So.... what would you suggest?
toldailytopic: Judicial Corporal Punishment.
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
The Graphite
New member
Please pay attention.
Flogging AND restitution.
Besides, flogging is the great equalizer. The billionaire and the pauper face the same real penalty, that figurative "pound of flesh." Meanwhile, the restitution satisfies the material loss and its accompanying tribulations (hence double or higher restitution).
On the other hand, making a billionaire pay a million-dollar fine is monumentally different from making a poor person pay a $10,000 fine. The former is a minor setback, and the latter is a catastrophic hardship, even though the former is paying 100 times as much.
Well said! :up:
Egbert
New member
There is some good logic in this. It reminds me of that huge Swiss speeding ticket. Set monetary penalties arguably promote a kind of plutocracy.
This is a good point. :think:
I was.
Got it--I just disagree with the first part.
Not to give anyone any ideas but so's thumbscrews or the rack or cutting off a limb or waterboarding or branding or any number of other equally medieval forms of punishment. The fact that any given maiming is an "equalizer" and no respecter of persons doesn't make it a fitting form of punishment.
Well, remember that Shylock's demand was unreasonable, and certainly wasn't any kind of justice. Next you'll say that Iago was onto something.
On this we completely agree.
Making him work the rest of his life in a supervised capacity for the same company he defrauded. He pays his crime back with man hours and receives no compensation.
The crime was that of theft and didn't involve a bodily injury on his part. If we're going to eye-eye and tooth-tooth this, then introducing a good old fashion horsewhipping is incongruous and doesn't fit the crime at all.
Egbert
New member
That's a good idea. There are some practical concerns, though: how do you ensure that he does his work reasonably well, or at all, for that matter? What's to be done if he just refuses to get off his cot? There needs to be some kind of incentive for him to work, so I disagree with your "no compensation" policy.
Hmmmm... It's not much of a stretch to imagine that the million dollars of lost money causes a domino-esque collapse and failure of the company. Therefore the company cannot or might not be able to employ the perpetrator (even for no wages). Now what? :think:
Furthermore... it's likely that the company (should they survive) would not want the perpetrator working for the company any longer (knowing that he stole 1 million dollars from them). Doesn't sound like a great working arrangement if you ask me. :idunno:
Furthermore still.... how does the guilty man pay for his families food, shelter, and living expenses knowing that he might be working for the rest of his life earning zero wages??
Furthermore, Furthermore... What if the man refuses to work? Or even more likely... the man gives a less than helpful or counterproductive effort on the job? :idunno: Then what?
With all due respect.... your solution is unworkable.
Last edited:
I think I'm becoming more and more against prison sentencing. Mainly for some of the reasons already mentioned. Sending people to prison might be a deterrence but I think it is terrible for rehabilitation and the person rejoining society in a productive manner. Ex-inmates have trouble finding jobs. Especially good jobs. They are cut out of society for an extended period of time and readjustment can be hard. And of course cost is a major factor.
How often do freed prisoners just get back into crime and back into prison? I'd like to know how much of a revolving door prisons really are.
I suppose that if we modified our prison system so that it worked more on readying the inmates for life outside of prison again it might be better. And I also know that short prison sentences aren't as bad.
However, I'm not that into corporal punishments either. You certainly don't have to worry about what I just said above. And it's much cheaper, as someone else mentioned. But I doubt the deterrence factor. Beatings aren't fun but I don't think it's really going to stop people from doing things. And on top of that, I don't think I like the idea of committing violence against criminals.
I think forms of punishment should be about deterrence and the betterment of society. "Justice" is rarely obtainable.
The Graphite
New member
Just some food for thought for a few people like yourself, Kmoney, who might be on the fence or at least be open-minded.
Years ago, I certainly was a typical, average Christian who intuitively found the idea of judicial corporal punishment to be offensive. At first glace, it can seem to be. But, I'd like to offer some thoughts on this. To be clear, we are not advocating some kind of horrifying barbarism like in Islamic countries where they hack people's limbs off for stealing an apple, or whipping someone 200 times, etc. In the context of Christian theonomy, we are talking about something that will cause pain, leave a mark, but not maim or handicap a person, long-term. A maximum of 40 whacks, just like in the Bible. It is an adult spanking, and yes, it is certainly harsher than a mere spanking, but it is not crippling or maiming. It hurts, it leaves a mark, you get better, and you continue to be a productive member of society.
What happens if you flog someone and they die on the spot? Hey, that's obviously an important and relevant question. First, we all know that accidents happen. For example, if a police officer restrains someone or uses a billy club to subdue someone, and he has no way of knowing the person has a heart condition and they drop dead, that is a tragedy but that is not the officer's fault. He was doing his job. It was an accident.
On the other hand, if the person carrying out the flogging is criminally negligent (and shown to be so, with evidence), then they become liable for that injury or death and they would face the same outcome that their victim received. That means that criminal negligence in a flogging resulting in death would result in the death penalty for the person doing the flogging! So, you can certainly have a very real assurance that such a person would not likely act recklessly or overly brutal, even if they really wanted to.
It may also be relevant to point out that while we (Knight, myself and some others here) realize there is no reasonable likelihood of such a punishment being instituted in our legal system at ANY time in the foreseeable future, nevertheless we are advocating a system that we, ourselves, would be accountable to. We would face flogging for various crimes, including for example negligent injury to someone else.
I think it's hard to argue that prison is any kind of deterrant. That is pretty much a joke. I remember reading in the papers last year a case where a teacher had molested a student at a school, was convicted and sent to prison. A year later, another teacher at the same school did the same thing! The second teacher knew all about the case of the first teacher! Did it deter him? Not the least bit! And the kicker? That guy was sent to prison as well. A year later.... the school principal molested a child at that school! He was fully aware of both of the other cases! Did he give a rat's tuchis? Not in the slightest. No deterrance, whatsoever. Your victim and his/her family pays for your free room & board, entertainment, etc. This is not justice.
On the other hand, flogging is a huge deterrant to crime. Just ask anyone who has been flogged in a country where they do that, such as in Thailand. I have read interviews with such people, where they were asked if they would ever commit such a crime again, and their response was basically incredulity that anyone would even ask them that. "Are you kidding? I would never even think of doing that again!!!"
You take your whacks, it hurts a lot, it leaves a mark, you get better, and you live your life as a productive member of society. Believe it or not, it is not barbaric at all.
What is barbaric is caging people like animals, and then acting shocked when they act like animals. Bewailing recidivism rates, while maintaining crime schools called "prisons" at taxpayer expense. And then doing ubiquitous "plea bargaining" in the justice system because the prisons are overcrowded, except that those plea bargains only encourage more and more crime, and fuller and fuller prisons. It's a never-ending spiral right into a hole in the ground. It is insanity. That is barbaric. What we have today in America is what is barbaric. There's no two ways about it.
Years ago, I certainly was a typical, average Christian who intuitively found the idea of judicial corporal punishment to be offensive. At first glace, it can seem to be. But, I'd like to offer some thoughts on this. To be clear, we are not advocating some kind of horrifying barbarism like in Islamic countries where they hack people's limbs off for stealing an apple, or whipping someone 200 times, etc. In the context of Christian theonomy, we are talking about something that will cause pain, leave a mark, but not maim or handicap a person, long-term. A maximum of 40 whacks, just like in the Bible. It is an adult spanking, and yes, it is certainly harsher than a mere spanking, but it is not crippling or maiming. It hurts, it leaves a mark, you get better, and you continue to be a productive member of society.
What happens if you flog someone and they die on the spot? Hey, that's obviously an important and relevant question. First, we all know that accidents happen. For example, if a police officer restrains someone or uses a billy club to subdue someone, and he has no way of knowing the person has a heart condition and they drop dead, that is a tragedy but that is not the officer's fault. He was doing his job. It was an accident.
On the other hand, if the person carrying out the flogging is criminally negligent (and shown to be so, with evidence), then they become liable for that injury or death and they would face the same outcome that their victim received. That means that criminal negligence in a flogging resulting in death would result in the death penalty for the person doing the flogging! So, you can certainly have a very real assurance that such a person would not likely act recklessly or overly brutal, even if they really wanted to.
It may also be relevant to point out that while we (Knight, myself and some others here) realize there is no reasonable likelihood of such a punishment being instituted in our legal system at ANY time in the foreseeable future, nevertheless we are advocating a system that we, ourselves, would be accountable to. We would face flogging for various crimes, including for example negligent injury to someone else.
I think it's hard to argue that prison is any kind of deterrant. That is pretty much a joke. I remember reading in the papers last year a case where a teacher had molested a student at a school, was convicted and sent to prison. A year later, another teacher at the same school did the same thing! The second teacher knew all about the case of the first teacher! Did it deter him? Not the least bit! And the kicker? That guy was sent to prison as well. A year later.... the school principal molested a child at that school! He was fully aware of both of the other cases! Did he give a rat's tuchis? Not in the slightest. No deterrance, whatsoever. Your victim and his/her family pays for your free room & board, entertainment, etc. This is not justice.
On the other hand, flogging is a huge deterrant to crime. Just ask anyone who has been flogged in a country where they do that, such as in Thailand. I have read interviews with such people, where they were asked if they would ever commit such a crime again, and their response was basically incredulity that anyone would even ask them that. "Are you kidding? I would never even think of doing that again!!!"
You take your whacks, it hurts a lot, it leaves a mark, you get better, and you live your life as a productive member of society. Believe it or not, it is not barbaric at all.
What is barbaric is caging people like animals, and then acting shocked when they act like animals. Bewailing recidivism rates, while maintaining crime schools called "prisons" at taxpayer expense. And then doing ubiquitous "plea bargaining" in the justice system because the prisons are overcrowded, except that those plea bargains only encourage more and more crime, and fuller and fuller prisons. It's a never-ending spiral right into a hole in the ground. It is insanity. That is barbaric. What we have today in America is what is barbaric. There's no two ways about it.
The Graphite
New member
'Zactly.
And at the same time, which is more destructive to the lives of others? Taking that man away from his wife and kid for years so that they have no one to provide for them, while increasing his likelihood of committing more crimes, and caging him like an animal for the duration of those years, all the while costing the community 10s or hundreds of thousands of dollars?
Or a quick and extremely cheap whipping, and home he goes, probably never to do it again?
The latter is less destructive to people's lives, and yet it is a certainly a better deterrant.
nicholsmom
New member
He stole a million bucks, right? Where's the money? Where did it go? Someone who is smart enough to embezzle that kind of cash is not going to pee it away on cheeseburgers, is he?
I say sell all his stuff & find out where else the money went. Recoup as much as possible and then give him the option: find work and half of your paycheck goes to the victim until full restitution (plus whatever penalty is suitable) is made, or some sort of corporal punishment, or go to prison. We also need to change the prisons so that they are really punitive - no TV, Internet, or weight rooms, that kind of thing. No social life or opportunity to violate other prisoners either. Let them go to Bible studies and take walks around the grounds under guard in addition to being in chain gangs if restitution needs to be made.
Cracked
New member
In theory, the idea of corporal punishment has merits especially in our broken world. In practice, however, it sort of loses its luster.
What I mean is this - we are all deserving of punishment, and I think that once your convicted of this, it becomes quite difficult to administer punishment (this severe kind, at any rate). We are moved with pity and mercy, and that is a good thing, because we recognize the humanity in even the most debased among us.
Now, God will control governments, at least that is what scripture tells us. So, if it is God's will, it will happen. However, we need to realize that a truly Godly government operates on the principle of love, so that in return will receive the obedience of its subjects because of love. At least, this is the ideal.
It is the governments of this broken world that are assigned the sword. There will come a time when that sword is unnecessary. I think, that maybe, that starts in all of us first.
What I mean is this - we are all deserving of punishment, and I think that once your convicted of this, it becomes quite difficult to administer punishment (this severe kind, at any rate). We are moved with pity and mercy, and that is a good thing, because we recognize the humanity in even the most debased among us.
Now, God will control governments, at least that is what scripture tells us. So, if it is God's will, it will happen. However, we need to realize that a truly Godly government operates on the principle of love, so that in return will receive the obedience of its subjects because of love. At least, this is the ideal.
It is the governments of this broken world that are assigned the sword. There will come a time when that sword is unnecessary. I think, that maybe, that starts in all of us first.
Won't happen. Punishment of this sort won't undo what was done, it will make them wish they hadn't done it.
Well it is now, but I guess that's what happens when you change the hypothetical when you feel like it.
Possible, but extremely unlikely. Even Enron and AIG didn't completely fail. The odds of a single employee causing this kind of havoc are incredibly slim.
Gee Knight, I'm surprised. Didn't know you were such a humanitarian.:chuckle:
Egbert (correctly) pointed out yesterday that a lack of compensation effectively means a lack of incentive, and I do believe a (meager) form of compensation and basic living standard should be provided.
Remember that for all your questions, the only solution you have...is to beat him.
Corporal punishment in this supposedly enlightened day and age?
Have you guys taken leave of your senses?
We're living in the 21st century ,folks. I thought this kind of barbarism had been abandoned long ago, except by Islamic countries or Singapore.
And what about the constitution's ban on cruel and unusul punishment?
Look what happened to a 14 year old boy in Iran not too long ago.
He violated the prohibition on eating during the daytime in the holy month of Ramadan, and was sentenced to be flogged.
But this was so severe that it crushed his skull and killed him !
And who decides what kind of corporal punishment people will get, and how much? How do we know that some sadistic judge might
go overborad and cause some one to die or be badly hurt?
We're not living in the middle ages any more. Sheesh !!!!!
Have you guys taken leave of your senses?
We're living in the 21st century ,folks. I thought this kind of barbarism had been abandoned long ago, except by Islamic countries or Singapore.
And what about the constitution's ban on cruel and unusul punishment?
Look what happened to a 14 year old boy in Iran not too long ago.
He violated the prohibition on eating during the daytime in the holy month of Ramadan, and was sentenced to be flogged.
But this was so severe that it crushed his skull and killed him !
And who decides what kind of corporal punishment people will get, and how much? How do we know that some sadistic judge might
go overborad and cause some one to die or be badly hurt?
We're not living in the middle ages any more. Sheesh !!!!!
This is so discouraging.
I'd love to respond to all that but the fact the you posted it establishes there'd be no point.
But I will anyway, just for fun. I don't recommend you read it, though. It might cause you to choke or something. Seriously, I'm concerned for your safety here.
No, we're trying to examine the subject rationally. A bizarre concept, I'm sure. Don't hurt yourself trying to participate, though.
Right. That's some of the things we're discussing. Whether it should have been abandoned, whether it is barbaric, etc.
This is a good point. Is that ban a good thing? Does corporal punishment violate that? Maybe someone who isn't frothing at the mouth can bring this up for discussion. And maybe that person can address how imprisoning someone for half their life in the conditions we see in prisons today isn't cruel and unusual by that same standard.
Because they used a metal cable when they flogged him 85 times. So maybe you could suggest some way around that? Like, perhaps, not using a metal cable and not hitting him in the head? Maybe set a maximum number of blows somewhere this side of sure to kill someone?
No, no. That would require thought. Never mind.
This has been addressed already, which you'd know if you read the thread, rather than tearing off on a rant at the first three words of the title of the thread. There should be limits imposed on corporal punishment, of course. And a judge violating them would be committing a crime.
Why does that matter exactly?
You know, I think I'm justified in saying something to you like, "Who told you that you could get up from the kiddy table? The adults are talking in here. Go back and finish your cheesy puffs."
Yes, I know I'm being harsh here but...sheesh! You're the one that came in here ranting without bothering to give the topic two seconds of actual thought.
- Status