ESSAY THREE YEA BOOI

Matt Caples

Rhetorical Analysis

Final Draft

David Bornstien's article, For Drug Users, a Swift Response Is the Best Medicine, puts the argument of treatment versus punishment for drug abusers into perspective. He presents the pros and cons of both treatment and punishment and presents what side he takes very early on. The factual evidence that he provides matched with his drawing on pathos makes the argument he is presenting very effective. His use of facts and emotions pair up to make his piece effective in showing that treatment is the best way to help drug abusers, not punishment. He leaves room for you to make your own decision on the matter, but his argument is so well put that you have no other choice but to agree with his reasoning.

David first talks about the pros and cons of treating drug abusers. He states some facts that don't make an impact until later in the piece, but talks about how 83% of treated drug abusers stay clean after treatment and don't run into to trouble with drugs and the law. He also talks about how treatment saves tax payers money because the legal system costs tax payers lots of money. However, the downfall of treatment is it costs the drug abuser money, which many cannot afford. It also requires the abuser to be dedicated to the cause or the treatment will be unsuccessful. His facts surrounding treatment for drug abusers makes it very hard to argue for punishment before he even presents the negatives of punishment. The way he describes the pros and cons makes it clear that the pros of treatment drastically outweigh the cons. The pros being that the success rate for treatment is drastically higher than the success rate for punishment and the con being the cost. This paragraph is a very good introduction to his argument. Bornstien takes his stand in the debate immediately and effectively provides facts and statistics to back up his reasoning for his stand on the debate.

David then talks about the pros and cons of punishment. He states that many people who are thrown into jail because of drug charges end up becoming more dependent on the drugs and often become involved with prison gangs in order to receive the drugs that they need. Only 34% of inmates after being released from prison end up staying sober and that percentage is dropping drastically, says Bornstein. He goes to talk about how expensive it is to keep an inmate in prison and how almost all of the costs are paid for by tax payers. He makes very good points concerning tax payers' dollars, which is a big debate going on right now in society. It is clear from the way he made his case, that the cons of punishment outweigh the pros, the cons being that while in jail, many drug abusers get involved in gangs. By not really addressing any pros of punishment, it helps back his argument even more. All in all, this part of his argument is very effective at showing readers why punishment is not the solution for drug abusers. When the facts that he stated about treatment are compared the facts stated about punishment, this becomes very apparent.

The last very good point that Bornstwein makes is the effects of treatment versus punishment on abusers families. When in treatment, such as halfway houses, and detox facilities, abusers are allowed to see their family in most cases whenever they want. Most treatment centers also provide family counseling for the abusers and their families. When the treatment is over, the families are stronger, making the abuser less likely to go back to using drugs. Unfortunately, when punishment and jail time is involved, the effects are the exact opposite. Must drug abusers, when sentenced, are sentenced in different counties than their families, and depending on the case, out of state. This makes it very hard for families to visit the con, which often leads to broken homes due to prison time. This makes drug abusers that are locked up more likely to start using drugs once they are out. The involvement of families and emotions into his argument really makes it hard to argue against him. The use of pathos in this last discussion of his paper solidifies his argument and is effective at drawing in readers to make the same conclusion that he makes.

The strategy he uses in his writing is very well played. He presents all the quotes and facts and statistics that back up his argument, which sets a good backbone for his argument. After his side of the argument and thoughts are set in stone, he then starts to explain the opposing side’s argument which doesn’t seem to have any solidity due to the facts and statistics that he stated. I think this is a good strategy because it makes his argument seem stronger than it really is. His argument for treatment is already strong, but the way that he presented it gave it more solidity than it really had. However, the downfall of this is it makes his argument very one-sided. He addresses the pros and cons of punishing drug abusers with jail time but doesn’t address the positives of jail time, by stating that there are none. The bias perspective that he takes in the argument is one of his only downfalls. Besides this, I think his argument is very sound. He did a good job at backing his statements up with facts, and even though he was bias, he presented facts and data from the effects of punishment for drug abusers. His use of pathos and ethos really help to draw in readers and builds up the credentials of his piece.

All in all, Bornsetien's argument is very sound and very effective. The way he pairs factual evidence with emotional evidence is very effective and gives no room for any other arguments. Before reading this article I was more on the side of punishment, even knowing the consequences of if such as gang violence. However, after reading it, it became clear to me that treatment is the real cure for drug abuse. Even though the piece is basis, it is an opinion piece and his argument is still clear and valid. David Bornstein’s piece, For Drug Users, a Swift Response Is the Best Medicine, falsifies the doubters’ of the Untied State’s Rehab Care arguments. He addresses both sides, and even though he is obviously on the side of medicinal and therapeutic treatment for drug abusers, he still addresses the effects of punishment through jail time.

REWRITE REFLECTION and Draft

So far on my paper I have expanded each paragraph with more analysis and I've added stronger intro and outro sentenced. I also went through and fixed spelling errors and grammatical errors that I had. I decided to spend more time discussing the pathos and ethos, because that's a big part of what we learned about. I still want to expand more but I need some guidance on how to do so.

David Bornstien's article, For Drug Users, a Swift Response Is the Best Medicine Rhetorical Analysis, puts the argument of treatment versus punishment for drug abusers into perspective. He presents the pros and cons of both treatment and punishment and presents what side he takes very early on. The factual evidence that he provides matched with his drawing on pathos makes the argument he is presenting very effective. His use of facts and emotions pair up to make his piece effective in showing that treatment is the best way to help drug abusers, not punishment. He leaves room for you to make your own decision on the matter, but his argument is so well put that you have no other choice but to agree with his reasoning.

David first talks about the pros and cons of treating drug abusers. He throws some facts that don't make an impact until later in the piece, but talks about how 83% of treated drug abusers stay clean after treatment and don't run into to trouble with drugs and the law. He also talks about how treatment saves tax payers money because the legal system costs tax payers lots of money. However, the downfall of treatment is it costs the drug abuser money, which many cannot afford. It also requires the abuser to be dedicated to the cause or the treatment will be unsuccessful. His facts surrounding treatment for drug abusers makes it very hard to argue for punishment before he even presents the negatives of punishment

David then talks about the pros and cons of punishment. He states that many people who are thrown into jail because of drug charges end up becoming more dependent on the drugs and often become involved with prison gangs in order to receive the drugs that they need. Only 34% of inmates after being released from prison end up staying sober and that percentage is dropping drastically, says Bornstein. He goes to talk about how expensive it is to keep an inmate in prison and how almost all of the costs are paid for by tax payers. He makes very good points concerning tax payers' dollars, which is a big debate going on right now in society.

The last very good point that Bornstwein makes is the effects of treatment versus punishment on abusers families. When in treatment, such as halfway houses, and detox facilities, abusers are allowed to see their family in most cases whenever they want. Most treatment centers also provide family counseling for the abusers and their families. When the treatment is over, the families are stronger, making the abuser less likely to go back to using drugs. Unfortunately, when punishment and jail time is involved, the effects are the exact opposite. Must drug abusers, when sentenced, are sentenced in different counties than their families, and depending on the case, out of state. This makes it very hard for families to visit the con, which often leads to broken homes due to prison time. This makes drug abusers that are locked up more likely to start using drugs once they are out. The involvement of families and emotions into his argument really makes it hard to argue against him.

Essay 3 Discussion

For Essay 3, I am going to revise Essay 1. I think if I had taken the time to revise and put in the extra effort to fix my thesis, it could have been an A paper. I plan on going back, re-working my thesis, and adjusting my paper to match it. The ad I picked works well with the assignment I just didn't put in the extra time and thought that was necessary to write a high quality paper. When rewriting my essay, I am going to make sure that I am not as repetitive, so that my paper flows a lot better than it does now. I also want to take the time, and analyze the ad some more, and in detail, put my findings into my paper. I need to come with a thesis that isn’t so obvious and I also plan on organizing my piece differently, so that it will flow and be easily understandable. Lastly, I want to re-work the way I described my ad, I want to describe it from top to bottom, instead of randomly pointing out details. All in all, my first essay had the potential to be an excellent piece, I just need to put in the effort to get it there and that’s why I’m choosing it. 

Matthew Caples

Rhetorical Analysis Final Draft

3/23/13

David Bornstien's article puts the argument of treatment versus punisment for drug abuseres into perspective. He presents the pros and cons of both treatment and punishment and presents what side he takes very early on. The factual evidence that he provides mathced with his drawing on pathos makes the argument he is presenting very effective. His use of facts and emotions pair up to make his peice effective in showing that treatment is the best way to help drug abusers, not punishment. He leaves room for you to make your own desicion on the matter, but his argument is so well put that you have no other choice but to agree with his reasoning.

David first talks about the pros and cons of treating drug abusers. He throws some facts that don't make an impact until later in the peice, but talks about how 83% of treated drug abusers stay clean after treatment and don't run into to trouble with drugs and the law. He also talks about how treatment savves tax payers money because the legal system costs tax payers lots of money. However, the downfall of treatment is it costs the drug abuser money, which many cannot afford. It also requires the abuser to be dedicated to the cause or the treatment will be unsuccesful. His facts surrounding treatement for drug abuseres makes it very hard to argue for punishment before he even presents the negatives of punishment

David then talks about the pros and cons of punishment. He states that many people who are thrown into jail because of drug charges end up becoming more dependent on the drugs and often become involoved with prison gangs in order to recieve the drugs that they need. Only 34% of inmates after being released from prison end up staying sober and that percentage is dropping drastically, says Bornstein. He goes to talk about how expensive it is to keep an inmate in prison and how almost all of the costs are paid for by tax payers. He makes very good points concerning tax payers' dollars, which is a big debate going on right now in society.

The last very good point that Bornstwein makes is the effects of treatment versus punishment on abusers families. When in treatment, such as halfways houses, and detox facilities, abuseres are allowed to see their family in most cases whenever they want. Most treatment centers also provide family couseling for the abusers and their families. When the treatment is over, the families are stronger, making the abuser less likely to go back to using drugs. Unfortunatly, when punishment and jail time is involved, the effects are the exact opposite. Must drug abuseres, when sentenced, are senctenced in different counties than their families, and depending on the case, out of state. This makes it very hard for families to visit the con, which often leads to broken homes due to prison time. This makes drug abusers that are locked up more likely to start using drugs once they are out. The involvment of families and emotions into his argument really makes it hard to argue against him.

All in all, Bornsetien's argument is very sound and very effective. The way he pairs factual evidence with emotional evidence is very effective and gives no rrom for any other arguments. Before reading this article I was more on the side of punishment, even knowing the consequences of if such as gang violence. However, after reading it it became clear to me that treatment is the real cure for drug abuse.

For Drug Users, a Swift Response Is the Best Medicine

Ben W. Joseph was a trial judge in the Chittenden County Criminal Court, in Vermont, and he had a problem — one shared by judges across the country that results in billions of dollars of wasteful spending by governments every year. It was 2008, and substance abuse was soaring, particularly among young people whose drugs of choice were pharmaceuticals like OxyContin, a highly addictive pain killer that has an effect similar to heroin but is much easier to obtain. Each month in his Burlington courtroom, Joseph saw defendants who’d been arrested for drug-related offenses — from driving while heavily intoxicated to stealing to feed an OxyContin habit (an 80-milligram pill can cost $100 on the street).
Joseph saw how their lives spiraled out of control and created havoc for others. “I was seeing people who had drug and alcohol related charges come back over and over again,” he recalled. As the drug use intensified, so did criminality. “When people have serious alcohol and drug problems, it won’t take long before they’re stealing from their grandparents.” And when the pill market got tight, drug dealers pushed out more heroin.
What the defendants needed more than punishment was treatment. But delays in the justice system and lack of coordination with social service agencies meant that opportunities to intervene were regularly missed. Between a defendant’s arrest and trial, a case can drag on for a year or more.

One of the dawning recognitions in law enforcement and substance abuse intervention is that time is of the essence. The swiftness of a consequence is often more important than its severity. But while the mills of justice grind away, the immediacy is lost: feelings of shame, guilt and worry that can motivate change get buried and forgotten.
In the fall of 2008, through a chance phone call, Joseph was put in touch with Annie Ramniceanu, associate executive director of clinical programs for Spectrum Youth & Family Services, an organization in Burlington with a reputation for high-quality, substance abuse treatment and counseling. Ramniceanu knew that one of the critical factors in rehabilitation was “time to treatment.” “If people are given access to a solution quickly — ideally within 72 hours — the outcomes change pretty dramatically towards the positive,” she explained.
Together, she and Joseph devised an approach called Rapid Referral. Under Vermont bail laws, judges have the power, at the time of arraignment, to require defendants to participate in treatment programs if it’s necessary to protect the public or ensure that defendants appear at future court proceedings. Judges rarely take advantage of these laws early on, however; they usually wait for trial.
Joseph and his law clerk, Naomi Almeleh, drafted an order that would require select defendants in low-level, drug-related cases to undergo an evaluation to determine if treatment was appropriate. If it came back affirmative, treatment would be required for release. This kind of “bench referral” early in a person’s engagement with the justice system is unusual. The order guaranteed confidentiality and prohibited the use of information gathered during evaluations to be used against defendants. Those who completed treatment could expect reduced sentences; those charged with driving while intoxicated could use the counseling to satisfy requirements to get their driver’s license reinstated.
Ramniceanu worked closely with the court to implement the program, reserving slots at Spectrum, which serves youths up to age 23, to ensure immediate intake. (Older defendants were referred to HowardCenter, another program that provides substance abuse and mental health treatment.) “The key was offering sticks and carrots and compressing everything to provide a compact experience and rapid response,” explained Ramniceanu. “If the judge got the defendant to agree to treatment, they were given a map with little footprints leading them right to our door.” At both Spectrum and Howard, 95 percent of defendants showed up.
Rapid Referral doesn’t involve bureaucracy or additional costs. The treatment is covered by Medicaid, private insurance or, in a minority of cases, by a federal grant (which is now in danger of being a casualty of budget cuts). Spectrum employs a well-tested protocol called MET/CBT5 (Motivational Enhancement Therapy and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy). The treatment is concentrated; many youths respond to six weekly sessions; others need 12 or more. For homework, they’re asked to write about their substance use. They have to undergo weekly urinalysis and continue counseling until they “sample sobriety.”
“We try to open up some discrepancy between the ironclad story they’re telling about their life and have them consider the possibility of something different,” explains Ramniceanu.
In retrospect, it seems merely logical: where drugs are the problem, why not expedite treatment rather than waiting a year? It’s the sort of instant referral that companies like Amazon.com do a million times a day. (If you’re charged with this crime, then click on this program…)
“Lots of people who show up in court are not even thinking of taking steps to change,” explained Bob Wolford, Coordinator of Criminal Justice Programs at HowardCenter. “What the judge does by offering them an assessment appointment right from the bench often gets them in motion.”
This June, researchers from the Vermont Center for Justice Research published an evaluation of Rapid Referral. Of 171 participants who went through Spectrum’s program since early 2009, the recidivism rate was just 18.7 percent. For a follow-up evaluation published this October, researchers generated a test control group of 394 people (selected from 14,000 whose criminal records closely matched those of program participants). They found that the recidivism rate among the control group was 84.3 percent. Many people were amazed.
People who know about treatment, including Joseph, were less surprised. Indeed, one of the hidden stories about substance abuse treatments was how effective, and cost-effective, it can be for reducing crime (pdf).Investments in evidence-based programs pay off in savings on things like police and court costs, emergency room visits and foster care expenses (to say nothing of easing the emotional pain of families and victims).

Read previous contributions to this series.

But treatment is the exception. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, between a half and two-thirds of inmates in prisons or jails have an alcohol or drug dependence, yet only 7 to 17 percent receive treatment while imprisoned. Each year, some 650,000 inmates are released; many will relapse. When you consider the costs of probation or incarceration — $50,000 or $60,000 a year per inmate in Vermont — it’s hard to justify.
One of the program’s supporters is Michael Schirling, who has been Burlington’s police chief for five years. “What frustrates police officers most is having to go out and deal with the same thing over and over,” he explained. “They’re interested in a meaningful intervention that can stop the cycle of deterioration that somebody may be experiencing.” Rapid Referral is ideal for low-level offenders, he said. The key, he added, is selecting the right cases for intervention.
Despite its effectiveness, the program does have detractors. Some attorneys see it as an infringement on their clients’ rights, but the tougher obstacle is institutional inertia. In 2010, Joseph retired after 12 years on the bench. Since then, Schirling has observed that fewer defendants are being sent through the program. “What we had with Judge Joseph was a person who had institutionalized the process but it wasn’t yet part of the fabric of how the system worked everyday. That’s what the folks at the state level are trying to do now — get it replicated on an ongoing basis.” Schirling is hopeful that the recent evaluation will galvanize this process.
“If the judiciary can make referrals early, rather than waiting for cases to be fully adjudicated before someone gets assistance,” he says, “you will create outcomes that are better for individuals, the legal system and the community.” Joseph adds: “Treatment works to prevent crimes. Today, the costs are just staggering and this is something the judiciary can do to help.”

The Dangerous Myth of Grade Inflation

After reading Kohn's writing, I found myself very confused on what he was trying to say. He basically had a circular argument and I found it to be very ineffective. First, he takes about how grade inflation isn't real. However, he then goes and talks about how if it was real, it would be a good thing, which takes away from his first argument. By the end of the article, he made at least 4 differ arguments, which were all very strong, but in the end, made his original argument weak and flawed.

Quiz

Sorry it's up so late, I just figured out my whole password problem.

1. Give two examples of evidence you might use to support an argument that appeals to logos. (5 pts.)
 To support and argument that appeals to logos, I would use facts that are backed by a reputable source and statistics.

2. Which statements are unequivocal examples of hard evidence? For those which are not, explain why not. (2 pts. each)

a. An apple a day keeps the doctor away.
No, the example isn't clear enough. If it had said, "An apple a day makes you healthier, which in turn keeps you from getting sick and visiting the doctor." it would be better.
b. Drunk drivers are involved in more than 50% of traffic deaths.
Yes

c. A psychologist testified that teenage violence could not be blamed on video games.
No, only one psychologist testified it, it doesnt mean that every psychologist feels this way.

d. DNA tests of skin samples found under the victim's fingernails suggest that the defendant was responsible for the assault.
Yes

e. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, while 49% of students whose parents are college graduates will themselves graduate within six years, that number drops to 15% for first-generation students.
Yes

3. Is Wikipedia a reliable source for argument-based writing in a college classroom? Why or why not? (5 pts.)
Yes and no, Wikepidia can be a good source for background knowledge on a subject. However, It's not good to take specific quotes or information from a Wiki page without checking other sources as well.

4. How do you know if any website is a reliable source for information, facts, statistics, etc? (5 pts.)
You can usually search the web to find if a website is reliable, also websites that end in .edu, .org, and .gov are usually very reliable.

5. Write two survey questions on a contemporary issue. Word the questions in such a way as to evoke opposite responses to the same basic question. (Another wording of this question can be found in the "Respond" on pg. 66. Don't use the same example given in the chapter -- come up with a different issue/questions.) (5 pts.)

Do you support gun control?

Do you think abortion should be illegal?