Summary Of Abolish Prison By Rhetorical Emmanuel-Gobry
Pascal Emmanuel-Gobry is not afraid to share his opinion about prison in his article, “Abolish prison.” Right from the start he throws his opinion in his reader’s face by saying prison is possibly the “most astonishingly stupid and inhuman way to punish crime.” Pascal’s article not only expresses his opinion on why prisons are so inhumane, but it also provides alternatives that could be taken in case all prisons did fall off the face of the Earth. According to Pascal, prisons are the “enemy of rehabilitation” and are “contrary to the values of liberty.” Pascal also claims that the alternatives to prison are “countless, and all better.” For petty crimes he suggests community service and for more serious crimes he proposes ankle bracelets; however,
Pascal supports prison for people who have committed “very serious crimes” by saying, “Now, I tend to think that prison might be acceptable for a very small percentage of crimes.”
Never doing any type of research on the pros and cons of prison, I am very ill informed on whether prisons should stay or go; regardless, I feel that prisons could improve before they should be abolished. I became more and more convinced of this as I continually read Pascal’s words. From the starting sentence: “Prison is just about the most astonishingly stupid and inhumane way to punish crime,” to the last, there was an overload of bias. For this reason, I disagree with Pascal. Although he included alternatives to prison, I found his article completely and utterly unprofessional. Instead of abolishing prison, I think improvements can be made within them to diminish criminal gangs and prison rape. Despite these problems in prison, I can argue that I think prisoners are treated too well. Criminals, people who have committed heinous crimes, have the luxury of three hot meals a day, shelter, and no job to worry about. Confirming my opinion about prisons, the man who was so against them in the first place finishes his article with the idea that prisons are acceptable for lawbreakers that have committed “very serious crimes.” With all of that said, I firmly believe we should keep prisons and abolish their “stupid ways.”
Pascal supports prison for people who have committed “very serious crimes” by saying, “Now, I tend to think that prison might be acceptable for a very small percentage of crimes.”
Never doing any type of research on the pros and cons of prison, I am very ill informed on whether prisons should stay or go; regardless, I feel that prisons could improve before they should be abolished. I became more and more convinced of this as I continually read Pascal’s words. From the starting sentence: “Prison is just about the most astonishingly stupid and inhumane way to punish crime,” to the last, there was an overload of bias. For this reason, I disagree with Pascal. Although he included alternatives to prison, I found his article completely and utterly unprofessional. Instead of abolishing prison, I think improvements can be made within them to diminish criminal gangs and prison rape. Despite these problems in prison, I can argue that I think prisoners are treated too well. Criminals, people who have committed heinous crimes, have the luxury of three hot meals a day, shelter, and no job to worry about. Confirming my opinion about prisons, the man who was so against them in the first place finishes his article with the idea that prisons are acceptable for lawbreakers that have committed “very serious crimes.” With all of that said, I firmly believe we should keep prisons and abolish their “stupid ways.”