The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-10-07
AS TO THE WHIPPING POST.

Inc recent convention OF humane So
cieties in Albany. N. ", adopted a reso-
luton instructing the committee on legis-
lation to prepare and submit to the Legis-
lature an amendment to the penal code
providing. in cases of gross acts of cruelty
to children. for the infiction of corporal
punishment on male offenders, in addition
to the existing penalties now provided by
Law. 1t seems somewhat surprising to find
humane societies moving in favor of the
establishment OF a form Of punishment
which is commonly regarded as barbarous
feasible on rational grounds. In the first
place, it is worth while to inquire whether
whipping is really a barbarous form of
punishment. If it be SO it must be either
because it is unnecessarily painful or be-
cause it is humiliating TO the recipient.
That it is painful may be freely admitted,
and the advocates of whipping seem to re-
gard that as a strong reason in its favor.
They aver that the object of the punish
ment of crime is 70 deter vicious persons
similarly disposed from repeating the Of
tense; that there is nothing the brute
/ breads as much as he does physical pain,
and that if the law inflicted that upon the
brute 1t would be the strongest possible
deterrent. 1t is claimed that In the State
of Delaware. where the whipping post is
resorted to as a punishment for minor Of
lenses, there are fewer criminals in pro-
portion to the population than in any other
State in the Union. 1t is very question
able whether the efforts of modern philan-
thropists to eliminate the element of pain
from the punishment of evil doors has not
contributed materially to the increase of
crime. The other suggestion, namely, that
corporal punishment is humiliating to the
recipient and destructive OF manhood,
seems far fetched. All punishment is or
should be humiliating to the recipient in
the sense of being productive Of remorse
and conducive to repentance. The first step
toward the reformation of a criminal or
wrong doer is to make him feel that he
has incurred a righteous penalty by his
acts and ought to suffer therefor, and this
can hardly be done without humiliating
him. Indeed, it is a question if any pun
ishment is eficacious or reformatory that
does not humiliate. AS to the destruction
of manhood, there is so little of that left
in many criminals. and especially in habit
ual wife and children whippers, that it is
hardly worth considering A brute who de-
liberately violates and destroys his own
manhood cannot complain if others do not
consider it worth regarding.
This is the line of argument of those who
favor the establishment Of the whipping
post. and it must be admitted that it is
not without force. The strongest argument
against it is that by common consent civ
ilized peoples have for a long time been
gradually doing away with corporal pun
ishment, both as a legal penalty and as a
means of family discipline, and yet it is by
no means certain that its abandonment has
been productive of good. The fact that
Delaware stubbornly refuses to abolish the
whipping post, and that many intelligent
people In that State insist that it is an ex-
cellent mode of punishment for a certain
class Of offenders is a strong argument in
it's favor. and the recent action Of the con-
vention of humane societies seems to IN
dictate that public opinion on the subject is
undergoing a change.