1. In the final paragraph of his introduction, Alleman provides what looks like a main claim: "knowledge of the varying correctional philosophies that are predominant today is important for understanding how specific criminal justice programs and practices come to be adopted. Rather than taking sides...the following discussion encourages an objective analysis of the pros and cons associated with each of these varying approaches to corrections" (19).
Don't be tricked by this claim, though. Just as with Nickel's article, "Driving While Black," it is possible to see from various things that Alleman does throughout the essay that he seems to be evaluating or advocating at certain points. If Alleman isn't just giving an objective report of the pros and cons of these three philosophies, what else is his argument doing?
2. Look for any advocative or evaluative claims that Alleman seems to be making. What are they? Don't confuse Alleman's claims, however, with the ideas he's attributing to the proponents of the various philosophies (an example of this would be the statement: "Juvenile offenders must be taught that 'crime does not pay'" (21), which looks like an advocative claim. This is not Alleman's claim or idea, though, but one he's identifying as an idea the proponents of utilitarian punishment hold).
3. Throughout Alleman's essay, he actually exposes the warrants underlying each of these philosophies by discussing the historical, cultural, or political basis for the differing ways people think about corrections. Part of what you're supposed to do for Assignment 1A is discuss these warrants Alleman mentions (certainly not all of them). To help see where Alleman might be evaluative of something, which warrants does Alleman seem to agree with or disagree with? What makes you think he's agreeing or disagreeing with them?