Pro And Cons Of Banning Public Humiliation As A Form Of Federal Punishment

In “Bring Back Flogging”, Jeff Jacoby addresses the problems within America 's criminal justice system. He gives many reasons why imprisonment simply does not work, and suggests that corporal punishment should be used as an alternative. Published in the Boston Globe, a newspaper well known for being liberal, Jacoby provides a conservative view and directs his argument towards those who strongly support imprisonment and view corporal punishment to be highly barbaric and inhumane. However, in order to shed light on our current situation, Jacoby discusses the dangers that we face though our criminal justice system a nd shows concern that imprisonment is doing more harm than good. In effect, Jacoby looks to the past for solutions, and

Jacoby’s argument of flogging attempts to show how it can be more productive over the conventional method of punishment seemingly the only way, imprisonment. His beliefs are that public whippings will prevent youths and first time offenders from becoming lifelong felons. The benefits deduced from his argument for flogging assuming it proves to be conclusive would be such. Lowering the rate of felons in jail, freeing up space for the more violent offenders. The appalling estimated amount of thirty thousand a year per inmate would be saved. A public whipping would not be associated with respect and sign of manhood or status symbol that prison serves for many offenders. Flogging he believes would deter many of the first time offenders and youth along with preventing them from being repeat and long time offenders. The pain, scars, and embarrassment of public whippings would far exceed the value or risk reward benefit of doing a petty crime thus forcing people to think about their actions before they did it. Jacoby contends that he is unsure whether being whipped is more degrading that being caged. At the end of his essay he draws attention to the point of the terrible risk of being raped in prison as an argument in favor of replacing imprisonment with flogging.

In “Bring Back Flogging”, the author, Jeff Jacoby suggests that people should adopt some of the Puritans tactics to punish criminals instead of putting them in prison. In order to present his claim, Jacoby is based in the use of irony, logos, and ethos. According to Jeff Jacoby a moment of humiliation is better than a couple of years behind the bars. I do not agree with Jeff Jacoby’s argument because the examples he gives and the way he refers to the topic incite to violence, also during the development of the subject he is too contradictory with his own opinions, and his arguments are unclear.

The eighth amendment states that cruel and unusual punishment can not be inflicted upon anyone. Although the eighth amendment does state that cruel and unusual punishment can not be enforced the eighth amendment does not state what “cruel and unusual punishment” actually should include. It is hard to decide what punishments should be identified as cruel and unusual. I believe that there should not be any terrible punishment that is pushed too far to handle although that is my stand I also believe that some things have an excuse to enforce a cruel and unusual punishment. Is death penalty cruel and unusual or should it be enforced on certain people is a question that is commonly asked. Some people can do the unthinkable crimes such as killing someone or even multiple people something that you believe could never happen or maybe should never happen. Or maybe something you think there should even be the possibility for it to happen. Or maybe they raped or molested someone, or maybe hurt a kid or teenager. I personally do not want people that can do this with no regret or thought to be able to be in my life or even my world. I believe that there are certain cutoffs on who should get the death penalty and who should not get the death penalty. People who killed another human being or hurt a child in any severe way deserves the death penalty. If that child or person does not have the right to live or even live a normal life anymore then the person who did it should not have the right to live a normal life or even a life at all. Someone who rob someone or even robs a bank or stole something from a store should be locked up or put in prison. I believe that walking a certain great amount or being forced to do hours of laborious work is cruel and unusual but having a prison job and cold showers are not. Anyone who is in a prison is most likely in there for a reason. The reason being they broke a law of some sort. Or that person did something that they knew would end them up in jail and still decided to do it anyways. If you can not stop yourself from doing something that is harmful to yourself or others then you get to spend some time working like everyone else does on a daily basis. Another common question asked is

In “Bring Back Flogging” Jeff Jacoby, a columnist for the Boston Globe, presents the use of corporal punishment as an alternative to the current system of imprisonment. Published in February of 1997, the article states that flogging would be a more effective means of punishment than jail. He insists it would be less expensive and serve as a deterrent to first time offenders. Jacoby’s thoughts on prison reform are legitimate, but his reasoning behind the use of corporal punishment is flawed. He fails to provide reasonable support for his argument which leaves the reader guessing as to the seriousness of his claim.

In Jeff Jacoby’s essay Bring Flogging Back, he discusses whether flogging is the more humane punishment compared to prison. Jacoby uses clear and compelling evidence to describe why prisons are a terrible punishment, but he lacks detail and information on why flogging is better. In the essay he explains how

Shaming or puritan punishment like forcing people to keep a sign with a dishonorable inscription seems more like retaliation yet, not justice. Nonetheless, if we look at this problem from a different angle, exposing criminals to the public condemnation may be quite beneficial because it may have a powerful educational effect on potential criminals, and thereby may prevent some of the crimes that could already be planned. At the same time, a prison cannot cause such a vivid condemnation that public shaming does consequently, cannot be an effective behavioral corrector just by itself. I think that combining these two types of punishment into one can give a staggering result and, perhaps, in the near future humanity will forget about such problem

Mandatory sentencing is a set penalty approved by parliament for committing a criminal offence. This sentence can involve any type of consequence, it normally refers to prison sentencing. All Australian states and territories have mandatory sentences, most of them introduced life imprisonment for murder after the death penalty’s abolition but,

Public humiliation last longer than traditional punishments, are far more damaging than traditional punishments, and does not fit in with modern society. Abandoning public humiliation will allow the justice system to do its job: punish criminal appropriately, reduce crime, and reform criminals. Public humiliations failure to be as effective as traditional forms of punishment prove that public humiliation should not be used to punish

BODY 1- We can prevent disgraceful crimes from happening by bringing back the death penalty; by following this adjustment there will be minor crimes being committed. Recent research shows that each execution carried out is correlated with approximately 74 fewer murders each following year. Death penalty serves a definite purpose of reducing crime as well as bringing justice

The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported 6.7 million people were supervised by adult correctional systems in the United States at year end 2015. President Obama has conveyed tax payer pay $80 billion dollars to house incarcerate individuals yearly. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 limited federal judge sentencing discretions. In 1980 the USA had 500k people incarcerated, the population of prisoners has more than doubled the last two decades. The United States Mandatory sentencing requires offenders receive a predetermined minimum sentencing for some offenses. Since the implementation of mandatory sentencing, prison populations have risen sharply with sky rocking costs. On certain offenses, Federal judges no longer have discretion on the sentence length. Mandatory sentencing laws have shifted the power of punishment to the prosecutor as they have the discretion of charges brought against offenders. According to Peter Wagner and Bernadette Rabuy in their article “Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2017,” the United State criminal justice leads the world in the percentage of its citizens incarcerated. Mandatory minimum sentencing has led to large prison populations, skyrocketing costs and social family challenges.

Imagine you were going down the street and you were notified that the ways of the 17th century are returning. In the 17th century, the Puritan’s were sentenced to public humiliation for engaging in crimes ranging from gossiping to domestic abuse. Those outrageous beliefs are going to be reapplied into modern day life as an alternative to sending criminals to jails and prisons. In Texas, Judge Ted Poe is using history to his advantage by sentencing out humiliating public punishments instead of long term punishment. Replacing incarceration with public punishments are completely unreasonable and will not deem effective.

Any crime that is committed must have a punishment linked to it to avoid a repeat of the offense. Serious crimes, for example, those that involve a murder obviously need the jail sentence that comes along with them. Nonviolent crimes, such as theft or littering could receive cheap and personal punishments with the implementation of shaming.

Mandatory sentencing is another form of structured sentencing, deserves special mention. Mandatory sentencing is just what its name implies: A structured sentencing scheme that man-dates clearly enumerated punishments for specific offenses or for habitual offenders convicted of a series of crimes. Mandatory sentencing, because it is truly mandatory, differs from presumptive sentencing, which allows at least a limited amount of judicial discretion within ranges established by published guidelines.

Victimless crimes, the illegal act(s) that involves consenting adults and lacks a complaining participant, have been the topic of heated debate for some time now (Kendall, 2014). This debate centers primarily on the question as to whether these acts should be crimes at all. The arguments take several forms. One of the controversies involves the importance of personal freedom versus society’s idea to uphold moral standards. A second issue addresses the problem of the conception of harm. People who stand on this side on this side of the argument raise questions as to whether victimless crimes are harmful not only to the participants but to others in society as well. More importantly, they ask whether such acts result in negative