"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