It's time to bring back the pillory

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 goingRegarding 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 themselvesClearly, 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.