A common saying asserts that “your mistakes do not define you,” so why should prisoners be punished for life for a mistake they made in an instant? Not every criminal deserves redemption, for some have committed unspeakable acts, but for many criminals the current retribution—consisting of not only a prison stay, but strained relationships and an inability to secure a job, which results in poverty due to lack of income—is too harsh. Added to possible mental illnesses or substance abuse problems, released prisoners become desperate to support themselves and sometimes resort to crime again, even if they truly wish to live a proper life. Due to this, many people support a reformation of the treatment of prisoners, so that prisoners are rehabilitated
…show more content…
Gudrais clearly expresses the seriousness of the issue with the statistics she provides. Gudrais addresses the issue of repeat offenders by informing the audience that “more than two-thirds [of released prisoners] will be rearrested within three years; half will go back in prison” (Gudrais). Similarly, Gudrais tackles the reasons why many prisoners return to prison by enlightening her readers to the fact that “at least two-thirds [of prisoners] are thought to have substance-abuse problems” and 56 percent of U.S. inmates are mentally ill (Gudrais). These disconcerting statistics act as alerts—similar to when a phone reminds its owner of an imminent appointment—thereby creating urgency. Not only do the statistics force the reader to contemplate the issue, but they add nuance to her argument, since Gudrais demarcates which prisoners should be helped. She qualifies her claim by arguing that prisons don’t need to be reformed for all prisoners, but for the prisoners who want to become better people and are unable to do so because of mental illness and …show more content…
In constructing her argument, Gudrais must remember that her readers have an instinctive bias against criminals, which is completely understandable. To overcome this negative perception, appeals to one emotion above all: sympathy. Particularly, Gudrais conveys the extent of the hardships released prisoners face with the examples she recounts. One woman, desperately in need of prescription anti-anxiety medication that was being delayed, resorted to using heroin in an attempt to “feel calm” (Gudrais). Others who are addicted to drugs, steal in order to secure the money they need to purchase more drugs (Gudrais). With heartbreaking details about challenges that ex-convicts endure, Gudrais evokes sympathy from the reader. With this sympathy, readers are more likely to support Gudrais’ claim that prisons should be reformed. If readers pity prisoners, they they will want to make a change. Furthermore, she references a psychologist, Marieke Liem, who explains the dehumanizing experience of American prison. Since prisoners must “wear jumpsuits”, must be “referred to by number instead of name”, and in some states lose their fundamental right to vote the American prison system is seen as a harsh punishment (Gudrais). These seemingly basic rights being stripped away act as mechanisms for the readers to be more lenient and forgiving towards criminals.
Gudrais clearly expresses the seriousness of the issue with the statistics she provides. Gudrais addresses the issue of repeat offenders by informing the audience that “more than two-thirds [of released prisoners] will be rearrested within three years; half will go back in prison” (Gudrais). Similarly, Gudrais tackles the reasons why many prisoners return to prison by enlightening her readers to the fact that “at least two-thirds [of prisoners] are thought to have substance-abuse problems” and 56 percent of U.S. inmates are mentally ill (Gudrais). These disconcerting statistics act as alerts—similar to when a phone reminds its owner of an imminent appointment—thereby creating urgency. Not only do the statistics force the reader to contemplate the issue, but they add nuance to her argument, since Gudrais demarcates which prisoners should be helped. She qualifies her claim by arguing that prisons don’t need to be reformed for all prisoners, but for the prisoners who want to become better people and are unable to do so because of mental illness and …show more content…
In constructing her argument, Gudrais must remember that her readers have an instinctive bias against criminals, which is completely understandable. To overcome this negative perception, appeals to one emotion above all: sympathy. Particularly, Gudrais conveys the extent of the hardships released prisoners face with the examples she recounts. One woman, desperately in need of prescription anti-anxiety medication that was being delayed, resorted to using heroin in an attempt to “feel calm” (Gudrais). Others who are addicted to drugs, steal in order to secure the money they need to purchase more drugs (Gudrais). With heartbreaking details about challenges that ex-convicts endure, Gudrais evokes sympathy from the reader. With this sympathy, readers are more likely to support Gudrais’ claim that prisons should be reformed. If readers pity prisoners, they they will want to make a change. Furthermore, she references a psychologist, Marieke Liem, who explains the dehumanizing experience of American prison. Since prisoners must “wear jumpsuits”, must be “referred to by number instead of name”, and in some states lose their fundamental right to vote the American prison system is seen as a harsh punishment (Gudrais). These seemingly basic rights being stripped away act as mechanisms for the readers to be more lenient and forgiving towards criminals.