People may argue against Jamison by saying that she challenge the common sense that people should be responsible for what they have done. In the other words, if one committed crime, he deserve the correspondence punishment under United State legal system. When the correspondence punishment happen to be incarceration, he should be incarcerated. This argument is weak because the fact that Charlie does not deserve incarceration in Beckley does not necessary leads to the generally conclusion that people should not be responsible for what they have done. What Jamison wants to argue is that people should feel empathy towards those inmates. What Jamison has done is to shed a light on the real prison life. There is no contradiction between her claim and basic moral values. …show more content…
There are still much more prisons other than Beckley, and inmates who have similar suffering with Charlie. Nevertheless, what she does not answer is that how can this problem to be fixed? What should be done to improve those inmates’ living condition? What should be done to avoid people innocent like Charlie avoid to be incarceration? What is the proper punishment for white collar crime? Jamison gives an open ended to Charlie and leaves these questions unanswered. She only wants to evoke readers feelings. But something further should be done, after mere the feeling of