For my essay #2 assignment, I am reviewing a series of articles on social injustices. The article I am most invested in at the moment is on the benefits of  private prisons. The article I will be referring to in the following questions is called “The benefits of private prisons“ by Jordan Ryan. The report is talking about the benefits of keeping private prisons open and their importance in the prison system.

 

• Where is the article from?  How do you know it is a reliable source? Does it have a known political bias?

The article is from an online newsletter called The Observer. The observer is a  student-run daily print serving Notre Dame University, Holy cross College, and Saint Mary’s College. I know it’s a reliable source because a University runs the newsletter, the content is relevant to the date, and the website has a proven track of reliability. This article places no political bias.

• Who wrote the article? Does the author have any potential biases/conflict of interests (ETHOS)?  Who is the target audience? How can you tell?

The article was written by a student at the Univerity of Notre Dame names Jordan Ryan.  The author showed no political bias or conflict of interest, and her only goal was to inform the public of the benefits of private prisons. The article did, however, contain lots of ethos as the author made the credibility of her sources clear through her text. The target audience would be people who might already be against private prisons, people who know very little about private prisons, and the general public. The audience target is clear because the tone of the articles conveys it, if the goal of the article was to persuade, it was to convince those who thought otherwise of the topic.

• How does the headline grab our attention?  Does it show any attempt to politicize the news item or appeal to a particular demographic?  Is it accurate or misleading (in relation to the content?)

The headline caught my attention because it was straight to the point, “The benefit of Private Prisons,” another reason being it was extremely controversial headline since private prisons have a sort of infamy to them. The article shows no attempt to politicize the news item; however, as I said previously, there target demographic would be people who see private prisons as a problem and the general public. The piece was not misleading to the content.

• Are there any pictures or graphics at the beginning of the article to preview the argument and/or give the argument a particular context?

The article surprisingly contained no pictures or videos.

• Analyze the argument.  What is the main idea?  Break down the argument into steps – what are the sub-arguments?

The main idea or central argument of this article is that; there are multiple benefits to keeping private prisons running. In the article, Jordan talks about; how there’s no way to avoid “profiting” from incarceration and how private prisons can be part of the solution to reform the criminal justice system.

Sub argument breakdown

1. When arguing that there’s no way to avoid “profiting” from incarceration, the author states that “Even in public facilities, private contractors inevitably are used. How else would you have food for the inmates, or electricity and television, or a general contractor to build and maintain the facility? Why is the actual management of the facility being private any different from other profit-motivated enterprises?”. By saying this, she is arguing that public prisons use private contractors who are inevitably profiting off of incarceration, so what is the difference. In summary, if there is an issue with private prisons being made a profit, we should also look down on the private contractor public prisons use.

 

1. When arguing how private prisons can be part of the solution to reform the criminal justice system, she states that “We can begin to alter our standards to improve these facilities. We can urge them to include rehabilitation services, as well as improved food, health care, and safety measures. Given the nature of the competitive free market, if better standards and performance metrics were to be applied, costs will naturally be driven to their lowest possible, meaning that we can save money and promote improved rehabilitation while reducing recidivism.” By saying this, she is arguing that better improving the private(and public) prison systems we can save money and put it towards prisons becoming more of a rehabilitation center per se, can benefit the criminal justice reform (rehabilitate people who serve time and reducing recidivism rates)

• Evaluate the argument.  Is it logical (LOGOS)? Does it appeal to emotion (PATHOS)? What strategies does it use to persuade the reader?  What examples does it give?  Are there any logical fallacies?

The argument that private prisons carry benefits does contain logos. The author write uses logos in several points of the article by using numbers and facts logically proving to the audience there are benefits of private prisons, The report does not appeal to emotion, there’s no apparent use of pathos. The author uses the strategy of stating what’s been said is wrong with private prisons and attempting to debunk those statements. The author used examples like, “Arguably, no one should profit from the incarceration of another person. But there is truly no way to avoid “profiting” from incarceration. Even in public facilities, private contractors inevitably are used. How else would you have food for the inmates, or electricity and television, or a general contractor to build and maintain the facility? Why is the actual management of the facility being private any different from other profit-motivated enterprises?” I found no logical fallacies.

• Evaluate the content and the sources. Does the article link to other relevant sources? Does it list sources at the end of the article?  Is it clear if the article is factual or opinion-based?  How far can you get when you try to check the sources/background of the argument? 

The article’s sources are relevant to the content; however, the sources are not listed at the end of the article; instead, they are embedded in the text of the article. The article is factual, although it is persuasive, Jordan shows little to no opinion in her work. Checking the sources of this article was a bit difficult since the sources were not listed at the end of the article. I ended up researching any statistics, numbers, and fact sources that might have been left out.