The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CJKAllstar
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

It's time to bring back the pillory

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
CJKAllstar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 997 times Debate No: 52421
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

In times gone by, perpetrators of petty crimes, from all walks of life, were pilloried in public [1,2]. This involved the offender being restrained, often in prominently situated wooden stocks, and the public were invited to heap scorn and derision upon them. In addition, members of the public were also invited to pelt the incarcerated criminal with dog faeces and rotten food.

I propose this form of punishment should be restored for petty crimes, such as comon assault, but also that the pillory should fit the crime.

So, for example, if a man is convicted of an assault that was aggravated by homophobia, he should be put in the stocks dressed in a tutu, ballet shoes, fairy wings and a tiara with signs reading "I'M A SCREAMING HOMO"; "CAUTION: I'VE GOT AIDS" and "COME AND GET ME HORNY BIG BOYS" hung around him.

If the assault was racially-aggravated, for example against a person of Hispanic descent, the offender should be put in the stocks wearing a poncho and sombrero with a sign reading "I'M A FILTHY, CASTANET-PLAYING, FLAMENCO-DANCING GREASER" hung around him.

In cases where the victim of the assault suffered life-changing injuries, instead of being placed in the stocks, the offender should be put into a straight-jacket and pushed around town strapped into a wheelchair with a sign reading "I'M A TOTAL SPAZ" and "I'M SUCH A CRIPPLE MY MUM HAS TO WIPE MY ARSE" hung around him.

This humiliating punishment would b e a far more effective deterrent than a fine, especially for rich offenders, and would also save taxpayers the cost of imprisonment in some of the more serious cases and that's why I duly assert that the perpetrators of minor assaults should pilloried and that this public punishment should fit the crime.

Thank you.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.medievality.com...
CJKAllstar

Con

You have not explained why it would be beneficial at all other than claim it would save incarceration money. I believe in the grand scale of things, that is irrelevant and I will explain why.

https://www.youtube.com...

I. It Promotes Negativity within Society
The U.S. has the highest documented incarceration in the world. Where they have about 4% of the world's people, they have 25% of the world's prisoners[1]. The actual prison system, focuses on punishment. Solitary confinement within the U.S. is considered torture[1], and average length in jail was 55 months, about 4.5 years. The prison system is generally views as harsh and is only regulated by the prison official, and prisoners also cannot live comfortably. They are inelligible for welfare, loans, public housinng and food stamps increasing rates of suicide and homelessness. Overall the prison system is harsh. Now compare ever so liberal Norway, where sentences can only be a maximum of 21 years[2], they have the nicest prisons in the world, such as Bastoy, which offers fun activities, rehabilitation and is nice to prisons. Unlike European prisons with an average of a 70% reoffending rate, this prison has 16%[3]. Norway however has a murder rate of 0.69 people per 100,000, against the U.S' 4.7 per 100,000[4][5]. And to top it all off, Norway has one of the highest scores in the Happy Planet Index, at a fantastic 51.4[6], against America's 37.3, and Ethiopia has 39.2, and Libya has 40.8[7]. Do you see the correlation I am trying to make here? All your points about it working as a better deterrent has failed. Because mot just Norway, but Sweden, Finland, Canada all have higher HPI's and nicer prison systems. So this here has done two things.

One, your argument that it is better deterrent has been proven false. Harsher prisons only lead to depression, suicide and increases the reoffending rate. As a deterrent? Well creating a society of respect and tolerance does better, but it leads me to my main point. A prison system is vital for a nation. The purposes are keeping society safe, punishing the offender, and rehabilitating the offender so he can be a more successful and useful person to society. Considering society is a sum of its people, keeping society safe and rehabilitation should be the most focused on. Punishment is important, but only up to an extent. It works in that the person knows not to reoffend and others know not to want to go to jail. But prison in itself is already a punishment. The stigma behind prisons, the mindset of prisoners, the lack of relatedness with society and the distancing with the world is punishment in itself. The lack of liberty, autonomy and choice is punishment. Throw in the fact that conditions are slightly worse and one effect in the real world, then you have a prison system which has all worlds. But what America does is just inhumane and clearly not working to create a safer place. In turn, the country itself will absorb some of these values. It will be a sadder place as shown by the HPI. It creates more reoffenders, depressed people and teaches people that bad actions just get punished in vain, and you'll suffer afterwards and effectively that the state doesn't care about those who mess up, this negativity spreads, considering today's prisoners are tomorrow's neighbours.

So a system like yours is only sure to increase this. It will indoctrinate children that mistakes and crimes deserve hatred towards them. It teaches chidren that it is fine to abuse, hate, make fun of, racially, homophobically and sexually abuse people if they did it first. This goes against the point of creating a safe society, and rather, will do the opposite. I hope my point is clear, and am awaiting a rebuttal.

Sources:
[1] Video to the Right
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.theguardian.com...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://www.happyplanetindex.org...
[7] http://www.happyplanetindex.org...;
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

I would like to thank C. J. K. Allstar for accepting this debate.

My opponent described at great length why the over-reliance upon prison sentences as a punishment is detrimental to society, and I agree with him. Furthermore, in addition to the reasons my opponent cited, rather than reforming inmates, prisons tend to serve as universities of crime where convicts swap tips on the best ways to commit offences with impunity.

That's why the pillory system is such an attractive alternative to imprisonment. It not only saves taxpayers the huge cost of incarcerating convicts and avoids offenders becoming institutionalised criminals in the prison system, but it also punishes rich and poor alike in a way that fines don't.

Regarding my opponent's objection relating to indoctrinating people to hate he is right, but only in the sense that it will teach the public to hate criminals and give them a properly organised forum in which to vent their anger at them.

Clearly, a white racist dressed as Mexican is just that: a Caucasian in wearing a silly big hat and a blanket with a hole cut out of it; the crowd will vent their spleens at his racist attitudes and take pleasure in his humiliation.

Similarly, a bloke in a fairy outfit is clearly not actually a fairy (either in the sense of an ethereal pixie or a bad thrower who enjoys looking at photographs of other men"s bottoms), just as the man being pushed about in a wheelchair is obviously not actually mentally or physically handicapped.

Furthermore, there are added benefits to the economy of pillories. For example, stalls on pitches situated around the stocks could be rented out by the local authority to entrepreneurs selling drinks, snacks, souvenirs as well as buckets of sewerage and rotten food to throw over offenders.

So, in conclusion, I have clearly demonstrated why it would be beneficial to bring back the pillory and I duly urge you to vote Pro.

Thank you.
CJKAllstar

Con

That's why the pillory system is such an attractive alternative to imprisonment. It not only saves taxpayers the huge cost of incarcerating convicts and avoids offenders becoming institutionalised criminals in the prison system, but it also punishes rich and poor alike in a way that fines don't.

But this point is irrelevant. If it is only going

Regarding my opponent's objection relating to indoctrinating people to hate he is right, but only in the sense that it will teach the public to hate criminals and give them a properly organised forum in which to vent their anger at them.

This is too subjective to be a valid point. Criminals are tomorrow's neighbours. They made mistakes, maybe intentionally, but they do not deserve to be distanced from society and shunned and stripped of their value. Prisoners are humans too, and are a part of society that if we wanted them to be permanently excised from humanity, we would kill them. They would return to society, shunned and would be suicidal and their lives wronged. Is this the message we want to teach? One that criminals should be hated? People who in most cases just made mistakes? People who did wrong? We cannot have hate being the driving force of crime. We cannot teach children that the right retribution is equal retribution, because we'll be there to see the same going on in public. Somebody racially abuses someone else, so it is done to him. We will just desensitize the public rather than teach them the message of rehabilitation and respect. The pillory may be cathartic, but it gives the wrong impression and teaches morals that people themselves

Clearly, a white racist dressed as Mexican is just that: a Caucasian in wearing a silly big hat and a blanket with a hole cut
out of it; the crowd will vent their spleens at his racist attitudes and take pleasure in his humiliation.

This is wrong in every sense. Now the message that, if someone is racist it is okay to be racist back is incinuated. This is fighting fire with fire. It is like telling people to murder a murderer. Or steal from a thief. In which way does this deter crime? Surely then it desensitize the severity of the crime if it is now okay to do the same crime as long as it is in punishment. That is in no way a deterrence but rather advocating it, subliminally saying that racism is okay as long as it is in retalliation.

Similarly, a bloke in a fairy outfit is clearly not actually a fairy (either in the sense of an ethereal pixie or a bad thrower who enjoys looking at photographs of other men"s bottoms), just as the man being pushed about in a wheelchair is obviously not actually mentally or physically handicapped.

This is now just mockery. This does not punish the criminal but rather mock him. I stated the three reasons for a crime system which you did not deny. Punishment, safety and rehabilitation. This just gets rid of the two which coincide more with the purpose of a crime system, and have punishment. Punishment acts as a deterrent, which in this case it advocates crime by desensitizing it, and also to punish the criminal, which this does too harshly, as they are still members of the public, still part of society, and still part of a people we have a justice system for.

Furthermore, there are added benefits to the economy of pillories. For example, stalls on pitches situated around the stocks could be rented out by the local authority to entrepreneurs selling drinks, snacks, souvenirs as well as buckets of sewerage and rotten food to throw over offenders.

We can save money by torching everyone who is on welfare. Or by killing all prisoners. Or by slaughtering elderly people. Or by wiping out half of the population. Or by hosting live tortures, but they are all deemed immoral. You have the BOP to prove why saving money is worth the costs I have put forward, which you have failed.

Thank you for this debate, and I urge the floor to vote for me.
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by CheeseFries 3 years ago
CheeseFries
brian_egglestonCJKAllstarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Same RFD as 9space.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
brian_egglestonCJKAllstarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had no sources whatsoever, and con rebutted all pro's arguments