Corporal Punishment

    So me and my friend had another one of our conversations and we were talkin about the book Starship Troopers by Robert Hienlien and how he talks about people being whipped in the town square for committing crimes. We'll we were talking and we decided that even though it sounds barbaric to our pc society that we've created in the last 60 years it really wouldn't be that bad of an idea. I really think if we started sentencing criminals to lashes in public instead of months and parole that the crime rate would drop through the floor. I mean seriously, what sounds worse, a few months in a place where you are fed and clothed and taken care of at tax payer expense or being whipped 15 times infront of a crowd of spectators. And think about being one of those spectators, I bet you wouldn't do whatever that guy did. I know it would never happen in today's America but it's still an interesting theory. Your thoughts?

and why can't we say the other word for homosexual, it isn;t offensive.

wow...I was expecting at least FOUR replys....wait...

¤ Råp¡Ð F¡rè ¤ wrote: I'm always down for the "An eye for an eye" theory.

I agree, belive whatever you do, should be done back to you. I dont think it would work, the punishments would have to be much worse than 15 whips in public.

The eye for an eye worked very well for the egyptions. So I cant see how it could not work  for us too.

LOL This will sound sick but my friends and I go for corporal puishment hands down, we don't even have to be asked. Sometimes when we're bored we think of ideas on how to do it.

Eye for an eye definitly doesn't work. People will respond until things got completely unruly. And then would 15 lashes or 6 months in jail matter? 

Clark Kent wrote: Hades wrote: I dont think it would work... It has been tried and it didnt work. Besides - I would much rather have 15 lashes than 6 months jail.  Not even a close contest. Jail serves a variety of functions, at least in theory - it keeps people from committing crimes while in prison, it gives society a chance to brainwash them, and it provides punishment/deterrant.  Whipping only provides the punishment/deterrant.  It doesn't take criminals off the street, and provides no brainwashing opportunity. And, unless you are talking permanent disfigurement/crippling (a la Taliban), I challenge the deterrant value of physical punishment.  As mentioned above, I would certainly choose a significant amount of temporary pain over a lengthy jail term.  I suspect many others would as well.

Whip em then Jail em. Problem solved.

-Kasey

slacker guy wrote: i think an eye for an eye....if some1 rapes some1 they should be raped publicly and worse with like a lamp or somehting

Thats exactly how me and my friends are. If you commit a crime you get that same crime down to you only worse.

My question is, regardless of the crime committed, who has the right to determine what kind of physical punishment is taken? Who is better than anyone else that they can choose how to physically harm the criminal?