I propose giving a choice for people to receive a flogging instead of jail or prison time. This would be more humane. Given the choice between ten lashes and five years in prison, who wouldn’t choose the lash? I know I would. Because flogging would happen only with the consent of the flogged, it would be hard to argue that it’s too cruel to consider. If the choice were so bad, nobody would choose it.I think one lash for every six months of potential incarceration is a fair deal. Some people say flogging isn’t harsh enough. Others say it may be too soft — though I really hope we haven’t reached the point in our society where whipping is considered too light a punishment.
The actual flogging would be done as it is in Singapore and Malaysia,
…show more content…
Since the declaration of a war on drugs 40 years ago, our country has amassed the largest prison population the world has ever seen. Overcrowding and unconstitutional conditions have gotten so bad that one of the worst offenders, California, was recently ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court to either transfer 33,000 people to other jurisdictions or simply let them go. Former police officer turned criminal justice professor Peter Moskos has devised a modest proposal that, he argues, could solve the problem of our congested prisons overnight: give prisoners the option of being flogged instead of being …show more content…
If flogging were such a bad choice, nobody would choose it. Some people argue that flogging is letting criminals off too easily. However, it can be either too hard or too soft, but it can’t be both. If our society has gotten to the point where whipping somebody is considered too lenient then what have we become? Flogging is cruel and barbaric, so I would hope that would be punishment enough.
Many may ask that if prisons are so terrible and ineffective, why do they persist? Mostly because people won’t think outside the box, but also because a lot of people still believe prisons can be reformed in some magical way that make them good for prisoners. I don’t buy that for a second. There’s also a strong desire for punishment and retribution, and that’s not necessarily bad if it’s kept in
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.
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
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 ...
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.
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.
wrong in today?s society. Many countries have, thankfully, relinquished this barbaric practice but, unfortunately, many continue to do so. I firmly believe that there are far better means of punishment. As I said before, do two wrongs make a right?
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.
Jacoby starts his essay by providing a background history on flogging by relating the punishment to crimes that would be insignificant in today’s society. He claims that imprisonment has become an “all purpose punishment” used for violent and nonviolent crimes alike (193). Citing a plethora of facts and research, Jacoby argues that the prison system is ineffective and too costly. To support his claim he advocates for a system of public humiliation and degradation to deter lower class criminals from becoming repeat offenders. Jacoby realizes that flogging’s “crimes of the day” are not our crimes, but maintains that flogging would be effective in current society and not any more brutal than being caged (194).
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
In 1814 Francis Scott Key described America as “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” Does that still hold true today? The United States has less than 5% of the world’s population, yet houses roughly a quarter of the world’s prisoners. That means it has 751 people in jail for every 100,000 in population. If you only count adults one in every 100 Americans is locked up. In 2012 the U.S. spent 677,856,000 billion dollars on national defense, that’s nearly 7.5 times the amount spent on education. If more money was spent on education there would be a better chance that people won’t end up incarcerated. About half of the prisoners in the United States are sentenced for non-violent crimes. The population of federal prisons has increased
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.
However there are some countries around the globe that still take part in these medieval, horrific punishments. In Iran, if you commit murder, kidnap or rape you will be hanged publicly to show what happens when you do the wrong thing. . Thankfully due to the effect of the medieval period on our lives this is a rare practice and that mankind has developed in their treatment of crime and punishment. As in Australia the death penalty is abolished and the penalty of freedom has taken its place as if you commit murder, kidnap or rape you will be confined to a small space for a long period of time therefore keeping the modern society
...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.
For example, the reader would probably have a different opinion if by “flogging” he meant striking or spanking the offender a couple times with a belt to administer temporary pain without long lasting effects or scars, than if “flogging” meant beating the offender mercilessly with a whip until skin is broken and blood is shed. The lack of providing a definition for the word “flogging,” makes it nearly impossible for the reader to form an opinion on whether or not flogging should be brought back as a method of punishing criminals.
Though the death penalty is considered barbaric, it is not. With those who have ones that have died viciously to the ones who died young there is such a thing as karma. The death penalty allows those people who committed the crime to be punished equally. Therefore, I agree with the reason for having the death penalty. It is only fair that the criminal be punished for his wrong doings. The bible does say, “An eye for an eye.” When there is equal punishment and safety it makes people worry less. It allows them to live out their lives in peace, and to not look back on something bad that has happened to them.