Terminalcoffee discussion
Rants / Debates (Serious)
>
In Defense of Flogging-Is flogging ever ok?
date
newest »

I'd pay big coin to see Dr. Laura flogged.

"When I was a police officer in Baltimore, I don't think anyone I arrested hadn't been arrested before. Even the juveniles I arrested all had records. Because not only does incarceration not "cure" criminality, in many ways it makes it worse. From behind bars, prisoners can't be parents, hold jobs, maintain relationships, or take care of their elders. Their spouse suffers. Their children suffer. And because of this, in the long run, we all suffer. Because one stint in prison so often leads to another, millions have come to alternate between incarceration and freedom while their families and communities suffer the economic, social, and political consequences of their absence."
This brings to mind the 65 year old career criminal arrested for placing a pipe bomb in the mall near Columbine High School last week. Local media commented he actually wanted to go back to prison because he was recently diagnosed with prostate cancer and what sort of prospects does a 65 yr old sick ex-con have in the real world. Extensive prison time, while not a walk in the park by any means, gives this man 3 squares a day and a place to sleep.
Anyway, food for thought today.

No, flogging is not okay. It is inhumane, barbaric, disgusting, gross, cruel, unusual, etc. It's pretty much the equivalent of torture.
And I have zero respect for someone who agrees with the above, but still titles his book "In Defense of Flogging" to get people to buy it because it's provocative, and because he sees the "benefits of wrapping a liberal argument in a conservative facade." Really, I hate this guy.
The stupidity of his argument is breathtaking (although granted he's not actually making the argument, merely pretending he is in order to make a different argument). But let's say his argument is that we flog people instead of imprisoning them. Really? You'd like to flog a pedophile and then send him on his way? Flog a killer? A rapist? Bernie Madoff? The point of depriving these people of their liberty is to keep them from doing the same thing to other victims.
And I have zero respect for someone who agrees with the above, but still titles his book "In Defense of Flogging" to get people to buy it because it's provocative, and because he sees the "benefits of wrapping a liberal argument in a conservative facade." Really, I hate this guy.
The stupidity of his argument is breathtaking (although granted he's not actually making the argument, merely pretending he is in order to make a different argument). But let's say his argument is that we flog people instead of imprisoning them. Really? You'd like to flog a pedophile and then send him on his way? Flog a killer? A rapist? Bernie Madoff? The point of depriving these people of their liberty is to keep them from doing the same thing to other victims.

Better that than the dolphin. You might get PETA all over you otherwise.

You can avoid that by using a tissue.

Mutiny on the Bounty. .
Or another work that adds perspective to this 'topic' is The Fatal Shore: The Epic of Australia's Founding which of course is full of Rum, Sodomy and the Lash: Piracy, Sexuality, and Masculine Identity.
Or you can listen to The Pogues at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZIIS...

"Ancient Thread Revival", weren't they a Classic/Country Fusion band with a top 100 album?
http://chronicle.com/article/In-Defen...
So is flogging still too cruel to contemplate? Perhaps it's not as crazy as you thought. And even if you're adamant that flogging is a barbaric, inhumane form of punishment, how can offering criminals the choice of the lash in lieu of incarceration be so bad? If flogging were really worse than prison, nobody would choose it. Of course most people would choose the rattan cane over the prison cell. And that's my point. Faced with the choice between hard time and the lash, the lash is better. What does that say about prison?
What do you think?