Let Prisoners Take College Courses By John J. Lennon

In the argument “Let Prisoners Take College Courses,” by John J. Lennon he argues that when incarcerated, if the college programs are not made readily available for more than the select few inmates, they will see more returns than they would otherwise. To support his thesis Lennon uses a variety of researched facts. For example: “In Sing Sing, for example, one forward-thinking educational program, launched in 1998, has a recidivism rate of less than 2 percent”(Lennon, 1). This shows that Lennon did some research on the subject. In addition to the factual evidence presented in the argument, Lennon uses two different human experiences. One experience was of himself. He spoke of what put him in jail and how being able to take college courses helped him discover who he was and feel remorse for his bad decisions of his past.

The second experience that he uses, is of his cell neighbor Roberto Rivera.

In this example Lennon plays with our sympathy, telling stories of how Roberto was one of two hundred prisoners that were trying to get accepted into the college program that only seats twenty three. He ends with a quote from his mother “How you think is how you act”(Lennon 3). This saying by his mother, is comparing the inmates attitudes going into jail and how if educated how they can change when coming out. In this argument by John J. Lennon he uses a variety of pathos, logos and ethos writing methods in order to try and persuade the readers to agree with adding more college courses for inmates. Although the argument is very well written Lennon’s use of egos, pathos and logos are lacking. Which in turn allows the readers to not be persuaded towards his goal of increasing the amount of classes offered in

jail.
As stated, Lennon use of the three writing skills ethos, pathos and logos are lacking. His main problem had to do with Ethos. Lennon failed to provide enough background to give himself credible validation for writing this argument. Throughout the article Lennon tries to subtly persuade readers into viewing him as a regular person and not a convicted felon. One example of this is when Lennon would refer to himself as “privileged 1 percent”(Lennon 2) and someone with “Untapped talent”(Lennon 2). Lennon does this in order to try and make himself appear like an unpolished diamond in the mind’s eye of the reader, implying that he has untapped potential. Although this a very good way to persuade the reader, halfway through the argument Lennon releases the reason why he is in jail in the first place. Saying “I was convicted of drug dealing and murder in 2004, and sentenced to 28 years to life”(Lennon 2). Lennon in no way tries to explain the mishappenings of his life and leaves the readers to ponder who did he kill, why did he kill. This one untimely presented and undescribed event in his article leads his ethos to never fully develop into the desired image of a regularly functioning citizen.
Lennon’s next problem with his argument had to do with his use of pathos. The main emotion that is appealed to in the argument is the sympathetic emotion. Throughout the entire argument Lennon tries to get the readers to sympathize with him by writing about personal horrifying experiences while being incarcerated as well as other inmates horrifying stories. One example of this is “I hit rock bottom in 2008, in a different prison, where I was jumped by another prisoner and stabbed six times with an ice pick. My lung was punctured”(Lennon 2). The “I hit rock bottom” part of this sentence is written in order to appeal to every ones sympathy. He is trying to show that the unfortunate event that transpired was unavoidable and not his fault because he was at his lowest of lows. Another example of Lennon trying to get the reader to sympathize is when he writes about his cell neighbour’s story of how he ended up at Attica Prison. Lennon says “2013 on Rikers island, where he found himself in the middle of an hour-and- a-half -long rumble….In the end, Roberto’s head and face were carved up and a broken broomstick was stuck in his eye”(Lennon 3). Lennon knows that anyone reading this is going to cringe and sympathize with Roberto because as humans no one likes to hear of such disturbing and horrifying acts of brutality no matter the person being brutalized. Another yet more subtle way that Lennon played with pathos in his argument is when he would compare the present to the past. Lennon says “Education was once an integral part of prison life. In the early 1980s, there were 350 college degree programs for prisoners nationwide. It was part of the ‘rehabilitative era’”(Lennon 1). He shows the reader that in the past people thought about helping prisoners rather than writing them off and having the cycle of incarceration continue. All of these specific examples used by Lennon did not have enough effect in order to get the reader to sympathize with him because he stated later in the argument that he was convicted of “murder and drug dealing”. Just this statement alone made it extremely hard to sympathize with the author since he is a murderer. Also Lennon should have omitted this fact about himself in order to sway the readers with his other personal experiences.
Finally, Is Lennon’s use of logos. He uses logos very well throughout his essay stating facts and research data clearly and usually at the right time. For example Lennon writes “In Sing Sing, for example, one forward-thinking educational program, launched in 1998, has a recidivism rate of less than 2 percent”(Lennon 2). This is a great piece of data to insert because it shows positive data towards his point that educated inmates do not return to prison. Although it may be true that Lennon has some great pieces of data in his argument, he does not support his most important claims with the appropriate logic based facts. An example of Lennon not inputting as specific fact or research data after an important claim is when he says “1980s, there were 350 college degree programs for prisoners nationwide. It was part of the ‘rehabilitative era’”(Lennon 1). After this Lennon fails to elaborate on this. He should have continued to support this claim by stating facts about the recidivism rate of inmates in the 1980s and getting personal statements from inmates that have succeeded in using these programs. Lennon’s use of logos throughout the paper is strong but as stated is lacking in some important places of the argument.
Overall, Lennon’s argument failed to execute the three writing skills ethos, pathos and logos in a strong enough manner as to persuade the readers to agree with his thoughts. Lennon’s weakest persuasive attempt was his use of ethos. He faced a strong disadvantage at the beginning of the paper because of his circumstance that lead him to be in jail and was never able to quite overcome that obstacle and be viewed as a regular citizen. Also the use of pathos and logos was not as weak, it still presented problems to the overall effect of the essay. Lennon did not supply his facts and research with enough support to have them help his argument. Leaving people to wonder and guess what was left unsaid. In regards to pathos, Lennon was able to provide numerous examples of personal experiences that would require the reader to sympathize with him, but the fact that he told the readers that he was a murderer and did not explain the situation made the sympathizing feeling slowly recede as the argument went on. With all of this at hand the argument faild at persuading the reader of accepting more college classes for inmates.