Matt Pepin
English 201
“Bring Back Flogging”, is an article by Jeff Jacoby comparing equal corporal punishment of miscreants by Puritans to incarceration of criminals today. Jacoby’s title pretty well sums up his thesis; that corporal punishment is less expensive, less effective, and can be meted out more judiciously to fit the crime. Today we lock them in cages instead, at a rate unsurpassed in the free world. Imprisonment has become our all-purpose punishment for crime and is on the rise because of mandatory minimum sentences and life terms for recidivists. Overcrowding in prisons is responsible for convicted felons being released early or not locked up at all. Jacoby draws on the knowledge of Princeton criminologist when he states that three-quarters of released inmates are on the street with no meaningful probation or parole supervision.
There are several schools of thought on the philosophy of dealing with criminals, Jacoby’s is punishment through retribution and contemporary criminologists use the word rehabilitation, though myself nor Jacoby subscribe to the theory that imprisonment’s primary purpose is rehabilitation.
Jacoby’s purpose in his essay is persuading the reader that corporal punishment that fits the crime is more humane and effective than the degradation of imprisonment. According to Jacoby, imprisonment is; costly ($30,000 per year), turns prisons into a criminal graduate school where convicts emerge more adept, ruthless, and savvy at crime than when they entered; and have become too congested, letting criminals out before their sentence is served; and inmates are subjected to unimaginable horrors.
But much of his essay is a contradiction. He singles out the horrors experienced by young inmates while incarcerated yet he is unhappy with the percentage of offenders who don’t go to prison because it is their first or second offense. His quote, “And while everybody knows that amateur thugs should be deterred before they come career criminals…,” he doesn’t advocate prisons because they will turn into professional criminals. On the one hand he is concerned about the growing population of prisons and on the other hand he is concerned because not enough murderers, burglars, and 1st and 2nd time offenders are going to prison. He cannot be positive that, “If young punks were horse whipped in public after there first conviction, fewer of them would harden into lifelong felons.” This might make young felons more rebellious, may be sanction violence, or lead to an entirely different conclusion than if the present system was abolished or altered.
Jacoby omits much relative material such as the cost of executing a criminal is much more expensive than a term of prison for life. All the appeals before the execution are very expensive. Most crimes are pled down to a lesser offense to alleviate congestion in court convicting people of crimes they didn’t actually commit. Because of our congested system a trial takes four to six months to get on a court docket, and the poor who can’t afford bail or an attorney are incarcerated whether they are guilty or not.
One cannot say that Jacoby handles the subject with “Kids gloves.” He is adamant in his belief and uses many facetious phrases when referring to our present penal system. He does leave the reader unsatisfied and sympathetic that our present system is not working satisfactorily
Jacoby closes his article leaving the question of whether or not imprisonment is less effective, less brutal, or less humiliating than corporal punishment. I believe he answered his own question when he stated that by today’s standards we would consider it a form of torture. We can’t spank children, teachers are on a fine line when they punish a student and the military doesn’t allow physical abuse by instructors during training. Whether we have something to learn form the Puritans is a moot question since our society, even though rampant with violence, does not condone many forms of violence other than sports or wars.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Bring Back Flogging
Nicole Hunter
Week 4
Jeff Jacoby's Bring Back Flogging
Title: The title was an attention getter because before reading the essay I was unsure of what the term "flogging" actually meant. The title made me want to read further into the story to find the meaning, which the author clearly explains in the first paragraph.
Thesis: I think the reader is pretty clear in stating his thesis in the title of the story "Bring Back Flogging." The author explains flogging to the reader and when and how it was used. The author shows how he feels our current system is not working.
Purpose: The purpose of this essay was to explaining to readers what flogging exactly is, why he feels it served its purpose well, and how he feels it would benefit society. Jacoby explains how he feels that the prison system currently in place is no more a form of punishment, rather a form of "caging" humans. Jacoby goes on to say how the prison system is an "all-purpose punishment" and every case whether it be a drug charge or a murder charge, is sent to prison. Jacoby also discusses the cost of prison versus the cost of flogging.
Method: The author wrote a very strong essay. Rather than ranting and raving about the over-crowded, over-used prison system he is calm and composed when explaining and comaring the two. The author did a good job at comparing the price of housing an inmate and the cost of flogging. Also what really made the essay stand out was when he said "...prison is a graduate school of criminal studies: They emerge more ruthless and savvy than when they entered." This is probably true because many inmates learn alot more criminal behavior while in prison than they would from a round of flogging!
Persona: The author comes off to me as a knowledgeable writer and seems that he is passionate about changing the legal system and exposing its many flaws. Jacoby was fair to both sides of the argument using good compairing and contrasting througout the essay.
Closing Paragraph: The last paragraph sums up the essay and the thesis stating that the puritans were smarter than we think and how their ideas and rules could still be readopted today. The last sentence "Maybe we should readopt a few." really made me think more deeply about the issue and yes, maybe we should.
Impressions: My impression of the essay was positive. I felt the reader made many brilliant points and defintely made me think harder about all of the loopholes and flaws in not only our prison system, but our legal system all together. It also made me think about our media and how every time I turn on the television it is news about Paris Hilton going to jail and what a big deal it is for her, while the woman who killed her husband will spend a mere three weeks in jail! There are wars being fought, murders (some whose killer is walking free), kidnapping, and starvation right here in this country. I could care less if she goes to jail, but I bet it would be a lot more embarrassing if she were stripped down and whipped than to sit in a private jail cell! There definitely needs to be another form of punishment besides prison time.
Week 4
Jeff Jacoby's Bring Back Flogging
Title: The title was an attention getter because before reading the essay I was unsure of what the term "flogging" actually meant. The title made me want to read further into the story to find the meaning, which the author clearly explains in the first paragraph.
Thesis: I think the reader is pretty clear in stating his thesis in the title of the story "Bring Back Flogging." The author explains flogging to the reader and when and how it was used. The author shows how he feels our current system is not working.
Purpose: The purpose of this essay was to explaining to readers what flogging exactly is, why he feels it served its purpose well, and how he feels it would benefit society. Jacoby explains how he feels that the prison system currently in place is no more a form of punishment, rather a form of "caging" humans. Jacoby goes on to say how the prison system is an "all-purpose punishment" and every case whether it be a drug charge or a murder charge, is sent to prison. Jacoby also discusses the cost of prison versus the cost of flogging.
Method: The author wrote a very strong essay. Rather than ranting and raving about the over-crowded, over-used prison system he is calm and composed when explaining and comaring the two. The author did a good job at comparing the price of housing an inmate and the cost of flogging. Also what really made the essay stand out was when he said "...prison is a graduate school of criminal studies: They emerge more ruthless and savvy than when they entered." This is probably true because many inmates learn alot more criminal behavior while in prison than they would from a round of flogging!
Persona: The author comes off to me as a knowledgeable writer and seems that he is passionate about changing the legal system and exposing its many flaws. Jacoby was fair to both sides of the argument using good compairing and contrasting througout the essay.
Closing Paragraph: The last paragraph sums up the essay and the thesis stating that the puritans were smarter than we think and how their ideas and rules could still be readopted today. The last sentence "Maybe we should readopt a few." really made me think more deeply about the issue and yes, maybe we should.
Impressions: My impression of the essay was positive. I felt the reader made many brilliant points and defintely made me think harder about all of the loopholes and flaws in not only our prison system, but our legal system all together. It also made me think about our media and how every time I turn on the television it is news about Paris Hilton going to jail and what a big deal it is for her, while the woman who killed her husband will spend a mere three weeks in jail! There are wars being fought, murders (some whose killer is walking free), kidnapping, and starvation right here in this country. I could care less if she goes to jail, but I bet it would be a lot more embarrassing if she were stripped down and whipped than to sit in a private jail cell! There definitely needs to be another form of punishment besides prison time.
Friday, June 8, 2007
Play Fair
Kristi Feucht
June 8, 2007
Title: John Irvings title "Wrestling with Title IX", gives the impression that there is something amiss with Title IX. He tells that his topic will revolve around Title IX. He also ties in "wrestling" with many of his examples throughout the essay.
Thesis: Irving states in his thesis that "Title IX may be in for an overhaul" in the very first sentence of his essay. He doesn't explain what he personally would like changed until the second paragraph.
Purpose: Irvings purpose in this essay is not to get rid of Title IX, but to go back to the original meaning of it. Congress passed Title IX in 1972 to "put an end to sex discrimination in schools."
Method: Irving uses many examples throughout his essay of schools that have had to cut men's programs in order to keep it equal with women's programs to comply with Title IX. He has pointed out how some schools have tried to go to drastic measures to provide new women's sports instead of cutting men's sports. He also points out how many male students don't have the oppurtunity to play at college level because of the gender inequality of sports.
Persona: Irving comes across as a regular law abiding citizen. He also shows how he stays involved in politics and is not afraid to stand by his decisions regarding touchy subjects such as abortion.
Closing Paragraph: In Irving's closing paragraph he uses a personal quote from an umpire. It is a small but powerful quote that can be applied to many things, including this essay.
Impressions: The feelings I get from this essay are that Irving is correct. The law is being misinterpreted. Congress needs to reevaluate the original meaning of Title IX and then create a new law pertaining to gender equality among sports if so needed. I personally feel there should be no such law. Going back to the essay about Arizona State University trying to create a women's rowing team in a state where there is no water is ridiculus that a school would have to go to those measures to keep a program in their school from being cut. I agree with Irving and the Little League umpire, "Play fair!"
June 8, 2007
Title: John Irvings title "Wrestling with Title IX", gives the impression that there is something amiss with Title IX. He tells that his topic will revolve around Title IX. He also ties in "wrestling" with many of his examples throughout the essay.
Thesis: Irving states in his thesis that "Title IX may be in for an overhaul" in the very first sentence of his essay. He doesn't explain what he personally would like changed until the second paragraph.
Purpose: Irvings purpose in this essay is not to get rid of Title IX, but to go back to the original meaning of it. Congress passed Title IX in 1972 to "put an end to sex discrimination in schools."
Method: Irving uses many examples throughout his essay of schools that have had to cut men's programs in order to keep it equal with women's programs to comply with Title IX. He has pointed out how some schools have tried to go to drastic measures to provide new women's sports instead of cutting men's sports. He also points out how many male students don't have the oppurtunity to play at college level because of the gender inequality of sports.
Persona: Irving comes across as a regular law abiding citizen. He also shows how he stays involved in politics and is not afraid to stand by his decisions regarding touchy subjects such as abortion.
Closing Paragraph: In Irving's closing paragraph he uses a personal quote from an umpire. It is a small but powerful quote that can be applied to many things, including this essay.
Impressions: The feelings I get from this essay are that Irving is correct. The law is being misinterpreted. Congress needs to reevaluate the original meaning of Title IX and then create a new law pertaining to gender equality among sports if so needed. I personally feel there should be no such law. Going back to the essay about Arizona State University trying to create a women's rowing team in a state where there is no water is ridiculus that a school would have to go to those measures to keep a program in their school from being cut. I agree with Irving and the Little League umpire, "Play fair!"
Wrestling with Title IX
Wrestling with Title IX
John Irving
Title: From the title of this essay, readers can already gather that there is going to be some type of argument going on. Irving uses the word wrestling, which would mean going back and forth on Title IX. Because Title IX is also included in the title, readers know that Irving will know a little about what Title IX is, and will explain his position on it. We can't conclude just from the title Irving's thoughts on Title IX without reading the essay. Because we don't know his thoughts just yet, the title doesn't portray any persona. What we can conclude, though, is that we know his thesis and topic will probably be about Title IX.
Thesis: In the first paragraph, Irving gives a hint to what his thesis is going to be about. "Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in educational programs receiving federal assistance, may be in for an overhaul." (193). Irving keeps giving information on what Title IX is before he gets to his point. He states that there are two Title XI's. One that was the original in 1972 and a re-evaluation of it in 1979. By the fourth paragraph, Irving makes it clear that the re-interpreted Title XI requires proportionality, "but in order to acieve gender proportionality, men's collegiate sports are being undermined and eliminated." (194).
Purpose: Irving makes it clear that he is trying to persuade his readers to go along with his views on why the enforcement of proportionality is wrong. He tries to make it seem like men are being discriminated against when it comes to this law. He wants his readers to agree with him, and he does this by supporting his argument.
Method: The way in which Irving supports his argument is through statistics and examples. If I was just reading this essay with no examples or any kind of numbers that show statistics, I would think he is making stuff up aboout men's athlete programs being eliminated because I haven't heard of anything about it. He gives a good definition of what the interpreted rule is, "the ratio of male to female athletes be proportionate to the ratio of male to female students at a particular college." (194). He then goes on to say that "on average, females make up about 56% of the college enrollment, males 44%. This means more than half the athletes on team rosters must be women." (194). Because of this, men's teams are being cut. Irving tells of wrestling teams that are arguing about being discriminated against and why they are so upset. He says that wrestling has been a rapidly growing sport at the high school level and backs this up with a cited statistic of a wrestling projects director. "In 2001, there were 244,984 athletes wrestling in high school; only 5,966 got to wrestle in the N.C.A.A." (195). He goes on to give examples of teams being dropped even with their finances are in order, meaning the only other reason the sport was dropped was to comply with gender proportionality.
Irving uses negative words to help his argument. He uses words such as wrong, lazy. discrimination, dropped, ludicrous, etc. These all help his readers to identify with his negative feelings about the new Title IX.
Persona: After reading this essay, it is clear that Irving presents himself as a supporter of men's athletics and that the new Title IX isn't right. Even though he is a man, he clearly states that he is a woman's advocate and doesn't have hostile feelings toward women, but that he just wants to eliminate discrimination against male athletes. He does a good job of proving this when he gives the example of the ASU rowing team that tried to create more opportunites for women rather than cutting male collegiate sports.
Closing Paragraph: In Irving's last attempt to try and persuade his readers, he includes a short story about what an umpire said before a baseball game. He relates that to Title IX by saying, "Keep Title IX; eliminate proportionality. Play Fair." (197). This does a good job of wrapping up thoughts and leaving the audience with something to think about. This creates a united feeling that discrimination isn't fair and shouldn't be objected to.
Impressions: After reading this essay, I think that Irving is right about his view on the re-evaluated Title IX. Men should not be discriminated against just because they are more interested in college sports than women are. They are more involved in athletics all around, and should not have to suffer because female interest isn't there. I thought Irving did a good job on backing up his views with all of his examples that he gave. He really made me think about this issue in detail and why a rule like this is even in existence. I agree with eliminating proportionality and letting males compete.
Brittany Lake
John Irving
Title: From the title of this essay, readers can already gather that there is going to be some type of argument going on. Irving uses the word wrestling, which would mean going back and forth on Title IX. Because Title IX is also included in the title, readers know that Irving will know a little about what Title IX is, and will explain his position on it. We can't conclude just from the title Irving's thoughts on Title IX without reading the essay. Because we don't know his thoughts just yet, the title doesn't portray any persona. What we can conclude, though, is that we know his thesis and topic will probably be about Title IX.
Thesis: In the first paragraph, Irving gives a hint to what his thesis is going to be about. "Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in educational programs receiving federal assistance, may be in for an overhaul." (193). Irving keeps giving information on what Title IX is before he gets to his point. He states that there are two Title XI's. One that was the original in 1972 and a re-evaluation of it in 1979. By the fourth paragraph, Irving makes it clear that the re-interpreted Title XI requires proportionality, "but in order to acieve gender proportionality, men's collegiate sports are being undermined and eliminated." (194).
Purpose: Irving makes it clear that he is trying to persuade his readers to go along with his views on why the enforcement of proportionality is wrong. He tries to make it seem like men are being discriminated against when it comes to this law. He wants his readers to agree with him, and he does this by supporting his argument.
Method: The way in which Irving supports his argument is through statistics and examples. If I was just reading this essay with no examples or any kind of numbers that show statistics, I would think he is making stuff up aboout men's athlete programs being eliminated because I haven't heard of anything about it. He gives a good definition of what the interpreted rule is, "the ratio of male to female athletes be proportionate to the ratio of male to female students at a particular college." (194). He then goes on to say that "on average, females make up about 56% of the college enrollment, males 44%. This means more than half the athletes on team rosters must be women." (194). Because of this, men's teams are being cut. Irving tells of wrestling teams that are arguing about being discriminated against and why they are so upset. He says that wrestling has been a rapidly growing sport at the high school level and backs this up with a cited statistic of a wrestling projects director. "In 2001, there were 244,984 athletes wrestling in high school; only 5,966 got to wrestle in the N.C.A.A." (195). He goes on to give examples of teams being dropped even with their finances are in order, meaning the only other reason the sport was dropped was to comply with gender proportionality.
Irving uses negative words to help his argument. He uses words such as wrong, lazy. discrimination, dropped, ludicrous, etc. These all help his readers to identify with his negative feelings about the new Title IX.
Persona: After reading this essay, it is clear that Irving presents himself as a supporter of men's athletics and that the new Title IX isn't right. Even though he is a man, he clearly states that he is a woman's advocate and doesn't have hostile feelings toward women, but that he just wants to eliminate discrimination against male athletes. He does a good job of proving this when he gives the example of the ASU rowing team that tried to create more opportunites for women rather than cutting male collegiate sports.
Closing Paragraph: In Irving's last attempt to try and persuade his readers, he includes a short story about what an umpire said before a baseball game. He relates that to Title IX by saying, "Keep Title IX; eliminate proportionality. Play Fair." (197). This does a good job of wrapping up thoughts and leaving the audience with something to think about. This creates a united feeling that discrimination isn't fair and shouldn't be objected to.
Impressions: After reading this essay, I think that Irving is right about his view on the re-evaluated Title IX. Men should not be discriminated against just because they are more interested in college sports than women are. They are more involved in athletics all around, and should not have to suffer because female interest isn't there. I thought Irving did a good job on backing up his views with all of his examples that he gave. He really made me think about this issue in detail and why a rule like this is even in existence. I agree with eliminating proportionality and letting males compete.
Brittany Lake
A Blog for Flogging
Title - Jeff Jacoby's Essay; "Bring Back Flogging" grabs the readers attention right away with some very visual descriptions of Puritan flogging. Jeff Jacoby's title; Bring Back Flogging, right away lets the reader know what the topic of his essay is and gives the reader some insight as to what his thesis is.
Thesis - By the end of the second paragraph, readers should be aware that Jeff Jacoby's thesis is; flogging is just as humane as prison and more effective; both mentally and fiscaly. Jacoby makes this distiniction clear wih the last sentence in his second paragraph; "Now we practice a more enlightened, more humane way of discipling wrongdoers: We lock them up in cages."
Purpose - Jacoby's purpose is very clear in that he wants readers to realize that our system of imprisioning first-time non violent criminals could be better dealt with by corproal punishment; more specifically public corpoal punishment. Jacoby while making an argument, does not prsent his writing with the typical verbage that you might expect from a stright forward argument. Jacoby manages to blend enough verbage and statistics to make you really think about his argument; regardless of your political position.
Method - Jacoby uses quite a few diffrent statistics and quotes from a least one expert to present his argument. Jacoby does this with great pose and profesionallism. A good example of this is in paragraph 6 and 7 where Jacoby states the cost of housing one inmate is $30,000 a year and a painful and humiliating paddling is far less expensive and probably more effective. Jacoby also points out that Prison has become a "status symbol" for many people and going to prison is considered a right of passage so to speak for some people. Jacoby does take note to make sure and make the distinction that in modern society we would not punish people for blasphemy or adultry. Nor would we use hot irons to pierce people's tounges as a form of punishmnet. It was crucial that Jacoby made this statement in his essay, had he not I believe his essay would have met with harsher critisicim then it already did.
Persona - Jeff Jacoby presents himself as a very serious, yet fair individual. He recognizes that some crimes are worthy of prison, but we need to re-evaluate sending so called small time crooks to hang out with murders and rapists. Jacobys use of plenty of statistics helps to present himself as a veryknowledgable individual.
Closing Paragraph - Jacoby closes very simply by letting peopel know that maybe we can leran a few things from our forefathers. Their methoid of punishmnet while embarassing and painful was effective both mentally and financialy.
Impression - I was very intrigued by Jacoby's essay. At first reading I thought this was ridiculous and out of the question, but after re-reading and thinking about it, Jacoby presents some very valid points. The number of inmates raped every year is one of those. Over two hundred thousand inmates raped without guard knowledge! Subjecting thieves and small time crooks to this danger clearly seems more cruel then a public whipping. Teh cost to house one inmate per year, are small time crooks worth this amount? I beleive Jacoby opens the door to a very powerful topic and some very interesting debates.
Matthew Smith
Blog Assignment week 4
Thesis - By the end of the second paragraph, readers should be aware that Jeff Jacoby's thesis is; flogging is just as humane as prison and more effective; both mentally and fiscaly. Jacoby makes this distiniction clear wih the last sentence in his second paragraph; "Now we practice a more enlightened, more humane way of discipling wrongdoers: We lock them up in cages."
Purpose - Jacoby's purpose is very clear in that he wants readers to realize that our system of imprisioning first-time non violent criminals could be better dealt with by corproal punishment; more specifically public corpoal punishment. Jacoby while making an argument, does not prsent his writing with the typical verbage that you might expect from a stright forward argument. Jacoby manages to blend enough verbage and statistics to make you really think about his argument; regardless of your political position.
Method - Jacoby uses quite a few diffrent statistics and quotes from a least one expert to present his argument. Jacoby does this with great pose and profesionallism. A good example of this is in paragraph 6 and 7 where Jacoby states the cost of housing one inmate is $30,000 a year and a painful and humiliating paddling is far less expensive and probably more effective. Jacoby also points out that Prison has become a "status symbol" for many people and going to prison is considered a right of passage so to speak for some people. Jacoby does take note to make sure and make the distinction that in modern society we would not punish people for blasphemy or adultry. Nor would we use hot irons to pierce people's tounges as a form of punishmnet. It was crucial that Jacoby made this statement in his essay, had he not I believe his essay would have met with harsher critisicim then it already did.
Persona - Jeff Jacoby presents himself as a very serious, yet fair individual. He recognizes that some crimes are worthy of prison, but we need to re-evaluate sending so called small time crooks to hang out with murders and rapists. Jacobys use of plenty of statistics helps to present himself as a veryknowledgable individual.
Closing Paragraph - Jacoby closes very simply by letting peopel know that maybe we can leran a few things from our forefathers. Their methoid of punishmnet while embarassing and painful was effective both mentally and financialy.
Impression - I was very intrigued by Jacoby's essay. At first reading I thought this was ridiculous and out of the question, but after re-reading and thinking about it, Jacoby presents some very valid points. The number of inmates raped every year is one of those. Over two hundred thousand inmates raped without guard knowledge! Subjecting thieves and small time crooks to this danger clearly seems more cruel then a public whipping. Teh cost to house one inmate per year, are small time crooks worth this amount? I beleive Jacoby opens the door to a very powerful topic and some very interesting debates.
Matthew Smith
Blog Assignment week 4
Flogging vs. Jail Time
Sara Tillman
June 8, 2007
Why is it that most people follow rules in life? The answer to this question is simple; with every wrong doing there is a consequences. In the 1600's the consequences was termed "flogging" as Jeff Jacoby tells in his essay "Bring Back Flogging". Jacoby tells about how flogging was used as a means of punishment in the 1600's versus our penal system today. With flogging the person breaking the law would be physically punished or publicly humiliated He asked, should our country bring back flogging as punishment instead of putting law breakers in jail. Jacoby makes many good points in his essay, but fails to go into detail about how harsh the jail system really is. American jails are filled with gangs that physically torture each other. Furthermore, some of the torture is not only physical, but it is also mental. Flogging would not be successful today because there are so many people in America that would turn around and sue the judicial system for their punishment. Flogging may have worked a couple hundred years ago, but times are very different now and this form of punishment would not be successful in America.
In Jacoby's essay he makes is seem like the jail system is basically a training camp for criminal to perfect their talents. Furthermore, we are paying for this training with our tax paying dollars. Jacoby makes a point, but these prisoners turn out this way because of all of the torture that they have endured will they are serving their prison time. Jails are filled with gangs that spend most of their time in jail fighting with other gangs. Jacoby's idea of flogging is a one time, harsh punishment, but in jail the punishment can last a life time. Prisoner can have years to think about their wrong doing, while the victims of flogging may be able move on with their lives since the are not confined following their persecution.
Not only do prisoners in jail receive physical abuse, they are also psychologically abused. Many prisoners live in constant fear of what is going to happen to them next. There is a fear that one may be beaten severely, rapped by other inmates, or even killed by the abuse. This like flogging is a form of torture that would make any person scared to return to jail.
In jail inmates receive some sort of torture whether or not it is physical or emotional, but this abuse is not by the prison guards or other members of the judicial system it is done by the prisoner's peers. The main reason that flogging would not work in today's society is that the judicial system would have to worry constantly about victims of flogging suing for physical or emotional damages. In Jacoby's article he states that the amount that we spend "is $30,000 per inmate per year" that they are in jail. If a person decided to sue from the damages of flogging they would very likely sue for millions versus thousands. So we would not only be putting criminal back into society, but they would also have money to live their corrupt life.
Jacoby's point that our penal is not perfect, but his idea of using flogging as a punishment system also has its downfalls. Putting criminals into jail give the inmates time to think about what they did, but also is a form of torture like flogging is. There is physical and psychological elements to deal with, but these inmates have no need to sue for damages from this torture because it was done by their peers. Furthermore, will theses prisoners are serving their time in jail they are off the streets and this means that the streets are safer.
June 8, 2007
Why is it that most people follow rules in life? The answer to this question is simple; with every wrong doing there is a consequences. In the 1600's the consequences was termed "flogging" as Jeff Jacoby tells in his essay "Bring Back Flogging". Jacoby tells about how flogging was used as a means of punishment in the 1600's versus our penal system today. With flogging the person breaking the law would be physically punished or publicly humiliated He asked, should our country bring back flogging as punishment instead of putting law breakers in jail. Jacoby makes many good points in his essay, but fails to go into detail about how harsh the jail system really is. American jails are filled with gangs that physically torture each other. Furthermore, some of the torture is not only physical, but it is also mental. Flogging would not be successful today because there are so many people in America that would turn around and sue the judicial system for their punishment. Flogging may have worked a couple hundred years ago, but times are very different now and this form of punishment would not be successful in America.
In Jacoby's essay he makes is seem like the jail system is basically a training camp for criminal to perfect their talents. Furthermore, we are paying for this training with our tax paying dollars. Jacoby makes a point, but these prisoners turn out this way because of all of the torture that they have endured will they are serving their prison time. Jails are filled with gangs that spend most of their time in jail fighting with other gangs. Jacoby's idea of flogging is a one time, harsh punishment, but in jail the punishment can last a life time. Prisoner can have years to think about their wrong doing, while the victims of flogging may be able move on with their lives since the are not confined following their persecution.
Not only do prisoners in jail receive physical abuse, they are also psychologically abused. Many prisoners live in constant fear of what is going to happen to them next. There is a fear that one may be beaten severely, rapped by other inmates, or even killed by the abuse. This like flogging is a form of torture that would make any person scared to return to jail.
In jail inmates receive some sort of torture whether or not it is physical or emotional, but this abuse is not by the prison guards or other members of the judicial system it is done by the prisoner's peers. The main reason that flogging would not work in today's society is that the judicial system would have to worry constantly about victims of flogging suing for physical or emotional damages. In Jacoby's article he states that the amount that we spend "is $30,000 per inmate per year" that they are in jail. If a person decided to sue from the damages of flogging they would very likely sue for millions versus thousands. So we would not only be putting criminal back into society, but they would also have money to live their corrupt life.
Jacoby's point that our penal is not perfect, but his idea of using flogging as a punishment system also has its downfalls. Putting criminals into jail give the inmates time to think about what they did, but also is a form of torture like flogging is. There is physical and psychological elements to deal with, but these inmates have no need to sue for damages from this torture because it was done by their peers. Furthermore, will theses prisoners are serving their time in jail they are off the streets and this means that the streets are safer.
Wrestling with Title IX: When Fair Become Unfair
Title: John Irving’s essay entitled Wrestling with Title IX poses a great argument and example of discrimination being discriminated against in society. The title of his essay is enticing and very creative, especially for his argument later on in the essay.
Thesis: Everyone is always trying to define what’s fair and determined as just within society. However, no matter how hard one tries, someone always claims and disagrees with a decision being made, accusing a new law as unfair and unjust itself. Irving argues against Title IX as a law used to enforce equal rights within the college and high school athletic setting, but the law in turn goes from a law advocating women’s rights to a law of violation to men’s rights, especially in wrestling.
Purpose: Irving goes about his essay in trying to get the reader to recognize what fairness really is and to persuade his readers to recognize the discrimination being experienced by men. The key to fairness is defining what is fair and just and realizing to learn to accept the fact that no matter where one goes or how hard one tries, fair is not always fair.
Method: Irving strongly demonstrates his knowledge as not only an excellent writer, but as someone who understands and knows his stuff. Irving establishes great credibility in his argument from the beginning when he gives knowledge to the reader that he himself was involved with the wrestling programs and therefore knows the rights and violations being administered first hand. The question posed from his reading is when does a law reach a level of fairness that is going to be accepted by all? Women’s rights have been a strong milestone that many advocates have had to oversee in the past decades. In fighting for their rights, Irving points out that once the law of Title IX was passed it has become a violation of men’s rights and their rights to equal opportunities in sports especially at the collegiate level.
College poses a great opportunity for anyone that decides to attend. It’s a place to make new friends, pursue your goal in whatever career field you decide to take on, and most importantly allows you to participate in new opportunities, especially sports. Conversely, not all students are being given that opportunity because of Title IX. In a country that allows for equal rights and equality through everything, Irving demonstrates that Title IX discriminates against men’s rights to play collegiate sports and does not give everyone the full opportunity to take on something new in their lives. Title IX states that colleges must meet one of three criteria, but Irving points out that in striving to meet those standards, men are being short changed. How are men supposed to have equal opportunity in sports when women are not as interested in intramurals or playing athletics at the college level as men? Why should men be punished because of a lack of participation by women? Not only do these pose strong questions, but Irving also supports his argument by pointing out that females make up about 56 percent of the college enrollment while men make up about 44 percent. In addition to that, men outrank women 4-1 or 3-1 in regards to intramural participation. In the middle of his argument, Irving poses an important question, “Can you imagine this rule being applied to all educational programs-classes in science, engineering, accounting, medicine or law? What about dance, drama or music-not to mention women’s studies”? With that in mind what would the point of getting an education be if that did happen? We would be right at the beginning of where we started with equal employment opportunities.
Persona: As mentioned before, Irving lets it be known to the reader his knowledge as a coach in wrestling and how Title IX has affected his life. By making the reader known of this, his argument is more credible and what he has to say is given a lot more respect from myself as a reader.
Closing Paragraph: I have one word for Irving’s closing paragraph: INSPIRING!! I was really impressed with the way in which he ended his essay because of how he pointed out that it’s not just at the collegiate level that people are trying to make things fair, but also for the younger age groups, even with Little League. Fairness is Irving’s main point that he’s trying to get across to his reader, and he does that by using his example of Little League involvement at the end of his essay.
Impression: Having cheered for wrestling in high school for two years I strongly agree and recognize how important of a sport it is to many men; and of course some women. As of right now I have a friend overseas wrestling for the junior Olympics in Bulgaria and Turkey and I’ve recognized how important this sport is to his life. So, why should men like my friend not be given that opportunity to continue to pursue something that he loves because of the ratio of women to men at his college could at one point in time become not fair. Honestly define fair? Is it fair to men that women have a lack of interest in sports? In the latter part of Irving’s essay he points out that although the number of high school wrestlers is high, the number of men allowed to wrestle at the collegiate level is extremely low, due to the ratio criterion. So, let’s take into perspective a different question. What are the men who aren’t allowed to wrestle doing with their time? Maybe they are the students who instead of taking time out of their day to go to wrestling practice, are the ones who are getting wasted on a school night, skipping classes the next day, hanging with the wrong crowd, and eventually flunking out of school. All because they were denied the right to participate in a sport that they love. Society often recognizes the importance of being involved in athletics and the opportunities that it gives to many students and college sports are no different.
Thesis: Everyone is always trying to define what’s fair and determined as just within society. However, no matter how hard one tries, someone always claims and disagrees with a decision being made, accusing a new law as unfair and unjust itself. Irving argues against Title IX as a law used to enforce equal rights within the college and high school athletic setting, but the law in turn goes from a law advocating women’s rights to a law of violation to men’s rights, especially in wrestling.
Purpose: Irving goes about his essay in trying to get the reader to recognize what fairness really is and to persuade his readers to recognize the discrimination being experienced by men. The key to fairness is defining what is fair and just and realizing to learn to accept the fact that no matter where one goes or how hard one tries, fair is not always fair.
Method: Irving strongly demonstrates his knowledge as not only an excellent writer, but as someone who understands and knows his stuff. Irving establishes great credibility in his argument from the beginning when he gives knowledge to the reader that he himself was involved with the wrestling programs and therefore knows the rights and violations being administered first hand. The question posed from his reading is when does a law reach a level of fairness that is going to be accepted by all? Women’s rights have been a strong milestone that many advocates have had to oversee in the past decades. In fighting for their rights, Irving points out that once the law of Title IX was passed it has become a violation of men’s rights and their rights to equal opportunities in sports especially at the collegiate level.
College poses a great opportunity for anyone that decides to attend. It’s a place to make new friends, pursue your goal in whatever career field you decide to take on, and most importantly allows you to participate in new opportunities, especially sports. Conversely, not all students are being given that opportunity because of Title IX. In a country that allows for equal rights and equality through everything, Irving demonstrates that Title IX discriminates against men’s rights to play collegiate sports and does not give everyone the full opportunity to take on something new in their lives. Title IX states that colleges must meet one of three criteria, but Irving points out that in striving to meet those standards, men are being short changed. How are men supposed to have equal opportunity in sports when women are not as interested in intramurals or playing athletics at the college level as men? Why should men be punished because of a lack of participation by women? Not only do these pose strong questions, but Irving also supports his argument by pointing out that females make up about 56 percent of the college enrollment while men make up about 44 percent. In addition to that, men outrank women 4-1 or 3-1 in regards to intramural participation. In the middle of his argument, Irving poses an important question, “Can you imagine this rule being applied to all educational programs-classes in science, engineering, accounting, medicine or law? What about dance, drama or music-not to mention women’s studies”? With that in mind what would the point of getting an education be if that did happen? We would be right at the beginning of where we started with equal employment opportunities.
Persona: As mentioned before, Irving lets it be known to the reader his knowledge as a coach in wrestling and how Title IX has affected his life. By making the reader known of this, his argument is more credible and what he has to say is given a lot more respect from myself as a reader.
Closing Paragraph: I have one word for Irving’s closing paragraph: INSPIRING!! I was really impressed with the way in which he ended his essay because of how he pointed out that it’s not just at the collegiate level that people are trying to make things fair, but also for the younger age groups, even with Little League. Fairness is Irving’s main point that he’s trying to get across to his reader, and he does that by using his example of Little League involvement at the end of his essay.
Impression: Having cheered for wrestling in high school for two years I strongly agree and recognize how important of a sport it is to many men; and of course some women. As of right now I have a friend overseas wrestling for the junior Olympics in Bulgaria and Turkey and I’ve recognized how important this sport is to his life. So, why should men like my friend not be given that opportunity to continue to pursue something that he loves because of the ratio of women to men at his college could at one point in time become not fair. Honestly define fair? Is it fair to men that women have a lack of interest in sports? In the latter part of Irving’s essay he points out that although the number of high school wrestlers is high, the number of men allowed to wrestle at the collegiate level is extremely low, due to the ratio criterion. So, let’s take into perspective a different question. What are the men who aren’t allowed to wrestle doing with their time? Maybe they are the students who instead of taking time out of their day to go to wrestling practice, are the ones who are getting wasted on a school night, skipping classes the next day, hanging with the wrong crowd, and eventually flunking out of school. All because they were denied the right to participate in a sport that they love. Society often recognizes the importance of being involved in athletics and the opportunities that it gives to many students and college sports are no different.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)