Commit A Crime, Suffer The Consequences Summary

Zhao 1
Chenyin Zhao
Developing writing
Gayle Nash
October 26, 2012

Rhetorical analysis of “Commit a Crime, Suffer the Consequences”

“Commit a Crime, Suffer the Consequences” written by Mark Patinkin, who is a journalist and bulletin columnist, shows the story of Michael Fay, who vandalized cars in Singapore as an American citizen and weather or not he deserves to suffer the same punishment as the locals for his crime. In Singapore, “caning” is the default punishment for vandalism, which means that the offenders are moderately beaten with wooden canes or bamboo. The Writer sees Michael Fay as a teenager who needs to accept his sentencing for his vandalism of cars, and because he committed a criminal act in a different country, he is subjected to that country’s policies. Patinkin thinks that Michael Fay’s parents continually make excuses for his actions in Singapore blaming his choices on A.D.D. Instead of making excuses, the writer believes Fay should just admit to his crimes and apologize. Fay does not realize what it feels like to be on the receiving end of such vandalism. Patinkin gives a personal example from his own life relating to his experience with car vandalism and explains in detail how
unnerving it was.
Patinkin’s writing is about America adopting the habit of making excuses.
Patinkin claims America has created a game out of making excuses. In Michael Fay’s case, Patinkin himself seems fairly sure the excuses for his crimes are absurd and just a way for Fay to weasel out of his punishment. Patinkin’s main statement comes here where he says; “All this is just part of the New American game of always saying, ‘It’s not my fault’. No one, when caught, seems ready to admit having done wrong anymore. They just whine and appeal.” Patinkin seems to have no real credentials when it comes to the politics of abiding foreign law, since his degree is in Journalism, not International Politics. This does not seem to stop him from taking a side in this ‘controversial’
case.
It’s difficult to say who exactly is Patinkin’s intended audience as his columns appear in Life beat and whoever reads it would be subject to his insights and opinions. These readers, unless educated on the case of Michael Fay, may be misled by Patinkin’s article thanks to his apparent viewpoint, which makes his article very one-sided without much consideration for Michael Fay. The article gives very little facts about what happened in Fay’s case. But Patinkin’s personal opinions are strong throughout the article, which makes the article very questionable without giving any thought to the other side of the story.
My analysis suggests that Patinkin’s commentary is rhetorically ineffective. Given Patinkin’s credentials and relevance to the subject, there is no reason for an intelligent reader to believe how he has portrayed the caning incident. It does, however, get the point across that if people do something they should own up to it and not make excuses. If Patinkin got one point across, it was to take ownership of ones actions. People cannot expect Patinkin’s article to have any real impact on society’s habit of making excuses but can praise Patinkin for bringing up a valid point. Overall Patinkin’s article could use less personal examples and more facts and evidence involving the case of Michael Fay. Although I agree with Patinkin, his structure and approach are ignorant, as he seems to be attacking Michael Fay more than explaining and adding opinion. Fay should have to pay for his crimes, but having such an opinionated columnist also beat him down, with words rather than bamboo, will not help the boy change into a responsible adult.