Jacoby's Analysis

Kelsey Webb
June 8, 2007

Title: Jeff Jacoby’s title, “Bring Back Flogging,” served as an attention-getter as I read it the first time. Although this may be different for other readers, I found myself wondering what exactly “flogging” was and hoped that Jacoby would define it throughout his essay. As I hoped, Jacoby does refer to flogging as a method of punishment for criminals. This method is much more extreme than methods used to day, but Jacoby uses hints of sarcasm in his title, asking to “bring back flogging.”

Thesis: Jacoby doesn’t deliberately state his thesis as the first sentence or even within the first paragraph, instead he makes the reader infer the idea he is trying to present. Paragraph 3 begins to present the thesis and by paragraph 8 is clear that perhaps flogging wasn’t the worst form of punishment. Perhaps it should be used again to stop the crimes today, rather than the threat of being “locked in a cage.”

Purpose: Jacoby holds two purposes throughout his essay. The first is to inform the reader of flogging and the evolution of crimes today. The second purpose is to persuade the reader to conform to his belief. Like the example, Jacoby doesn’t state his “reasons” or his “conclusion,” however, he presents evidence to show the reader the problem of crimes and the punishment from the criminal justice system and how the method today is expensive and not necessarily successful.

Method: Jacoby’s method is to entice the reader with a tasteful introduction, present examples of flogging, and then hook the reader with his evidence. He shows statistics and uses statements by qualified professionals in the related field. He refutes the opposing point that cities have become safe (paragraph 5) with more evidence about the “odds of actually being arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and incarcerated.” Like the example, Jacoby uses specific language to build to the strength of his thesis. He uses derogatory remarks to show the negative use of corporal punishment that was used by the Puritans, like “whipt, branded, peirct.” He also uses derogatory remarks to criticize today’s criminals, calling them “punks” and “thugs.” Jacoby also uses rhetorical questions throughout the essay (paragraphs 9, 11, 12, and 13). This offers evidence that supports Jacoby’s claim without having to thoroughly explain.Basically, Jacoby presents evidence through statistics and qualified statements to show that the criminal system is imperfect and needs to be adjusted. Although flogging may be extreme, something needs to be done.

Persona: Jacoby’s writes from a couple of angles. He shows himself as a concerned citizen (although he states that keeping inmates in prison is an estimated $30,000 each year per inmate, he agrees that “the cost to society of turning many inmates loose would be even higher”). He also takes on the role of an irritated critic. “‘Too degrading,’ some will say. ‘Too brutal.’ But where is it written that being whipped is more degrading than being caged?” He shows that he is concerned but also upset with the ordeal at the same time. He does this in a ‘straight-edged, serious with sarcastic references’ kind of way.

Closing Paragraph: Jacoby ends with a straight forward idea and suggestion. In just three short sentences, he summarizes his thesis and has a call to action that isn’t meant to be taken seriously but to create some kind of thought process. Once again Jacoby is saying that something needs to be done to adjust the criminal justice system and maybe using the Puritan method would be such a bad idea.

Impressions: Jacoby’s essay hit close to home because I also believe that there are many issues within the criminal justice system. Although I can’t suggest whipping a drug dealer or piercing the tongue of a thief (because with today’s standards, he/she probably already has some form of tongue jewelry!), locking a criminal up in a cage doesn’t always fix the problem. Corporal punishment is a touchy subject that most Americans would oppose but who knows, maybe a slap on the wrist should devolve back to a whip on the back to teach some “thug or punk” a lesson.