Summary Of Jeff Jacoby Bring Back Flogging

In his essay “Bring Back Flogging,” columnist Jeff Jacoby attempts to convince his audience that flogging is an effective method to punishing criminals. He begins by bringing his audience back the 17th century and describes a time when Puritans punished any wrong-doers, listing the names of the victims, their crimes, and their punishments. Jacoby then compares and contrasts the two methods of punishment, flogging and incarceration, thus effectively luring the audience further into his argument. Although his argument appears to persuade his readers into seeing the advantages of flogging, his essay as a whole is ineffective due to lack of knowledge on the justice system, poor essay structure, and disrespect toward his audience.

Besides the topic itself, the most interesting detail about this essay is where Jacoby’s name and title is located: at the end of the essay. “Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe”(Jacoby 4). As I began to read his essay, I assumed the author of his piece had a background in criminology or any other related subject. To my surprise, Jacoby is simply a columnist. With very little background knowledge on this matter, it is evident that columnist Jacoby is not in a position to argue about this subject. Although he attempts to bring out a feasible argument by citing the words of criminologist John Dilulio and

former Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackman, Jacoby still lacks credibility.

Along with credibility, our columnist also lacks details in his counter-argument, which results in poor essay structure.

With only three short paragraphs arguing why corporal punishment is ineffective, Jacoby dedicates the rest of his essay attacking and degrading the court and justice system. What Jacoby could have done to improve his essay is to write about why the corporal system failed to continue onto the 21st century and perhaps interview those who are more involved in the justice system; For example, words of those who are incarcerated for misdemeanors or even victims of prison rape could have improved his

argument.

Finally, Jacoby’s argument is ineffective because of his use of his audience’s lack of knowledge. Jacoby uses common knowledge to make his readers feel included and manipulates his audience by creating sense of empathy. He quotes Harry Blackman, “The horrors [of prison rape] experienced by many young inmates particularly those who… are convicted of nonviolent offenses” (Jacoby 3). Another effective usage of his audience’s empathetic side is his use of the word “cage” instead of “prison”. This allows his readers to see inmates more as human beings instead of animals.

Although he impresses his audience with logical reasons why incarceration is harmful such as the price of keeping criminal in prisons and the fact that spending time in prison is sometimes seen as “a sign of manhood” (Jacoby 2), his paper as a whole remains ineffective. I believe his intentions in writing this essay is to educate his readers, however he fails to include a proper counter-argument and to provide further background knowledge as to why incarceration does not work in our country. Hopefully, he can create a better comparison and contrast in the future.