for the reader as it is unclear what Jacoby is actually talking about.
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,
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.
' The notion that punishment is needed as an example asserts that the punishment for murder, or the punishment any crime for that matter, should be employed as a deterrent and to inspire fear that will prevent others from fulfilling the said crime in the future. This illustrates a depressing and gloomy view of human nature, as being corrupt at its core and that fear remains the only thing that prevents us from committing evil acts. Rather, I believe that laws and the punishments associated with the infringement of laws are an agreement between a citizen and the society they live in about what is appropriate and agreeable behavior that protects the basic rights of all citizens and holds all citizens as equal in front of the law. Thus, if someone kills another person and the circumstances of the crime are not within the previously established laws, then the person should be held responsible regardless of whether one would kill that person if they could help it or
...l punishment as a just and morally sound method of justice. After all, "An eye for an eye" seemed to be a rationale that many embraced as fair. Now there is an era of closer examination of what is truly just and morally ethical, as well as economically sound. A consequence needs to be fair, humane, and effective. Does capital punishment meet these criteria? There are compelling reasons to change the system we have blindly acclaimed. Hopefully we are in the process of implementing a new way of dealing with an age-old dilemma.
This essay has identified sanctions imposed on offenders including imprisonment and community corrections. Described how punishment is justified with the just desert and deterrence theory. Discussing the rate of individuals being imprison comparted to community, provided rates for assault which shows crime being maintained and community member feel safe enough to allow for this to
“The question of whether the death penalty is a more effective deterrent than long-term imprisonment has been debated for decades or longer by scholars, policy makers, and the general public” (Radelet & Lacock, 2009).
"Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time." -- David Grusin and Morgan Ames
The death penalty continues to be an issue of controversy and is an issue that will be debated in the United States for many years to come. According to Hugo A. Bedau, the writer of “The Death Penalty in America”, capital punishment is the lawful infliction of the death penalty. The death penalty has been used since ancient times for a variety of offenses. The Bible says that death should be done to anyone who commits murder, larceny, rapes, and burglary. It appears that public debate on the death penalty has changed over the years and is still changing, but there are still some out there who are for the death penalty and will continue to believe that it’s a good punishment. I always hear a lot of people say “an eye for an eye.” Most people feel strongly that if a criminal took the life of another, their’s should be taken away as well, and I don’t see how the death penalty could deter anyone from committing crimes if your going to do the crime then at that moment your not thinking about being on death role. I don’t think they should be put to death they should just sit in a cell for the rest of their life and think about how they destroy other families. A change in views and attitudes about the death penalty are likely attributed to results from social science research. The changes suggest a gradual movement toward the eventual abolition of capital punishment in America (Radelet and Borg, 2000).
Death penalty might sound like the immoral thing to do; however it’s effective. When a criminal is sentence to the death sentence, it spreads fear between criminals who committed a similar crime. It also, decreases the amount of criminals that were thinking about committing that particular crime. In the article, “The Death Penalty Deters Crime and Saves Lives” Muhlhausen explains to us how death penalty sa...
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 ... ...