The person making the argument is a concerned citizen of this country. Yes, the identity of the person could be very important due to the argument he/she has brought up. As a citizen, he may be current or former security personnel who worked in the prisons, an ex-convict or a government employee. From those views, it is important to know his/her identity since it can help to authenticate or refute his/her claims. If the position or identity of the complainant is known, it can be easily ascertained that his claims are genuine and needs to be looked-into.
The audience to this argument includes the video visitation service providers, the prisons management and the government officials. They are the immediate audience to this argument since they are the very people who make policies at all levels in the country as far as the lives of prisoners is concerned.
The other targeted audience includes the general public, policy makers in the country and communications regulatory authority. The author addresses each of the audience in a more professional way. For example, she tells them the following.
To The federal communications commission which over changes the user, she tells them to consider revising the rates that are changed on remote video visitation since majority of the prisoners come from humble backgrounds whose families might have depleted their savings in the process of seeking justice. She expects them to react by reducing the calling rates to an affordable limit.
She tells the inmate telecom-and video providers to ensure that part of their proceeds should be paid back handsomely with interest since the cash generated emanates from the video calls from prisoners. She goes ahead to convince them of the need to reduce the calling rates and improve the quality of the calls they provide.
To the legislators, she tells them to come up with a legislation that can control the business involved in video visitation. The legislation would compel the federal communication council to come up with the necessary laws and regulations to curb possible extortion of money from the prisoners and their families who are very poor.
The claims that the writer clearly brings out from her articles includes, poor quality of calls while using the video visitation services. The high charges being levied on the users is also a great concern that she raises. The bureaucratic procedure of booking for an appointment that one has to go through to use the service. In addition to that, lack of legislations to curb the service providers from overcharging the users and monopolization of the service by few service providers making it very expensive are also key concerns that she brings up.
Yes, the claims she articulates in her argument are very convincing. The users of the services deserve better services for the money they have paid. Failing to provide them with quality services violates the right to access information. Moreover, the prisoners are very poor hence; they should not be economically exploited.
The moral value that the writer articulate in her argument is honesty and integrity. The moral values sway the audience since they show the audience the dishonesty and lack of integrity on the communication authority and the video visitation service provider.
The author seems to have is kind of having a fixed and biased towards the service providers. She rely on statistics that the service providers makes a lot of profit. The stereotype does not help the argument since they do not have proof.
The writer combines her appeals to emotion, moral values and logic by strategically pointing out on the economic impact and quality of video visitation.
Work Cited
Alexander, Brian. "When Prisoners Are A 'Revenue Opportunity'." The Atlantic. N.p., 2017. Web. 12 Apr. 2018.
