As far as I can tell, Wallaroo wants to whip people for things like shoplifting or keying a car. Doesn't that seem a little extreme? What are you going to do for serious crimes?

Sorry, I misunderstood what deterrent means - its not a word that Im familiar with. Thought it was another word for warning.

As a warning for criminals the pain in itself should be enough was my point.

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?

It's okay Wallaroo, you had the right word. It would be a deterrent. Otter is apparently looking a perfect deterrent to crime.

__________________
Election 2008 – Addicted to Placebos

No, not a perfect deterrent, but even a warning needs to come *beforehand*. What use is it to give a warning after the fact? UNless you mean it to be a deterrent to other people, observing the punishment and deciding that they don't wish to experience it. In which case it would have to be public, yes? These things historically were public, presumably for this reason.
The thing that makes me doubt that this would work is that it assumes that the decision to commit a crime is made rationally. The kid keying her boyfriends car is a perfect example of a decision that was probably never contaminated by a rational thought.

__________________
please click and help the eggs hatch!

"The only abnormality is the incapacity to love"
-Anias Nin

The warning is "Commit this crime and you will be publicly horsewhipped". The punishment is merely following through. The act of carrying out the punishment acts as a deterrent to further actors.

See how that works?
That rather IS the point. After all, if you don't actually carry OUT a punishment, you cant really expect it to have any effect can you?
Is public education in need of improvement in your neck of the woods?
The alternative is to simply conclude that all criminals are irrational and either should be forgiven without punishment, or removed from the gene pool so as not to contaminate society. Neither solution is acceptable, so we consider people responsible for their actions whether those actions are rational or not.
It is also a perfect example of an act which should be very severely punished. Getting your feelings hurt does not justify willfully causing thousands of dollars of property damage simply.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here; I was responding to Wallaroo's original assertation that it should be done in private. I was puzzled by that, since if it's purpose is to be a deterrent, then it appears to me that it should logically be as public as possible.

I didn't say that irrational acts shouldn't have consequences, but I've yet to see a solution that is more acceptable than what we do now (which isn't saying much).

__________________
please click and help the eggs hatch!

"The only abnormality is the incapacity to love"
-Anias Nin

Spare me your strawman.

Yes, this is a travesty of justice and a perfect example of how far the government has gone in pissing on the constitution.

__________________
"Bring the boys back home!"--Pink Floyd

NFA JJG 42-95

Free People/Free Markets

Following the Path of the Beam

My apologies - i guess i misunderstood that. It certainly appeared you were questioning the deterrent effect of any kind of punishment.
Acceptable is a relative thing. I see nothing wrong, for instance, with the death penalty being carried out immediately after the loss of the first appeal - right there, in the courtroom, bullet in the back of the head - unless the crime was particularly heinous in which case I'd want to see something like drawing and quartering in the town square at noon the next Saturday.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Could you please identify that strawman for me, because I seriously do not see one.
Hardly. Criminals today have FAR more freedom than they had when the Constitution was written. I am certain the authors themselves would have had NO problem with the death penalty for certain degrees of theft, for example.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

I think that if you implemented this in the US, the criminal culture would adopt whipping scars as a symbol of "street cred". That is, you're not really a badass until you have some whipping scars to show off and the more the better. They would be the new tattoos or brandings - voluntarily endured disfigurement for the sake of appearing tough. I would attribute this to the relatively recent phenomenon in popular culture of glamorizing criminal activity, from rap CD's to the Sopranos. And, I think that if whippings replaced incarceration and/or fines, you would see a significant increase in minor crimes. In fact, I'm willing to bet that you'd have people who would have their friends whip them just so they could give off the appearance of being criminals. As for actually committing the crime, it's win-win. If you get away with it, you have free shit, and if not, you look like a badass and it costs you nothing. Hell, if you want someone to disfigure you with a tattoo, you have to pay for that.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

I remember my Dad pointing out the whipping post out front of the old courthouse in Dover Del when I was a kid. They didn't get rid of it until like the 70's I think.

No question it will get one's attention and in what was for the longest time a small town (Dover), it would insure that the populace would know who could not be trusted anymore.

I think its that last part that makes it not so effective as it was.

While I respect the point about the deterrent effect of corporal punishment, I think the vast majority of the deterred are the ones we need worry little about in any case.

I also seem to think that if I was whipped the first thought on my mind would be to track down the person applying the whip and strangle him with it. It certainly wouldnt make me more gentle towards my fellow man.

I suppose the main worry with this is the encouragement of a brutal culture that we have spent centuries trying to get away from.

seems a bit long to me. generations perhaps.

Very few crimes have rational roots. That's why the key to punishment is rehabilitation, the subsitution of rationality for irrationality as the basis for actions


I believe this was actually the case among the criminal underclass back when they did whip. It's like hitting a dog, you never actually hit them with anything but a rolled up newspaper that makes a big sound and scares them. If you actually try to hurt a dog then he'll realize you can't really do him all that much harm, (with your hand, a dog doesn't understand the concept of weapons) and bite you. Same with people, we take pain all the time, lots of us even LIKE it, it's possiblity certainly doesn't seem to deter people who ski, race cars, box, etc etc.

I support the death penalty for:

Rape
Murder
Kidnapping
Drug Dealing
Child Molestation
Robbery
Being a Liberal [which is equivalent to rape and robbery]

__________________
But we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling – if everybody was just inflating their tires? And getting regular tune-ups? You'd actually save just as much! -Barack the Moron