Bring Back Flogging"
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.
First of all, Jacoby wrongly assumes that flogging can prevent young offenders from going into a professional criminal career. According to him, being publicly whipped will sway juvenile delinquents away from a criminal career. This is an extremely weak argument. There is a well-known fact that many gangs arrange a painful and humiliating initiation for new members, which usually encompasses being severely beaten by older gang members. A new recruit who can deal with the pain and remain strong is one step closer to being accepted. If flogging becomes legalized, it could easily become that stepping stone of violence and humiliation that a youth needs to go through in order to become accepted as a member of a gang or an organized crime unit.
Moreover, I cannot agree with the author that flogging has more educational value than imprisonment. First-time offenders who never held plans to go into a professional criminal career can become so angry and aggravated after a public flogging that...