Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
In Defense of Flogging Hardcover – May 31, 2011
In Defense of Flogging presents a solution both radical and simple: give criminals a choice between incarceration and the lash. Flogging is punishment: quick, cheap, and honest.
Noted criminologist Peter Moskos, in irrefutable style, shows the logic of the new system while highlighting flaws in the status quo. Flogging may be cruel, but In Defense of Flogging shows us that compared to our broken prison system, it is the lesser of two evils.
- Print length183 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherBasic Books
- Publication dateMay 31, 2011
- Grade level11 and up
- Reading age18 years and up
- Dimensions5.5 x 1 x 8 inches
- ISBN-100465021484
- ISBN-13978-0465021482
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Editorial Reviews
Review
The Daily Beast
“If we’re capable of taking Moskos’ idea as a serious option to incarceration, it could have profound consequences for a nation that incarcerates its citizens at a rate that’s seven times as high as the other nations of the world. Clearly we have to find a way to reduce prison populations, and this just might be a logical one…. In Defense of Flogging forces the reader to confront issues surrounding incarceration that most Americans would prefer not to think about.”
Randy Cohen, former writer of The New York Times Magazine column “The Ethicist”
“Peter Moskos presents us with a true dilemma, the dreadful alternatives of prison or flogging. To make that stark and Swiftian choice, he compels us to rethink our ideas of cruel and humane, barbaric and civilized, progressive and reactionary. It is invariably jarring to overcome a prejudice or abandon a dearly held belief—I try to avoid doing either—but Moskos makes it an intriguing, if unsettling, experience.”
“Moskos, an assistant professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice who specializes in police and criminal science, debates with the utmost seriousness the merits of flogging as an alternative to incarceration. . . . Indeed, when Moskos mentions the possibility of electric shock as another option, readers will begin to wonder if the writer is poking outlandish fun and crafting a notion similar to Swift’s 1729 classic “A Modest Proposal,” using satire to call attention to the ‘shame’ of our inhumane prison system.”
Bloomberg News
“Moskos’s argument is unconventional and convincing. Those interested in prison reform will find much to contemplate here.” Washington Times
“As a former Baltimore City police officer, assistant professor of law, police science and criminal justice administration at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Mr. Moskos is not unfamiliar with the legal or criminal aspects of justice. He readily employs this background to describe the ills of today's criminal justice system and his radical alternative. . . . ‘Flogging’ is intriguing, even in – or because of – its shocking premise. As a case against prisons, Mr. Moskos' is airtight.” Salon“Compelling… Although his outrageous idea may conjure up unsavory reminders of U.S. slavery, by the end of “In Defense of Flogging,” Moskos might just have you convinced.” Boston Globe, Brainiac
About the Author
Product details
- Publisher : Basic Books; 1st edition (May 31, 2011)
- Language : English
- Hardcover : 183 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0465021484
- ISBN-13 : 978-0465021482
- Reading age : 18 years and up
- Grade level : 11 and up
- Item Weight : 9.6 ounces
- Dimensions : 5.5 x 1 x 8 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #624,449 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #418 in Government Social Policy
- #447 in Criminal Procedure Law
- #2,498 in Criminology (Books)
- Customer Reviews:
Important information
To report an issue with this product, click here.
About the author

Peter Moskos is a professor in the Department of Law, Police Science, and Criminal Justice Administration at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. He has written at least three books and read many more.
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on Amazon-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
In 1973, a Presidential Advisory Commission concluded that prisons have only achieved a shocking level of failure, but somehow, the incarceration rate has increased 500 percent since that time. We seem to be moving backwards. In 1890, 121 years ago, the Supreme Court all but banned solitary confinement because it was declared an extreme form of punishment. The goal of imprisonment back then was to rehabilitate, not punish. But in a 1989 Supreme Court decision, imprisonment as a means of rehabilitation was basically rejected, and it opened the doors for solitary confinement to return, effectively sending us back to the 19th century.
Regardless of whether prison is for punishment or rehabilitation, incarceration does not "cure" crime or criminals. On the contrary, it causes crime by creating bitter, hardened, and more sophisticated criminals. When you warehouse prisoners together for years on end with nothing to do, they make associations, form bonds, learn illegal skills, and reinforce antisocial norms. Prisons in America today, are nothing more than colleges for crime, extended business conventions for criminals.
Even worse than the horror and violence that happens in prison, is what happens when the inmate is released. A typical released prisoner will earn 40 percent less than a similarly educated non-incarcerated individual. And when an employer is given a choice between a convicted felon and one with a clean record, which one do you think he'll choose? Released inmates are also further burdened with fines, restitution, and probation fees. Despite the fact that they've already been punished, they are relegated to second class citizenship, without the basic right to vote or the right to practice many professions. It's hard enough for a convicted felon upon release; why make it harder? Is it in society's best interest to see him fail?
Of course some people need to be locked up to protect society. Prisons should be reserved for the worst of the worst - pedophiles, psychopathic killers, and terrorists. When a pedophile is locked up, it means fewer raped children and society is a little bit safer. But when a drug dealer is locked up, it only creates a job opening which is quickly filled, and nothing's changed except that we've wasted tax payer money to send the dealer to prison for years only to return in worse shape than before.
Moskos makes an excellent case that offenders should be given a choice of flogging or prison, and he even concedes that it'll never happen because the left will say it's too inhumane and barbaric, and the right will say it's letting the criminals off too easy, but you should read this book before you form an opinion yourself. He barely touches on what I believe is the solution - legalize drugs. He says they should be regulated, restricted, and taxed, and drug treatment should be available for anyone who wants it. It's ridiculous that we've been fighting a so-called war on drugs for forty years and yet it is extremely difficult to get treatment, especially for the poor. Legalizing drugs would almost empty our prisons of the people who don't really belong there. Dealers would have to find a new line of work, and addicts could get more and better treatment. The money spent locking up drug offenders would be much better spent on rehab. One only exacerbates the disease while the other seeks to treat it. By one estimation I've read, it takes $246 million in law enforcement to get the equivalent results of $34 million in treatment.
Unfortunately for the 2.6 million Americans incarcerated, nothing will change anytime soon. There are too many special interest groups who profit from the "Prison Industrial Complex," including prison guard unions who lobby for harsher sentencing guidelines. But if we continue on this path of mass incarceration, at least the public should be made more aware of what happens inside a prison, and at least some scientific studies of what toll lengthy sentences actually have on the incarcerated should be done. Movies and television don't even come close to conveying the reality of life behind bars. There's no way to film the long-term mental torture of incarceration.
I tell you this from personal experience. I've been locked up for almost eleven years for a series of bank robberies. Yes, I deserve to be punished, but more importantly, I need treatment for a severe drug addiction. The average annual cost of incarceration per inmate is $26,000. The federal government will spend more than $312,000 to incarcerate me for stealing a very small fraction of that amount. I believe that $312,000 hasn't been spent entirely to punish or rehabilitate me. It shouldn't cost near that much. I believe it's primarily spent so that a lot of people will have a job. I'm sure a better way could be found to protect society and "correct" me with a fraction of that amount.
But I'm not bitter. I only read this book and wrote this review because I don't have anything better to do at the present time.
David Allan Reeves
Author of "Running Away From Me"
Let me get this out of the way: If you found the book "meh" because you had to read it for a class, then I very much doubt you read it. Which is sad because this one is short and readable and I can't think of a topic that's more engaging to real people. If you're that lazy and sheltered, then what are you reading at all?
I'm glad that Moskos left that weaselly question mark off the title. But it still permeates the book. His point is that he uses this thought experiment to show people the terrible inequities and horrors of our systems for crime and punishment, and our own tendency to look away rather than confront those problems. Bravo. But I think Moskos is a little to eager to remind us that his whole idea is just a rhetorical trick. Is he serious or not? If not, then why not? In the current intellectual climate on campus, I get why he has to be a little less bold than he gives himself credit for, but that's unfortunate.
Some have said that the book is too long for his point. In my opinion, it's too short. This is a book caught in the limbo between popular political book and article for an academic journal. I agree that this is too good an idea to leave to academia, but it didn't quite make the jump to a full book, either. That "didn't know who its audience is" problem very nearly made me go to four stars.
And lost at times in the book's cuteness is the seriousness of the dilemma he presents. If flogging is so bad, then go ahead and tell us why. If his points hold so much water (and I strongly believe that they do) then why not just stand by them wholeheartedly and endorse corporal punishment? If there's some third way that's more merciful to the criminals, more just to the victims, less costly to the government, and less corrosive to our society, then let's hear it. Moskos comes out and says he has no better solutions. So why not back this one until he hears something better?
Overall, if you're still reading this review, you'll probably have sensed how thought-provoking Moskos's book is. And he doesn't just reiterate this dilemma for a hundred pages. He talks about the penal system prior to mass incarceration, the religious origins of the penitentiary movement, and the interactions between modern prisons, criminal culture, the judicial system, and policing. He also refreshingly points out an aspect of the penal system that academics often miss: the sense of justice for the victims and bystanders that calls for punishment, not merely "rehabilitation", for a sentence to be accepted as just. He also provides solid arguments about how rehabilitation is itself an empty promise, an excuse for the system as is rather than a serious effort with demonstrable effects.
Top reviews from other countries
Peter Moskos, cop and jurist, proposes the abolition of the US' current prison system in favour of corporal punishment. He does quite well.
Within the first pages he states that prisons are cruel, ineffective and uneconomic, not delivering any of its promises while costing a lot of money. Whipping, he claims, is not only more effective (what probably many people would agree with), but also less cruel. This, for me, was the main point of the book. What sounds paradoxical first becomes clearer from page to page, when Moskos backs up his claim with statistics, example cases and philosophical reasoning. I must confess he had me after the first ten pages, but I estimate that even a very skeptical person will eventually, if not agree with him, have a different view about the American prison system as it is now.
That Moskos is not overtly politically motivated (I, at least, couldn't find tendencies too much to the right or the left) makes the book even more enjoyable and trustworthy.
There are a only few minor flaws for me. I found his language a little too flippant. Some of his sentences seem to me like somebody who tries to sound cool, but maybe I misjudge and that's just the way American authors of today write (I think the same about Nicholas Taleb, to give a reference), so let's just say that I enjoy his reasoning but not the words. I also see a slight tendency do redundancy in the last third, but maybe the subject is so controversial that he feels the need to elaborate more on his idea to convince people.
The next point is substantial: While Moskos says that we should have prison for people who choose it or people who have to be locked away for the safety of society, he doesn't amplify the latter. I think that's a problem because, if his proposition will ever be discussed seriously by those in charge or the public, this will be a major point of discussion. The last point is purely geographical: As a European I know now a lot more about the flaws of the American system, but not of our own, which would make the book much more valuable for me.
All in all a great book, I can recommend it to really anyone.


