In Defense of Flogging

by Peter Moskos

Prisons impose tremendous costs, yet they're easily ignored. Criminals -- even low-level nonviolent offenders -- enter our dysfunctional criminal justice system and disappear into a morass that's safely hidden from public view. Our "tough on crime" political rhetoric offers us no way out, and prison reformers are too quickly dismissed as soft on criminals. Meanwhile, the taxpayer picks up the extraordinary and unnecessary bill.In Defense of Flogging presents a solution both radical and give criminals a choice between incarceration and the lash. Flogging is 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.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, Philosophy, Crime, Law, Islam, History

195 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2011

Reviews

[Murtaza · Rating 5 out of 5]

Imagine you were convicted of a crime and offered two options: five years in prison, or ten lashes from a cane. The former would mean years in a bleak, violent dungeon cut off from friends and family. The latter would mean a few minutes of excruciating pain, followed by release back into ones normal life. Faced with such a choice I suspect that many, probably most people, would choose the corporal punishment option. While the concept of flogging feels like an atavistic reminder of ancient barbarism, the idea of being incarcerated in one of modern America's prisons is so much more horrible its actually worth questioning whether our concepts of punishment have in fact morally regressed from the past.

I was expecting this book to be an ironic case for corporal punishment. But Moskos is actually dead serious. Laying out in detail the unspeakable horrors of our present system of mass incarceration, he argues that offering certain classes of convicts a choice between jail and flogging would offer a practical path to ending the United States' modern gulag system, while still maintaining basic standards of justice and deterrence. Seriously dangerous people (who are actually few and far between) would remain behind bars. But the vast majority who simply have made mistakes in life would have the traditional, still unpleasant, option of being flogged and released. Not only would this be the case in situations where individuals are convicted of crimes, but Moskos argues that police should also have and give the option of using corporal punishment against people caught in a crime in lieu of formal arrest, thus giving all parties some discretion against resorting to the years-long hell of the legal system. The potential abuses of such an arrangement seem obvious, but what about the unconscionable abuses that thrive upon what we have today?

The original idea for prisons was built on the idea that they were a scientific means of "curing" criminality and were less cruel than corporal punishment. Two centuries of this idea have proven that nothing could be further than the truth. Prisons are sites of the most hideous barbarity imaginable and almost always leave people worse off, though we tend to avert our eyes from what goes on there. Moskos condemnation of the current state of the prison system in this book is damning. He is not a proponent of utopian ideas like abolishing punishment wholesale, but also makes the case that the prison system as it exists is both unacceptable and unreformable. Prison is never going to be a place for rehabilitation of people, though it may always be necessary for a small group of the truly dangerous. The idea that it offers the hope of correcting anyone's behavior however has utterly failed and there is no point inflicting more and more suffering in the hope that one day it will start to "work".

In addition to this negative critique, Moskos positive case for corporal punishment is well argued. The fact that almost all of us would choose a caning over spending years in jail is a powerful evidence in itself. Flogging would end the nightmare of solitary confinement, spiritual degradation and violence that many ordinary people suffer in prison, while also having the economic benefit of dismantling much of our sprawling incarceration complex. By his account, optional corporal punishment would be a more humane system than what we have today, or what we could even hope to achieve with incremental reform. Because of people's general hatred of the past and blind attachment to the concept of Progress, its unlikely that actual flogging will ever come back into use in the United States. This book should, however, open up a genuine discussion about the untenability of the present state of affairs and the need for real, immediate and drastic steps to change things.

Corporal punishment of a sort, combined with financial penalties, could be a real step in the right direction. I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't read it myself but I really recommend others to do so before dismissing the idea out of hand. I'm not an expert on the subject and I'm sure there are blind spots that I've missed. But I would say that this short book ranks with The New Jim Crow as one of the best I've read on how to approach fixing the travesty of the modern criminal justice system.

[Jacob · Rating 2 out of 5]

Davis, California: UC-Davis police officer Lt. John Pike looked up from pepper-spraying student protesters and smiled dreamily. "Oh, please," he said, "may I?"

At least, that's all I was going to say. I stumbled across this book on the Mother Jones' list "Our Favorite Books of the Year" and thought it was worth mocking. Oh derp, this guy wants to flog people, derp derp. But I woke up yesterday, New Year's Day, and horror of horrors, my internet was down. So instead of adding In Defense of Flogging to my currently-reading list and skimming a few pages at a time while I made snarky comments on Goodreads, I actually had to read the book all by myself. AND I'M NOT SURE I LIKE WHAT I FOUND.

"America now has more prisoners than any other country in the world. Ever. In sheer numbers and as a percentage of the population..." (p. 14) "...We live in a nation that incarcerates more of its citizens than any other, and that includes authoritarian China...America's incarceration rate, 750 [per 100,000], is five times the world average." (p. 107)

Peter Moskos makes a strong argument: Our prisons are crowded, we lock up too many people, the system doesn't work. So he has some valid suggestions...and some not-so-valid ones. Go ahead, see if you can notice where his arguments go off the rails:

"Before you're led out of the courtroom, the judge calls for order and offers you the flogging option. "Five years or ten lashes," he says. If you choose flogging, an appointed state flogger will cane you immediately. Ten lashes, a little rubbing alcohol, a few bandages, and you'd be free to go home and sleep in your own bed. No holding-cell. No lock-up. A quick and painful caning, and you'll be on your way." (p. 9)

Sounds a bit unorthodox, but ok, we can discuss this.

"In large cities one caning trestle should be in the courthouse and another in Central Booking so that those arrested on misdemeanors could immediately assent to being flogged. After an arrest...one could accept a flogging plea and go to the caning room." (pp. 145-146)

I'm sorry, what?

"Arrests, however, haven't always been the main tool in the law enforcement kit. Like many police, I heard stories about 'the good old days'...when some minor offenders would be given a choice between handcuffs and a minor beat-down. Given a choice between a night in jail and going out back and taking a punch or two, most offenders...chose the more honorable "beat and release'..." (p. 118) "...Who benefits from these arrests except the lawyers, police, and correctional officers who get paid? Of course there is plenty of serious crime...but the bulk of arrests are for minor things...Maybe the old option of the 'beat and release' wasn't so bad..." (pp. 121-122)

Ok, you lost me there.

Look, I get it: our criminal justice system is overburdened and our prisons are crowded, dangerous, and inhumane; locking up people for years (or decades) does little to rehabilitate them. But caning people (after--or even without--a trial), or merely beating people up, is not the way to solve our problems. Problem is, I'm also uneducated--on prisons, on crime, on criminal justice--and I shouldn't expect to get any answers from a book this slim, especially when I still feel inclined to mock it. So I'll count this as a simple thought experiment, if not a solution, and now I'll leave the comments section open to recommendations for further reading.

[Dave · Rating 5 out of 5]

Moskos has written a devastating critique of the badly broken U.S. system of criminal "corrections." He notes that all efforts at rehabilitation have failed, and that the resulting overuse of incarceration as punishment makes no sense and costs us billions.

You could probably read one hundred books about the messed-up U.S. prison-industrial complex, but this is the ONLY book you will find that provides the clever, compelling solution of substituting OPTIONAL corporal punishment for incarceration for most non-dangerous offenders!

The argument is strong, the organization is disjointed and jumbled but makes its point clearly and consistently, and the book is a thoroughly enjoyable one-day read. One of the best books I've read this year!

[Elizabeth AcesoUnderGlass · Rating 1 out of 5]

I heartily agree with this books conclusions but am dismayed at the number of factual issues the author glosses over or outright gets wrong. Most glaring, he really seems to miss when police could administer home beatings as swift justice, ignoring how often that power was misused and how often it undoubtedly would be today.

[Fiona · Rating 1 out of 5]

His argument was good when he said it the first time, after the 20th it felt like a friend trying to convince you instead of a professionally written book.
The historical context behind the ideology of incarceration was the strongest chapter and reminded me of Foucault, whose “Madness and Civilisation” and “Discipline and Punish” explored this topic (much more richly) to illustrate how modern solutions appear more sanitary externally but are in reality far more brutish.

Moskos was being too subjective & informal which tainted the book, for example when saying that it’s no one’s business what people put in their bodies RE drug crime, or that flogging is horrible and he doesn’t want to think about it but it’s necessary blah blah.
Finally him shoe-horning in Shariah law and comparing it to Hell and the Stone Age to reassure his readers that he’s not "barbaric" according to their standards was pretty ridiculous, he’d be better off under Shariah law instead of turning out that babyish.
This is a half-decent read if you’re only starting to critically think about incarceration. But it's non-revolutionary & mostly a waste of time. You can just read a couple of papers/studies.

[Chris · Rating 2 out of 5]

I liked the concept but its tone is too similar to the one your over zealous uncle uses at Xmas when explaining his theories on what REALLY happened to Hiler's brain.

[Vagabond of Letters, DLitt · Rating 3 out of 5]

Review forthcoming - I am a staunch proponent of the abolition of prisons in favor of a fine, publicly humiliate or shame, corporally punish, execute system of justice (in ascending order of severity of crime). However, this book is light on actual defense of flogging, and often runs aground in screeds of environmentalist antiracism, blaming the typical bad neighborhoods and vague 'systemic injustice' for the criminality of certain minorities. The author appears completely ignorant of the role of intelligence and time preference in regards to criminality and how these are inherited (he would likely deny it even after making a case study of two generationally-criminal families). When the author falls in to these traps, he loses his argument and needs to be set upon with a 700-page copy of Herrnstein and Murray's 'The Bell Curve'. The same when he compares American incarceration rates and crime rates to those of Japan and northern Europe without taking in to account the radically different demographics and the greater heterogeneity (resulting in anomie, lack of social capital, and loss of norms) of American demographics over against the extreme homogeneity and strong tradition of Japan (also populated by people with a mean IQ of 105 compared to the average prisoner's IQ of 92 in the US.)

The author does a much better job demonstrating the ineffectiveness and cost in money and sheer inhumanity of the prison system, which is a form of torture (flogging is not): he would have been well served by driving home its relative newness and lack of historical precedent more than he did. After reading this book, anyone should be convinced of the need to abolish prisons in favor of something else: Moskos takes a step in that direction.

[Nathan Duffy · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book is basically two books: one against both the present system of mass incarceration and the ineffectual programs of prison reform thereof; and one for flogging as a more humane, effective, and socializing alternative for punishing criminals. The former is not entirely convincing, as he generally overstates his case and caricatures proponents of incarceration, though he makes many strong points; the latter is quite potent and persuasive.

The book could be criticized as disingenuously defending flogging just to shock you and thereby bring attention to the injustice and ineffectiveness of mass incarceration. And that criticism has some merit, but he ultimately treats flogging and more traditional approaches to criminal punishment as serious alternatives. This is made clearest by his eschewing of, not only mass incarceration, but also prison reform. He genuinely sees the need for a third option.

[Kevin Keating · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a great little book. It is an intelligent and cogent argument for the establishment of flogging as a voluntary option for convicted criminals to avoid prison. While certainly cruel, is it really more cruel than what prison is like in America? Many benefits to the prisoner, not to mention to the mental health of the guards. Also benefits society as a cost saving device and certainly benefits the families of the erstwhile prisoners. Fascinating no one has proposed it. I guess USA just can't get over the ick factor of corporal punishment. Maybe if people knew what prisons were really like, flogging wouldn't seem so much worse. Main point seems to be, "Would you choose 2 lashes in exchange for every year of prison you would otherwise get?" Of course you would, so how is it cruel to let others have thsat choice?

[Colleen · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is an extended essay that argues that rather than have mass incarceration (with all its attendent inhumane conditions and horrific impact on millions) the US should reintroduce flogging as a non-custodial punishment. It does not argue for flogging and incarceration, incarceration is only to be reserved for those who are a continued danger to society.

First, let me say what I liked about the book. Moskos actually makes a recommendation for what is to be done that is different. It's very easy to critique, another thing to try something new. He deserves some props for thinking that through. He also deserves props in my opinion for critiquing the left/progressives for their approach to prison reform, which does not recognize the very visceral urge for retribution (say noted by New York Law professor Robert Blecker) which will probably never be erased from our punitive American psyche (David Garland, among others, has talked about this American sensibility). Last, he gives a very fast paced and simple breakdown of all that is wrong with mass incarceration.

However, this book had many gaps in logic that make it tough to swallow, even as a thought experiment. He rightly situates mass incarceration as a phenomenon post 1970s, when the population in prisons/jails went up from about 350K to 2.3 million. Why not just go back to what we were doing then? Americans were just as punitive, crime was no greater....so why is 2016 different? Why corporal punishment now and not then? Clearly this is not something so deeply engrained in American society and ancient. It is 40 years old, why not revert to the policies of the pre-1970s. There's one gap in logic. The second gap in logic is that he critiques drug policies, yet does not suggest that rather than flog someone, let's just eliminate some of the more ridiculous drug laws. Most Americans believe marijuana should be legalized, however, and drugs are one area where you can find people on the right and left who have more libertarian views. He also does not acknowledge that Broken Windows style policing and arresting people for minor quality of life sentences has led to 95% of these arrests being people of color for incredibly minor BS offenses like sleeping on the subway, riding one's bike on the sidewalk and spitting. Are we to seriously uphold caning of people of color for sleeping on the subway? His proposition does *nothing* to remedy how the criminal justice system unfairly targets black and brown people, and now (he does note this) we have the symbolism of *beating* people of color and leaving scars on their behind for even minor stuff? They will take a plea, just as they are doing now due to lousy representation, while the wealthier (mostly white folks) get away scot free and their bottoms preserved. He makes his argument a zero sum game. We either have this, or this. I don't think there exists any such neat choice. There was also a breathtakingly decontextualized and tone deaf section which lauds the days when police could just give a whooping to someone rather than arrest them....I don't need to go into the reasons why this was flabbergasting.

I also understand that his essay was meant to engage and provoke a broad audience, but saying you hate Foucault because he doesn't write in a straightforward way does not sound like a serious statement. There should have been footnotes that indicate where he was getting his information that had numbers so they could be directly linked to the text while one is reading. Mixing in anecdotes, unsubstantiated conjecture and fictional characters with one's argument also didn't help.

[Fishface · Rating 5 out of 5]

Two words: BRILLIANT IDEA. The author proposes to tear the whole rotten prison-industrial complex down to the ankles and start over. His idea for an alternative to the current ruin-the-convict's-life system is modest, but incredibly sweeping, and threatens to make life survivable again for almost anyone in the USA who commits a small-to-medium crime. This is a must read for anyone who suspects we may be doing something wrong by imprisoning more citizens per capita than almost any other country on earth, and by seeing to it that they can never get a semblance of normal life back afterwards.

[Ian Young · Rating 4 out of 5]

A thoughtful and interesting essay-slash-short-book that does exactly what the title suggests: makes a case for flogging in modern society. The thesis is this: the United States' prison system is out of control, inhumane, and ineffective; a system of voluntary flogging, however brutal of a practice it is, would accomplish the goals of criminal punishment at a fraction of the cost, more honestly, and without the massive damage to society of prolonged mass incarceration. Moskos spends a ton of time saying "I know you're still horrified at this idea…", but I was pretty much on board after the initial statement of intent.

Interestingly, Moskos doesn't try to make a case for flogging as a deterrent, pointing out only that imprisonment appears to be largely useless as a deterrent so flogging could not do worse (fair enough). He claims instead, simply, that we should flog because people want criminals to be punished. I don't know how I feel about this idea in general, though I acknowledge the pragmatism of it and it's true that we can't do worse than we already do.

He's also pretty dismissive of all prison reform efforts, without providing as much evidence as other claims receive. This might be partly out of necessity to the argument being made—defending flogging depends on it being placed among alternatives that are equally brutal, and if prison reform held the potential to be humane and effective, no one would agree to implement flogging. However, he does make a convincing argument that the things most wrong with prison are also the things that make it prison, so any system that effectively treats criminals is likely to not look much like prison at all.

In all, it's a quick read and worth it for the chance to ponder an unusual idea. You might be convinced as well. I'm not sure yet how I should work "I read an essay and now I'm pro-flogging" into casual conversation, but I'll figure it out.

[Umar Lee · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've long made the argument that flogging and other physical punishments would be more beneficial for society than our present bloated prison system. I think of Singapore and Gulf states as models in this regard and the chaos of American life for working-class citizens due to a lack of safety, disorder, and the chaos of incarceration. Moskos makes a brief and compelling argument for this case using statistics, anecdotes, and his knowledge and experience in New York.

[Joshua Horn · Rating 2 out of 5]

The basic concept of this book is one that I agree with, and I appreciate the author's willingness to present it. The thesis is that since American prisons are a clear failure for all of their original goals, flogging would be a better system. I would agree, and go even further to say that it is the best system (Biblically endorsed no less)

His idea is that criminals be given a choice between prison time and a certain number of lashes. It's a good idea, and one that would have more of a chance of being implemented.

While the basic thesis is good, the presentation is not. I found his style to be quite rambling and he included a a lot of unnecessary profanity.

[Katie · Rating 2 out of 5]

Gah...this book was so painful to read. It was basically like being forced to listen to a self-righteous, arrogant guy shoot off his mouth and not being able to leave. I couldn't leave because I really did want to see what he had to say about this topic, since I find it a very important and urgent issue, which few in America want to face. He did have some good arguments, and I actually agree with his main premise, which is that the prison system is completely broken, corrupt, and ineffective, and that giving convicts a choice between a few stripes on the back and 5 years in the slammer is a much more humane and feasible approach to improving the criminal justice system. But Moskos also advocates returning to the days before Rodney King, where policemen had basically unlimited discretion in meriting out "justice" instead of having to book them for every offense, minor or otherwise. I don't really understand how he doesn't see that the Rodney King incident shows exactly how unwise that system was. Police officers perform a noble and thankless task, but it is not their role to judge of an offender's guilt or lack thereof. Also, I strongly disagreed with his adoration of Europe and their criminal system - he simplifies the vast cultural differences and resulting social issues that contribute to our higher crime rate, and he also conveniently fails to point out that western Europe would balk at the idea of any sort of corporal punishment. I would love to see his main idea in practice, though. It would be fascinating to see how many (non-dangerous) offenders would select flogging over prison, and how well (or not) it would purify the prisons of overcrowding and horrific results of that. In short, (too late, I know) great substance, terrible form.

[Zach Toad · Rating 5 out of 5]

Remarkable and philosophically bold, this book is grounded in a good, hard, empirically-informed look at the horrors of the prison system. Most of us would choose a lashing over a prison sentence—giving ourselves over to a bout of intense but fleeting pain is better than giving up years of our lives. Why, then, do we assume flogging more barbaric than imprisonment? Moskos shows that the contemporary carceral system is definitively not the mark of moral progress we take it to be. He expounds the history, criminology, sociology, and economics behind this modern-day torture chamber. On all these dimensions, I am now convinced that flogging is a better alternative.

Moskos thinks that society will always need some form of punishment—for deterrence and for appeasing our widely-held retributive sense of justice. I think we ought to move past retributivism as much and as quickly as possible. Yet I agree that in the near-term this is a pipe-dream. More to the point, even if we can move past retribution, we will probably always need some form of deterrence, no matter how utopian society becomes. Even with excellent education and mental healthcare, a free and open and diverse society will always have low level of criminality. Moskos solution is simultaneously philosophically deep and practically applicable. This book changed my worldview, especially because Moskos seems to look much more squarely in the face the problem of crime, in contrast to other abolitionist perspectives.

[Junaid Saleh · Rating 4 out of 5]

The writer describes how the prison system is not producing the intended results. In fact, prisons are contributing to the increase in crime-rate by destroying people's lives by incapacitating them in an environment that breeds more crime. Instead of torturing the convict and devastating his family's life, the author argues that flogging is a better, rather the best, alternative to imprisonment. The book also sheds light on the lobbying behind the prison-industrial complex and how more incarceration means more profit and employment for faroff white-majority towns. The book turns the tables on the self-righteous humanists by proving how inhumane and ineffective the prison system really is and how flogging serves real justice, contrary to the conventional belief about prisons being humane and flogging barbaric. This book left me more curious about the Islamic penal code. The book would have deserved a 5-star from me, had it included a list of reasons why secular-liberals believe that the penal system as mandated by Islam is barbaric. Maybe, this attempt would have changed the author's perspective about Shariah! He diagnosed the disease, even identified the cure, but unfortunately he overlooked the wealth of detailed prescriptions in this regard by Islam.

[Justice · Rating 4 out of 5]

A surprisingly middle-of-the-road argument that flogging, specifically Singapore-style "caning" should be used as an occasional alternative to incarceration. Moskos uses arguments from both "liberal" and "conservative" viewpoints and how caning is more effective, cheaper, and humane than using incarceration for all crimes. Moskos is convincing, provided you believe in punishment at all, so some prison abolitionists might take some umbridge with his recommendation. Moskos recommends in his consideration of prudent caning policy, an option of two lashes for each year of incarceration sentence. If you think flogging is barbaric, consider if you are convicted of a misdemeanor and have an option if either a year in prison or two very painful strikes with a cane, over in a few minutes the same day as sentencing, which you would pick.

[Radu · Rating 3 out of 5]

This weird little booklet, just as it says on the cover, examines the moral and practical implications of re-instituting flogging (technically caning) in the American justice system as opposed to the current system of mass incarceration using historical examples and the precedents that have been made in the centuries since American's founding and how the practice is used in other countries.

Considering the state of American prisons, it is difficult to not (with a great deal of reluctance) come to the conclusion that the author might have a point, which in the greatest of ironies the author even acknowledges at the conclusion to the book.

Overall I found the book to be dry yet readable.

[Amber Amin · Rating 2 out of 5]

A poorly written book that tries and fails to defend flogging as an alternative to a prison sentence. Moskos makes broad and sweeping comments and does nothing to justify his argument. He goes into detail about the history and failings of the prison industrial complex but does not provide any information on how or why flogging would help. He lost me at “although to say prison is modern-day slavery is a bit extreme…”. Seems like Moskos is all for whipping African American men, the mentally ill, and children. In my 8 years of studying criminal justice I have never seen a published work so lacking as this one.

[Tijani Kay Aderemi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Get a couple of lashes on your behind and be done with by the justice system, or face a certain number of years in incarceration and subsequent maligning upon return to society.

The author proposes a system of lessening the disproportionate effect of prison sentences on people who committed minor offenses instead of locking up every Harry in jail.

This may not be the best alternative, but the idea is at the least a thought experiment on ways of breaking up the prison industrial complex.
I can't believe people make money off locking fellow humans.

[Bill Smoot · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book offers a succinct and clearly written critique of mass incarceration in the U.S. The proposed alternative of flogging is certainly an attention-grabber, and the author seems to propose it seriously, not as a Swiftean satire as I had assumed. The primary value of the book is to provoke the reader to think, to become aware of the failures of our current system, and to conclude that we desperately need an alternative.

[Lon Eriksson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Moskos makes a better argument for flogging than against the status quo with prisons. I am less convinced by his appeals to morality than the high cost and low success rates of the current prison industrial regime, as he puts it. Punishment and prevention are two separate goals of imprisonment, and Moskos finds the prevention argument unconvincing and the punishment argument better served by a cheaper alternative that doesnt require a multi billion dollar industry.

[Benjamin Fisk · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a very thought-provoking book. It presents the argument of change in the American penological system in a format that can be understood by everyone. When I explain the concept to my colleagues, at first they think that I am crazy, but by the end, they agree that judicial corporal punishment would be better and more humane. The question of whether or not that means change is necessary is inarguable at that point.

[Steve Scott · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was surprised by this book. Moskos’s work is an extended critique of the inhumanity and injustice of our current penal system. This isn’t some right wing appeal for brutality written by some monobrowed fascist.

What he doesn’t provide is evidence that this program would work. That said, it’s a provocative and well written book.

[Christine Woods · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting thought experiment aimed at highlighting the failures of the American penal system. Some interesting points raised, though not all are well made (the argument in favor of police having extralegal authority to beat and release particularly seems ill advised and poorly supported by anecdotal evidence alone.)

[Arthur Augustyn · Rating 5 out of 5]

The exact type of post-ironic contrarian argument I can get behind to mount a movement to abolish the total failure of mass incarceration. Very easy read with convincing moral and practical arguments. I also appreciate it's a short book — maybe 150 pages. You could read it in a weekend if you wanted. I feel significantly more knowledgeable about the specifics of prisons' failure.

[Asif Mahtab Utsha · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's okay as a history book. But I expected it to be more philosophical, which it was not. The argument wasn't convincing either. I don't think he had an argument. he didn't fully commit to flogging. The basic premise should be American prison system is bad. But what about other countries? No citations given.

[D D · Rating 5 out of 5]

Intelligently written and fully thought out, once you've read this book you might be willing to accept a whipping rather than serve a prison sentence. But the cultural stigma (especially because of American slavery) makes flogging anathema for most.

[E. Kahn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Exposing the horrors of our present prison system, Moskos satirically presents flogging as an alternative, and actually makes a convincing case that corporal punishment would actually be more humane and effective than the current system.