Vito wrote:
.... Nobody went to prison
a couple centuries ago.

Your historical knowledge is amazing.

I guess that's why all those old castles had dungeons, eh? So as to have
a place to not put people?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Vito wrote:
.... Nobody went to prison
a couple centuries ago.

Your historical knowledge is amazing.

I guess that's why all those old castles had dungeons, eh? So as to have
a place to not put people?

DSK


You're right Doug. I should have said that common criminals didn't go to
prison. Just heretics and political prisoners. I thot that'd be implicit in
the rest of my statement, but obviously not.

Vito wrote:
You're right Doug.

Well, thanks. I try.

.... I should have said that common criminals didn't go to
prison. Just heretics and political prisoners. I thot that'd be implicit in
the rest of my statement, but obviously not.

Well, that's still not quite right. "Common criminals" still went to
prison fairly often. Remember that courts were often controlled by the
local aristocracy, but a close reading of actual history shows that
their justice was recognizably similar to ours. Usually, prison was a
holding area for people condemned to be executed, or people who had been
convicted & fined and were trying to extort the fine money from their
relatives. But it was not uncommon for people to simply locked up for
long periods of time. For example, check out the history of the Tower of
London (punch "Tower London" into Google, find your own links, you don't
seem to like mine).

You also dismiss other common punishments, such as being put in the
stock. This meant being handcuffed to a bench in the public square for a
defined period... usually 3 days or less. This was a more horrible
punishment than it sounds, in fact it was often fatal. Need I explain
why? I don't want to go into it right before lunch.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
t...
You also dismiss other common punishments, such as being put in the
stock. This meant being handcuffed to a bench in the public square for a
defined period... usually 3 days or less. This was a more horrible
punishment than it sounds, in fact it was often fatal. Need I explain
why? I don't want to go into it right before lunch.

No, I did not dismiss such punishments. My whole point was that these
punishments so revolted the ivory tower clerics who believe man has no right
to punish other men that these clerics successfully lobbied to replace these
punishments with time doing penance in a penetentiary - a penetentiary that
was not intended to punish but rather to reform and, as such, provided
little if any deterrent to crime. Moreover, without the deterrent these
punishments provided, a criminal's worst fear isn't being caught and
punished; it is being maimed or killed by a victim. So, the spiritual
descendents of the churchmen who abolished punishment are now trying to
abolish self defense by funding such as Sara Brady.

IMHO we should reinstate these punishments. An hour or two sitting on the
skinney edge of a 2x6 would deter most drunk drivers far more than a fine.

"DSK" wrote ...
You also dismiss other common punishments, such as being put in the
stock.


Vito wrote:
No, I did not dismiss such punishments. My whole point was that these
punishments so revolted the ivory tower clerics who believe man has no right
to punish other men that these clerics successfully lobbied to replace these
punishments with time doing penance in a penetentiary - a penetentiary that
was not intended to punish but rather to reform and, as such, provided
little if any deterrent to crime.

???

Frankly, I can see a connection between history and what you're saying,
but it's very thin & tenuous. Very few of the U.S. founders, early
leaders and judges, were "ivory tower clerics."


.... Moreover, without the deterrent these
punishments provided, a criminal's worst fear isn't being caught and
punished; it is being maimed or killed by a victim. So, the spiritual
descendents of the churchmen who abolished punishment are now trying to
abolish self defense by funding such as Sara Brady.

Not really. It's a natural by-product of our culture... very few people
have any practical use for a firearm, and many many people have
irrational fears. It's the same thing as the anti-drinking movement of
the late 1800s which eventually got enough political muscle to push
Prohibition. But unlike Prohibition, a gun ban will probably remain
permanently on the books.



IMHO we should reinstate these punishments. An hour or two sitting on the
skinney edge of a 2x6 would deter most drunk drivers far more than a fine.


??? Are you talking about riding 'em on a rail?

IMHO the *sureness* of punishment, not it's severity, is the best
deterrent. If you knew unequivocally that you *would* get caught &
punished, even mildly, then you would be very very unlikely to risk it.
OTOH I think it would be just if drunk drivers were given a good
ass-whipping by the side of the road, and made to walk home barefoot.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...

Vito wrote:
No, I did not dismiss such punishments. My whole point was that these
punishments so revolted the ivory tower clerics who believe man has no
right
to punish other men that these clerics successfully lobbied to replace
these
punishments with time doing penance in a penetentiary - a penetentiary
that
was not intended to punish but rather to reform and, as such, provided
little if any deterrent to crime.

???

Frankly, I can see a connection between history and what you're saying,
but it's very thin & tenuous. Very few of the U.S. founders, early
leaders and judges, were "ivory tower clerics."

You are looking a few years too early. Corporal punishment was still common
in the late 1700 and early 1800s.


.... Moreover, without the deterrent these
punishments provided, a criminal's worst fear isn't being caught and
punished; it is being maimed or killed by a victim. So, the spiritual
descendents of the churchmen who abolished punishment are now trying to
abolish self defense by funding such as Sara Brady.

Not really. It's a natural by-product of our culture... very few people
have any practical use for a firearm, and many many people have
irrational fears. It's the same thing as the anti-drinking movement of
the late 1800s which eventually got enough political muscle to push
Prohibition. But unlike Prohibition, a gun ban will probably remain
permanently on the books.

It's not just firearms as witness Kerry pandering to the hunters; it's a
movement to make self defense seem immoral and ultimately illegal. Like any
cultural drift it'd hard to define a start date, but at some time in the
1800s we quit punishing criminals and began locking them away - not as an
alternative punishment but to reform them. As you say it seems to coincide
with the religious hysteria that led to prohibition and the Comstock Act.
Why? Some blame the trauma of the (civil) war of yankee aggression. I admit
I do not understand why otherwise rational people act as they sometimes do.



IMHO we should reinstate these punishments. An hour or two sitting on
the
skinney edge of a 2x6 would deter most drunk drivers far more than a
fine.


??? Are you talking about riding 'em on a rail?

No, there is such a board in the jailyard in Colonial Williamsburg
Miscreants were forced to sit on the narrow side for hours.

IMHO the *sureness* of punishment, not it's severity, is the best
deterrent. If you knew unequivocally that you *would* get caught &
punished, even mildly, then you would be very very unlikely to risk it.
OTOH I think it would be just if drunk drivers were given a good
ass-whipping by the side of the road, and made to walk home barefoot.

To be sure. Funny thing is technology makes it feasible. Empanel courts
24/7. Cop shows drunk test via TV. Judge & Jury say guilty. Cops take drunk
to small fenced-in area (to protect them) and puts him in stocks til morning
(or whatever).

Frankly, I can see a connection between history and what you're saying,
but it's very thin & tenuous. Very few of the U.S. founders, early
leaders and judges, were "ivory tower clerics."


Vito wrote:
You are looking a few years too early. Corporal punishment was still common
in the late 1700 and early 1800s.

Yep. Especially if you call flogging "corporal punishment" and the 1830s
& 1840s "early."




It's not just firearms as witness Kerry pandering to the hunters; it's a
movement to make self defense seem immoral and ultimately illegal. Like any
cultural drift it'd hard to define a start date, but at some time in the
1800s we quit punishing criminals and began locking them away - not as an
alternative punishment but to reform them. As you say it seems to coincide
with the religious hysteria that led to prohibition and the Comstock Act.
Why? Some blame the trauma of the (civil) war of yankee aggression. I admit
I do not understand why otherwise rational people act as they sometimes do.

Tell me about it.

IMHO the expense of attempting to reform people who have already failed
to benefit from public education (in many cases, disrupted the education
of others to boot)is an unreasonable burden on taxpayers. But it seems
unlikely that the U.S. "corrections" system is going to undergo any type
of major reform in the foreseeable future.

Eventually we may just go back to tribal law & feuds.

DSK

DSK wrote:

Vito wrote:

.... Nobody went to prison
a couple centuries ago.


Your historical knowledge is amazing.

I guess that's why all those old castles had dungeons, eh? So as to have
a place to not put people?


Jeeze Doug, and you pride yourself on your historical knowledge, everybody knows they were for apple storage, the locked
doors were to keep the local urchins from making of with them (and thus have to be put to death for stealing). ;-)

Cheers
Marty