Scheeler 1

Brayden Scheeler

Professor Taylor Munsell

English 1102

November 12, 2022

Rhetorical Analysis of a Professional Text

Jones writes about how, on average, people may be subjected to harmful situations during

criminal justice research due to improper research and ethical problems that begin with

professional studies. The problem that is discussed with this is that since there is no content on

these ethical dilemmas in criminal justice college programs, students do not understand the

dilemmas when they get into their field. The solution that is proposed by Jones is to adopt a code

of ethic within the profession of law enforcement and have students entering the field study

ethics, so they know about these dilemmas before they happen. Jones proposes these solutions

and addresses the problems through a few different rhetorical strategies which include pathos,

logos, and ethos.

Jones lays out a few different ethical dilemmas that have become apparent in the law

enforcement field. As a professional paper this is, of course, written to other peers as well as

upcoming students. To change the problem, it must be attacked from the very beginning and that

starts with the students. Some of the problems that Jones outlines in his paper is lying to inmates

and subjecting then to psychological and physical tests without their consent. Such as giving

them LSD or integrating them with unconventional means. This paper also goes over informed

consent and how some officers “obtain” it illegally. Jones outlines these studies being conducted

as, “researchers maintain considerable, potentially dangerous, influence over participants due to
 Scheeler 2

their knowledge and perceived authority.” (Jones 1). Jones wants to protect the vulnerable

subjects being subjected to this perceived authority. Tests on these certain subjects have been

conducted already, which Jones talks about in his paper, but the tests need to be stopped due to

being unethical and potentially dangerous.

Since the 1940s, the US has adopted the Nuremberg Code, which prohibits uncontrolled

and non-consensual experimentation on human subjects. Jones begins his paper with historical

context to begin his logos appeal. Logic begins this paper because if there are laws and rules that

stop a person from doing unethical procedures, then there is already a background as to why it

should not be done. Jones states, “During the 1940s, researchers from the United States National

Institute of Health deliberately infected over 1,400 Guatemalan prisoners, prostitutes, and mental

health patients with various sexually-transmitted diseases in order to assess the effectiveness of

penicillin treatment protocols (Reverby, 2011; Semeniuk, 2010).” (1). While the research was

found to be valuable it still does not grant the actions done by the United States National Institute

of Health. Anyone can see that it is unethical, and it would be unreasonable to infect a person

that does not consent to any such studies. It would be logical to institute college classes that

particularly address ethical issues and studies them to limit the possibility of ethical catastrophes.

More recently, ethical dilemmas that have become apparent in the criminal justice field is giving

inmates LSD without their consent or illegally obtaining consent. Obviously, this is illegal today

because of past court rulings but it also illogical. Jones’ argument on the illogical practices is that

if there were teachings on those certain practices then it would be less likely to happen. If a

student is taught on these case studies from the past, it will increase ethics in the field of criminal

justice and lively hood of inmates. That is how Jones uses logos as one of his rhetorical strategies

through out his paper.

 Scheeler 3

Another way that Jones tries to get his point across to his audience is through emotions,

or pathos rhetorical strategy. This type of paper can be easily linked to emotions because it

directly deals with human and civil rights issues. When people have a general understanding of

human emotions and rights, it is not hard to put themselves in that point of view. Jones describes

an unethical practice that took place in the United States and the Netherlands. Jones writes,

“during the 1960s, at least three separate psychotherapy research teams in the United States and

the Netherlands administered psychedelic compounds such as LSD and psilocybin to inmates in

unsuccessful attempts to modify behavior and reduce recidivism (Doblin, 1998).” (1). It is not

hard to understand that this is not legal and unfortunate to those inmates. The reader does not

have to be emotionally connected to the inmates because they are still human. That is what

makes this issue a big issue is because it involves humans and subjecting them to cruel and

unusual punishment. Another strong point that comes from Jones’ paper is that all of these issues

are ethical dilemmas. Ethical dilemmas have everything to do with how a person feels about a

certain situation and their morals. Jones writes, “contemporary laws present ethical dilemmas

which may force researchers to violate the trust of those who provide self-deprecating

information for the purposes of criminological inquiry.” (2). This problem deals with trust,

respect, self-worth, and many other demoralizing characteristics that can be applied to this type

of treatment. It is not hard to understand the problem that Jones addresses or how to see the

pathos argument in the paper.

The most important rhetorical strategy that Jones uses is the credibility of the criminal

justice program and the nation, or the ethos strategy. This strategy takes a little bit more of

connecting the dots because it is not directly laid out. The problem that derives from having a

criminal justice field that is unethical, is no one will believe anything that comes out of it. If
 Scheeler 4

every study that is done is done unethically, then how can the results of the study be accurate? If

a study was done on inmates to test the effects of LSD, but the inmates where not told it was

LSD, should that not void the results? Yes and no. Yes, because it is unethical and illegal, and no

because the best way to observe someone’s reaction is blindly. No matter the results, the ends do

not justify the means by using “undesirable” human beings as test subjects. Especially without

their own consent. Jones writes, “Criminal justice scholars are left to discern whether or not their

subjects, some under custodial supervision, are able to legitimately volunteer themselves.” (1).

Some inmates might “volunteer” just to appease the authority above them to get reduced

sentences and better treatment. Which begs the question, are they volunteers, or do they just want

to get a better track record for later? This type of control over people should not be allowed and

certainly is not ethical.

For the criminal justice field, it has many ethical dilemmas that a person can be

confronted with at any time. Jones describes how unethical studies within the field is illogical,

damaging to the subjects, and hurts the credibility and trust of the institution. Through out Jones’

paper, he describes all of these with rhetorical strategies such as logos, pathos and ethos. Jones

uses all these rhetorical strategies to reinforce his plan of having students study ethical dilemmas

in school. The goal is to adopt a code of ethics within the field itself to continue studies and

research that improve our society. This paper might have the ability to change the curriculum for

future criminal justice students and takes the first step in doing so.
 Scheeler 5

Works Cited

Jones, Joshua A. "Ethical Considerations in Criminal Justice Research: Informed

Consent and Confidentiality." Inquiries Journal/Student Pulse 4.08 (2012).

<http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=674>