Customer Reviews

In Defense of Flogging

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

The first thing to realize about this book is that it is not a scholarly research text but more like a hardcover magazine article that can be comfortably read in one sitting. The second thing to realize is that Moskos' "In Defense of Flogging" (which might more accurately be titled "In Advocacy of Flogging" since the US does not currently practice it) is probably facetious. Moskos writes: "My intention is to open your eyes to our massive and horrible system of incarceration. I am willing to defend flogging to start an honest discussion on punishment and alternatives to prison" (p. 153) and calls it "an intellectual game, more thought experiment than policy proposal" (p. 8) because "prisons don't work, but neither does traditional opposition to them. Without more radical debate, preachers for prison reform will never be heard beyond the choir" (p. 6).

Moskos presents the reader with an arbitrary "hypothetical choice between prison and flogging" (p. 5), and presumes that nearly everyone would choose the lash over incarceration. Without going into WHY most people would be likely to make such a choice (i.e., it simply takes less time), Moskos suggests that our choice is due to the horrors and abuses of incarceration, supporting this with some anecdotal accounts of prison life. Moskos states (p. 68) that he has never been incarcerated or known anyone who has. So it's unclear whether he has ever actually set foot in a prison, or where he draws the basis for his characterization of the penal system as "completely failed" in a "spectacular manner" (p. 150).

Moskos correctly has the sense that there is something wrong with our overcrowded US penal system that "warehouses" individuals at such a high rate per capita in our society compared to other countries. Such a situation is primarily due to a simplistic "war on drugs" and "get-tough" criminal justice policy of previous decades, as Moskos points out (p. 15). The decline of the "military-industrial complex," decried by President Eisenhower during the Cold War, has evolved into a "prison-industrial complex" with many pernicious influences (such as correctional service/product providers, unions, and for-profit corporate prison systems) lobbying and shaping US crime and sentencing policy toward increased use of incarceration. (Moskos mentions this dynamic briefly, but for a more in-depth description and analysis of the US prison-industrial complex, see "GOING UP THE RIVER: Travels in a Prison Nation" by Joseph Hallinan). Besides the raw economic attraction represented by public spending for prison construction, infrastructure, support services, and staffing, there are profit-making entities with great interest in access to a captive workforce (the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution prohibiting slavery makes an exception for prisoners, who can therefore be required to work) that can compete with low-paid unskilled labor in other countries. All these influences, along with the post-9/11 intensified focus on public safety, have driven the growth of incarceration in the US, reaching the unsustainable levels of spending seen today.

Moskos' flogging proposal is really a sort of diversion program, using an alternative intervention to prison. Because many offenders struggle with chemical dependency or mental health problems (as Moskos mentions on p. 83), a rational criminal justice system addresses those issues with targeted interventions rather than resorting to incarceration, the most expensive correctional option. A significant body of academic literature describes research-validated "principles of effective intervention." Among these are that offenders undergo standardized assessment so that interventions are targeted toward each offender's criminogenic needs and responsivity, as well as outcome assessment, program standardization and oversight, and continuous evaluation/peer review. (For more about the principles of effective intervention, see Latessa, Cullen and Gendreau in CRIMINAL JUSTICE CONCEPTS AND ISSUES (4th Ed.), Chris Eskridge ed., p. 341.) Other evidence suggests that a large proportion of crime is caused by so-called "high rate offenders" who exhibit behavioral characteristics in childhood that can be identified for early intervention, yielding one of the largest correctional "bangs for the buck" in preventing crime (for more on this paradigm, see "CRIMINALS IN THE MAKING: Criminality Across the Life Course" by Wright, Tibbetts, and Daigle.)

These and many other research-validated correctional approaches stand in stark contrast to the "nothing works" doctrine drawn from a study by Robert Martinson in the 1970's (which Moskos mentions briefly on p. 48). This study gave impetus to the simplistic "tough on crime" political policies of recent decades, that focused on incapacitation through incarceration, giving us our modern prison problem. (For a discussion of Martinson's legacy upon criminal justice policy in contrast with subsequent scholarship, see Francis T. Cullen, "Rehabilitation and Treatment Programs," in CRIME: Public Policies for Crime Control," Wilson and Petersilia ed.) The deficit in Moskos' book is that he describes none of this information, and may be unaware of it. Indeed, where he alludes to rehabilitation at all he is dismissive and sarcastic, calling it "hogwash" (p. 5), characterized by "misguided dreamers" seduced by utopian dreams (p. 101-102), with "dogmatic faith" that Moskos likens to the fervor of hard-line Communist propagandists. He says: "The ideological foundation of the penitentiary system rests on the loopy theory that specially enlightened professionals can 'cure' criminals" (p. 103). This is an exaggerated, simplistic distortion of the field.

Moskos says (p. 65) that "programs to help convicts reenter society are essential, but they don't receive the support they need. And they're too easy to target during budget cuts." And "because Americans like guns, cowboys, individualism, and being tough...radical penal reform [has] no chance" and is just a "pie in the sky dream" (p. 105). This is the nature of Moskos' simplistic argument and assessment of corrections, leaving him to propose the stark "either/or" alternative of flogging or incarceration (i.e. warehousing).

If Moskos is serious about his flogging proposal, his case needs to address a number of significant issues to be considered credible, rather than "glossing over" (p. 153) such hurdles in the rush to make his case. First, he suggests a "sentencing formula" of two lashes in lieu of one year of a conventional sentence, to a maximum of 30 lashes (i.e. 15 years) (p. 144). What about more severe offenses, those that would deserve more than 15 years? And what about repeat offenders? Moskos evidently assumes recidivism would be low, but if not, how many times would we sentence someone to be flogged in a month? In a year? Is there a possibility that offenders would become hardened and defiant, even indifferent to this punishment? (Like "Tripp," the runaway slave played by Denzel Washington in "Glory," who defiantly displays his scar-covered back and stoically endures his judicial flogging while glaring at his judge.) What do we do when 30 lashes (in the Roman world the Apostle Paul received 39 lashes (2 Cor. 11:24) and Paul, the recidivist, experienced this punishment five times as well as three other floggings with rods) is not enough to deter crime? Resort (again, as the Romans did) to even greater forms of physical brutality? Moskos believes American society would not devolve this way because we are a "stable democracy" with longstanding deference to the rule of law (p. 147). Yet so were the Romans, and they ended up with crucifixions and the arena.

Second, although he acknowledges the disproportionate involvement of minorities in the criminal justice system (p. 69), Moskos dismisses (p. 75) the likelihood that perceptions of racial disproportionality would only be exacerbated by inevitable associations with 19th-century slavery and oppression of blacks. Moskos needs to face this issue squarely in his proposal, because there are many who already assert that the criminal justice system is primarily about institutionalized racial and socioeconomic oppression, and this would become starkly emblematic with the image of an agent of the state flogging a bound and helpless black man. Does anyone remember the rioting that ensued in Los Angeles after the Rodney King incident? What if this were happening every day, in every American city?

Another aspect of the racial/socioeconomic factor is the inevitable assertion of racial disproportionality in arrest, sentencing, and poor legal representation in the courts. If it can be alleged, and often is, that minorities receive inadequate legal counsel when they are merely pleading guilty to lesser sanctions, how likely is it they will make allegations that they were coerced or misled into choosing to be flogged? (Which invalidates Moskos' claim that "cruel and unusual" constitutional claims could be mooted by offenders supposedly volunteering to be flogged (p. 111).)

Third, Moskos gives inadequate consideration to the liability involved in such a practice. If individuals, who frequently come from environments of poverty or homelessness, were flogged so that their flesh is multiply lacerated, it would be likely that they would require more than the brief ministrations of a doctor with antiseptic and bandages before being sent on their way, as Moskos suggests (p. 9). As an ex-cop, Moskos should be very familiar with the bad personal hygiene and self-care of many "street people" and other offenders in disadvantaged neighborhoods. How likely is it that a significant number of such individuals would claim permanent harm, infection/disease, disability and disfigurement resulting from their experience? And what about medical ethics? Would doctors see any difficulty in being involved in flogging based on their "do no harm" oath? What about training, indemnification and malpractice insurance for professional floggers? Would we need professional certification to ensure competence and consistency? (Moskos tries to side-step this issue by suggesting that we recruit flogging experts from other countries (p. 134), but once on US soil this would still need to be addressed.) Moskos suggests that the actual cost of flogging is miniscule and that flogging the majority of low-level offenders would reduce costs, but when potential liability is considered, the mind boggles.

Retributive practices like flogging rely on the theory that criminals are rational actors making cost/benefit decisions. Moskos admits (p. 29) that this theory lacks validity. So why is he a proponent of flogging? Moskos appears to idealize some utopian pre-Rodney King days when police would simply work people over and "tune them up" in alleyways rather than make an arrest (p. 118-124). Fortunately, the days of such "thumpers" in law enforcement has increasingly faded as internal affairs units investigate, prosecute, and remove such individuals from wearing a uniform in the name of our society.

Finally, the most significant deficit in Moskos' argument is his paucity of any evidence to support the effectiveness of flogging in reducing recidivism of criminal offenders. The only actual case history Moskos describes (p. 127-129) is one that casts doubt on the effectiveness of this intervention. If Moskos is truly serious about advancing flogging as a valid correctional alternative, he should conduct some research (as a professor, he is well situated to do so) in countries that utilize it (such as in Malaysia and Singapore as he keeps touting) and gather some convincing before-and-after evidence that flogging is effective in reducing reoffense. Without such evidence, a proposal for flogging comes dangerously close to "correctional quackery" (as described by Drs. Edward Latessa and Francis Cullen of the University of Cincinnati and Dr. Paul Gendreau of the University of New Brunswick at St. John), as "dismissive of scientific knowledge, training, and expertise. Its posture is strikingly overconfident, if not arrogant...what works is thus held to be 'obvious'...it celebrates being anti-intellectual...correctional quackery, therefore, is the use of treatment interventions that use neither 1) existing knowledge of the causes of crime nor 2) existing knowledge of what programs have been shown to change offender behavior...the hallmark of correctional quackery is thus ignorance." (Latessa et al., (2002) "Beyond Correctional Quackery - Professionalism and the Possibility of Effective Treatment," Federal Probation p. 43).

One has to wonder, when Western civilization once widely practiced flogging and everyone was familiar with it, what led to abandonment of the practice? What would be different now? The bottom line is that our codified structures of public justice should not make offenders worse and should address individual root causes of offender behavior by providing opportunities for change, self-advancement, treatment, and education. Flogging would do nothing to accomplish these ends. There are valid reasons to scrutinize our current criminal justice practices and debate whether more offenders would be better diverted from incarceration (or conditionally released) to alternative interventions and supervision. However, Moskos' sensationalistic, simplistic, rambling, and possibly facetious book is of limited value in initiating or informing such a discussion, honest, radical, or otherwise.

"In Defense of Flogging" is quite thought provoking because it broaches the larger question of just what cruel and unusual punishment constitutes. There is certainly something normative to the idea of an "unusual" punishment; if something is done often enough, then there is nothing unusual about it. The bigger worry in my estimation is not that a particular punishment is wrong simply because it is unusual, but that a good justice system has strong currents of consistency running through it. Any type of punishment that is unusual in its application undermines this consistency, therefore making the system seem unfair, and eroding its legitimacy.

"Cruel" is an intriguing term, however. Cruelty as used in the way we see it used in penology has an element of the unnecessary built into it. It is as if a punishment is cruel because it imposes suffering for the delight or satisfaction of others, and not as a necessary part of the punishment itself. The idea of punishing someone is not only to rehabilitate them, or to give them time to reflect on their actions, but also to impose a certain price on them. Most people suffer when they are punished. Is this suffering cruel? Probably more so when its for our delight, above and beyond the amount thought necessary for fair retribution. If you're not a retributivist at least in part, then this book, and this review, are not for you. Any delight or satisfaction has to be purely incidental to and coextensive with the necessity of the punishment, or it is cruel. If you accept this understanding, then flogging, in and of itself, is not cruel unless we make a specific argument that narrowly explains why striking with a whip is cruel, apart from the reason that it causes pain and suffering.

My main objection to Peter's line of reasoning in the book is that it's not clear to me why the fact that I would pick a particular punishment for myself makes that a type of punishment we should take seriously as an option for me. If I pick flogging, it is probably because in my mind, flogging will let me off easier than incarceration. If I have done something that a judge believes merits the proposed length of incarceration, then he would we also give me a choice that would exact a lesser punishment from me? Because it is easier for us? Society should give every person what he truly deserves, in all of our institutions, even if it is expensive, and even if it is difficult.

So this is what Peter needs to address: I would argue that the only way a convicted criminal should have the right to choose between flogging and incarceration is if, given adequate knolwedge about both (in terms of the number of strokes in his particular case, the medical effects, the conditions of incarceration, the effects these things have had on others, etc.), he perceives the two propositions as so equal in the magnitude of their toll on him that he is unable to choose between them. Only then would it be proper to offer the choice. This erodes the effectiveness Peter's argument that flogging should be an option because we might choose it for ourselves, however. The alternative argument in the same vein is simply that we all might want a broader choice in our punishments, even if the choices still leave us between a rock and a hard place.

Even if you aren't convinced by the idea that we should be able to pick our punishments, the book nonetheless opens the door the possibility of effective retributivist alternatives to incarceration, and for this reason it makes an excellent companion volume to the traditional texts on penology that dominate the curriculum at present. Philosophers will find it too brief and not analytical enough, but if I know Peter, he won't consider that a bad thing at all. The book is good for any lay reader or undergraduate student who wants to start thinking seriously about our present-day institutions of punishment and the ideas that guide them.

Why four stars, and not five? I dislike grade inflation, and a four star book is a very good book. A five star book is Anna Karenina, A Theory Justice, Portnoy's Complaint, Blood Meridian, or Anarchy, State and Utopia.

I admit that reading this book in public could prove dangerous to your health, at least based on my experience on the New York city subway system returning home from BookExpo, where I obtained a review copy of this slim volume from its publishers. Glimpsing the title as I skimmed the first few pages, a woman sitting across from me began haranguing me about violence being the problem that makes the city unlivable, and that any book suggesting that we flog our children is just going to make matters worse...

Well, to put matters straight, this book isn't about flogging children. Nor does it have anything at all to do with sexual deviancy (in case anyone is hoping that it does.) Rather, the author -- a former cop and now a professor -- crafted his opus as a semi-serious way to draw attention to his real concern: the fact that not only do prisons not work and cost us a tremendous amount of money, they actually damage society by rendering inmates (most of whom will eventually be released) insane, unemployable and criminal for life. Why, not he suggests (somewhat tongue in cheek) offer convicted people bound for prison the option to exchange their prison sentence for a specified ratio of, say, 1 lash for every two years of jail time? He's not suggesting cutting serial killers or terrorists loose, but thinks something needs to be done to address less dangerous offenders and rein in what is already the highest rate of incarceration in the world (five times the global average, far higher than in Iran or China, and higher even than Russia).

Moskos avoids several easy traps, such as not suggesting that all prisoners be eligible for this option and providing for some input by victims of crime, and he's creative in the way he diagnoses the problem and prescribes his rather unique and distinctive solution. It's an uncomfortable book to read sometimes, but also a witty and extremely well-written one, and it raises important issues that should be taken seriously even if his solution isn't.

The author has been asked to write an op-ed on the subject for the Wall Street Journal, and I'm ready to predict another Tiger Mother-style controversy. But the difference is that Moskos has ingredients in his arguments that are likely to appeal to both sides of the political spectrum, from the most woolly-minded liberal to conservatives in favor of the toughest punishments imaginable. Indeed, it would be rather amusing to watch the two extremes forced to agree on something at last...

For such a slim book, this is very comprehensive and even though I wriggled with discomfort, I can't help recommending it very highly. I just suggest removing the dust jacket if you're planning on reading it in public...

The author is a former Baltimore beat cop who went on to earn his masters and doctorate in sociology from Harvard. The book is the product of a conclusion that the rate of incarceration, the financial and social cost of long sentencces, and the abjecct failure of this system to prevent more crime; having come to the conclusion that the present system is broken, the aurhor traces the casual decision to abandon the use of flogging as an accepted form of punishment. The second point supporting this book is that attempts to "treat crime" and "cure the criminal" have failed even more obviously than the prison system; yet, a society needs some way to punish.

The author starts the book by asking which the reader would take if he had the choice forced upon him--ten very harsh strokes with a cane as used in a few countries or five years in prison. He asks if the reader chose the rather brief period of extreme pain why should flogging be considered "cruel and unusual punishment" and denied to others; under his proposal, flogging would only be used when a convicted person elected it over conventional imprisonment. The title of the book is exactly correct; the author is open to discussion of other ways to punish than that presently used in Western society. The author properly, in my opinion, limiting the choices to a "do/don't go to jail" with the single variable of length of time is bad social policy for all concerned. Further, he makes some virtually brilliant suggestions as to financial compensation being suddenly available for victims of crimes who would otherwise have little chance of restitution.

This is a book that makes an excellent, if controversial, point. It is also a rather short book. It is an excellent read for anybody. I would, however, highly recommend it to anyone teaching a course where there is a desire to force students to take a position for or against the recommendation of a book; it should be required reading in criminology and penology courses. Agree with the author or disagree; it is a point worthy of discussion.

This book is well written and very witty. Not only is the author very intelligent and knowledgable about his subject, but his gritty realistic writing makes it comfortable and easy to read. You notice yourself almost speaking to the book as you read. I am not a reader but this book kept me intrigued and wanting more. wonderful book!

This ground-breaking book begins the paradigm shift away from expensive, wasteful, centralized, isolated incarceration among the worst of society and towards relatively inexpensive, repeatable, flexible, community corrections that can rapidly provide the benefit of example in public and then return chastened offenders to regular society for rehabilitation. Judicial corporal punishment worked earlier in our history to keep the peace, and not just on slaves. George Washington flogged his largely white troops to win our freedom for us, starting in 1776 and continuing throughout the Revolutionary War. New England Puritans used it extensively. Thomas Jefferson wrote it into a statute. Numerous slaves quoted in the Federal Writers' Project Slave Narratives vouched for its necessity and effectiveness in avoiding incarceration completely while disciplining folks to become safe, polite and hard-working. It's mandated in the Bible. The parents of most successful people practiced it - though bad parents abuse it.

We owe Professor Moskos our thanks for opening the debate that's sure to follow. Readers cannot fully appreciate this book unless they realize what an economic and social disaster we have in American mass incarceration, a topic concerning conservatives, libertarians and liberals. The questions raised and logical arguments made in this book start eroding our misplaced acceptance of the status quo. Rather than merely complain about the prison system, this book proposes a solution and is personable and easy to read.

The book also considers the 7.3 million Americans in the entire correctional population, including those on probation and parole. We are supposed to be the Land of the Free. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness

I am glad the author was a police officer early in his career, because that experience sloughs off the impractical, dreaming, negative, whining, resentful victim attitude that seems to pervade most other anti-prison writings. Here we have a reform that will work in the bleak days of budget cut-backs. The refreshing brevity of "In Defense of Flogging" is a virtue; this is a tough topic. Crime and punishment when fully understood are not for the faint-hearted or those who think we can rid society of every bad thing.

Professor Moskos displays the 2:00 AM courage he must have had when policing the midnight shift in one of the most dangerous urban beats in America.

On one level, you can read this as a clever parlor trick. Moskos proposes the unthinkable -- that we flog convicts instead of incarcerating them -- in an obvious attempt to draw attention to the absurdity of American incarceration. And this slim, racy volume certainly can work on that level. The longer you think about it, though, the more you realize that Moskos isn't necessarily joking, and that compared to destroying a person's life (and the public purse) by locking a convict away for many years, a few swift strokes of the cane makes a world of sense. Especially, as he points out, if convicts are given the choice: ten years in prison, say, or twelve strokes of the cane. How can it be "cruel and unusual" if the person chose it? He asks us to imagine being found guilty of a serious crime -- whether or not we committed it -- and then being offered the choice. Who among us wouldn't choose the lash?
Moskos manages, in very few pages, to gallop us through the history of incarceration and the many well- and ill-intentioned fashions that have swept penology over the years. And he does it with style and flair -- this is no dry academic droning on. A delectable and important little book that is a hoot to read and that stays with you in a disturbing fashion.
(Disclaimer: As Moskos points out in the Acknowledgments, my wife and I had a hand in conceiving this book. We didn't know, however, that Moskos would execute it so masterfully.)

the concept of flogging in place of incarceration makes sense. however, the case can be made adequately in 25 pages or less. the author uses over 180 in which he repeats the same data over and over. 30% of the pages are devoted to acknowledgements, bibliography, and an index with no page references. i definitely would not recommend it.

Flogging is not something we in the US generally think about as a realistic alternative to the penitentiary system that is now the norm. Mostly, this is because it seems very inhumane and archaic. The goal of "In Defense of Flogging" is to convince us that not only is flogging at least as, if not more, humane as our current penitentiary system, but also that it is cheaper and might well lead to less recidivism than the penitentiary system. Reader beware: if you are expecting a book arguing for flogging out of a desire to see criminals treated less humanely, or a socially conservative "let's return to strict law and order," this is not your book. His is a measured defense of flogging; it is not that flogging is somehow intrinsically desirable as a punishment, but that it may simply be a less bad method of punishment than the very broken one we have now. The argument is more humanitarian than some might think.

A good chunk of this book is devoted to focusing on the problem with our current penitentiary model. Up until the 19th century, corporal punishment was accepted as the norm in criminal justice, and while their were prisons, they were generally used only to keep really bad apples away from the general population (not as forms of punishment). Enter the reformers, who believed that a penitentiary model (same root as 'penance') would offer a more humane way to rehabilitate criminals; while criminals are locked up, they might learn skills, have time to really think about what they've done, and come out changed people. I don't think it is hard to argue that this model didn't have the intended consequences. Recidivism rates more than dispel the idea of the penitentiary as a means of rehabilitation, and the fact is that the pen generally has the effect of putting criminals with other criminals and allowing them time to learn from each other. When a criminal gets out of prison, they have missed whole years of their lives (to be parents, workers, and people), generally will not be touched by an employer, and are largely in the same untenable situation that led them to crime in the first place. (And this, not to mention the very untenable over-crowding in prisons, which leads to artificially reduced sentences, a very morally questionable system of plea bargains, etc.)

But is flogging the alternative? As mentioned, the author is not arguing that flogging is a great solution, and in a world with no better alternatives or less crime, it is simply a less imperfect option than prisons. First, it would obviously cost less, which seems like a callous argument to make, but is something to really consider given the difficult financial situation the US and state governments are in. Is it less humane than prisons? It depends on whether you think that 5-10 really painful lashes is somehow more detrimental to human lives than caging those lives for 5-10 or more years (often, in solitary confinement save for one hour a day). The author makes a compelling case that prison is often seen as more humane than flogging mostly because most Americans don't have much idea of what really goes on in prisons. The author also offers us a thought experiment: if we had to choose between 10 really painful lashes, and 10 years locked in a jail cell (10 years where everything in your life is put on hold), which would you choose? Let's give prisoners a choice

The author also handles several other questions, such as flogging's chances of passing the eighth amendment "cruel and unusual" test, noting that, under his system, prisoners would be offered a choice between prison time and flogging, thus, waiving their right to make an eighth amendment objection. Also, the author reviews - very thinly, unfortunately - the case law pertaining to whether corporal punishment is cruel and unusual, finding that the judges generally have avoided any direct suggestion than it is.

One thing I'd have really liked to see is some in depth examination of how effective flogging is, from the countries that actively use it, like Singapore, Brunei, and Malaysia. One possible objection that ran through my head is whether flogging would really deter crime as much as prison (would a criminal scoff at a condensed period of pain less than at the prospect of losing 10 years of his life)? Now, I suspect the author would answer this by pointing out the dismal record of prisons as deterrents, and pointing out that a punishment that allows offenders to continue holding down a job, being a parent, etc, is more likely to lend toward rehabilitation than incarceratory models. But I really would have been more comfortable with some data showing the prevalence of flogging correlated with lower rates of recidivism or crime in general (as hard as a causal connection might be to make).

All in all, I was really impressed by this book. If anything, I'd have liked to see the book have been a bit longer. The author states that his intent was NOT to go into the logistics and details of how flogging might look in the US, but more to make the moral case. (He does give a vague outline of what the process might look like, including giving prisoners a choice between incarceration and flogging, and the detailed medical exam that would precede the process.) But the book, short as it is, really would have only been strengthen by creating chapters of sections that at least ruminate on the possibilities of what the author's envisioned system would look like.

Anyway, I highly recommend this book for anyone who is serious about fixing a broken criminal justice system, anyone who thinks our criminal justice system, and incarceration methods, are not broken and need no fixing, and anyone who just really wants to hear an interesting, if iconoclastic, argument.

I enjoyed reading this book immensely because of the wit, humor, ample facts about the failure of the prison system and, mainly, its out of the box thinking that is so typical of Moskos' writing style (see Cop in the Hood: My Year Policing Baltimore's Eastern District for more of this). Peter Moskos conveys the facts in a very accessible and fun way considering the heaviness of the topic (2.3 million people in prison makes prison the fourth largest city in America!). It's title argues that, as harsh as flogging might be, it's still a better option than the failing overcrowded prison system whose initial goal of "correcting" the prisoners has in fact done the opposite. Moskos makes a great argument in favor of this solution. In Defense of Flogging is a must read for everyone including all of us who have ever ignored the prison reality of America (yes, I'm guilty of that too).