Introduction
The writer addresses a form of social evil that emanated after the slavery days. This is a form of imprisonment where authorities chain several criminals in a single or relatively fewer chain. In turn, prisoners incapacitate themselves to avoid the strenuous and extremely hard work in the prisons. They practice this by laming themselves through cutting their fracturing their legs. Chain gangs are about not only the method of chaining but also the menial works that prisoners perform. Societies and prison authorities brand these inmates as hardcore criminals and, therefore, prison authorities recommend community-related hard work such as road construction for prisoners. In this way, prisoners reform while still possessing welfare benefits to society during their sentences.
Main Body
The writer employs both objective and subjective methods to achieve credibility in his article. Further than that, he majorly reports peoples’ opinions rather than his own. Therefore, this article is more sensitizing than it is evaluative. The writer is systematic in organizing his article. To begin with, he presents the history and opinion of people towards the subject. He employs the practice of slavery to symbolize the nature of his subject. Slavery also symbolizes the period whereby this practice might have been common. Thereafter, he addresses the relevance of his subject by stating that it has currently reappeared in Alabama prisons. In order to emphasize the magnitude of the situation, the writer mentions the past expression of societal discontent with the practice. He, then, points out the reaction of individuals to this practice. He expresses this by evaluating the subtle appeal of chained victims for sympathy by the public. Lastly, he proposes an unimposing idea to the prison officials on how to respond to the practice.
The paper possesses significant details. This props the article from gaining loopholes of distrust. In order to illustrate the unconcern of the public, he mentions the casual manner in which reporters respond to the state of chain gangs. In the particular illustration, he depicts police officers as wielding guns over inmates. The article also includes other aspects of chain gangs by pointing out that they are denied prison privileges such as smoking and visits.
Despite the unimposing tactic that the article employs, it does not fail to reveal its attention. It attempts to satirize the surrounding society’s opinion on chain gangs. The prison authorities believe that this method would help reinstate the message of difficult prison life. This resides in the view that more upcoming gangs would avoid crime. The article explores the seemingly invisible aspects of chain gangs. Governor James, who is a politician, might be able to profit from this practice if he considers going for an elective post. The article depicts chain gangs as a motive for political gains. In order to stamp this revelation, the writer points out that most inmates in those gangs are responsible for less violent crimes than the picture presents. Ironically, most of the jobs that these gangs do are less productive. The act of breaking rocks creates journalistic opportunities for publicizing prisons as rehabilitation centers. In close relation to this, the author calls attention to the public’s delight at the spectacle of working chain gangs. Despite those opinions, the author displays another picture of inmates experiencing angst against the chain gang system.
This article poses notable biases. To begin with, it does not present the positive motives for joy by the referred society in witnessing the reappearance of chain gangs. In addition, the article does not investigate the positive reasons for the revival of the chain gang practice. Even though it is inevitable, the author relies on his senses to present a situation that could enjoy a wholesome conceptualization. He comically presents the police officers as happy of holding guns and wearing sunglasses. In the article, the author does not acknowledge the source of his statistics such as the scenario of three blacks to two white prisoners. The article gains linguistic ambiguity when it fails to explain the meaning of America’s racist prison past. There are two possible interpretations of this statement. Either it tries to merely present statistical evidence or points out that there is a bias in arrests due to crimes.
Conclusion
In summary, this article attempts to explore the purpose and credibility of the main article. The author achieves linguistic clarity in delivering this article. In achieving this, the article employs a proper organization of the delivery of the article’s content. Another positive aspect of the article entails the utilization of details in obtaining credibility. However, the article still possesses bias in some of its sections. Despite the bias, it tries to sensitize the responsive community on the detriments and possible fraudulent motives for chain gang punitive measures.