Newark post., 1914-01-21
The Whipping Post As An .....
Effective Punishment Of Crime

the WnlpphhS r
nunishment for crime IN IN Delaware
Puib an branded as a degrading and in
S''~an Na0 relic of barbarism, in an ad-.
1rass ir delivered last Sunday In
Gi;o Tn;onds Meeting House, Whining
,on bv Dr.. Louis N. Robinson,
"nofpssor sVD of economies at Swarth-
p more College. Following the ad-
Dress DR.. Robinson read letters
from men from all sections Of the
aountrv. prominent in business or
tbe professions, or who have made
stndv M of criminology. In these let
TORS the writer's expressed their
oninions of the whipping post as
means of punishment Of crime.
Among those from whom letters
wore received and read were the
warden of the Minnesota State Pri-
son Professor Lichtenberger Of the
University of Pennsylvania, the
sunerintendent of the Ohio State
Rqformatory, Wendell P. Stafford
Of the Supreme Court of the Dis
trict of Columbia, the Secretary to
lane Addams, Mrs. Ballington
Booth and Amos Butler, secretary
70 the State Charities Of Indiana.
Almost without exception these let
ters declared that the whipping
nost in the opinion of the writer,
post. in the opinion of the writer,
was brutalizing and degrading to
the person being flogged, to the one
APPLYING the lash, and to the spec
tators. and that it was but a sur
yival of barbarism.
The following account Of DR..
Robinson address, which is a
clear. forcible discussion of the sub
ject, unmarried by sentiment or ex-
element, is taken from the Will
mington Morning News. We COM
mend it to the consideration Of all
thoughtful people.
II have found, in examining the
literature on the subject but four
arguments in favor of fogging as
punishment for crime. They are !:
% the argument of retaliation !;
(2) the argument of economy; (3)
the argument Of prevention of
crime; and az the argument of re-
form of the offender.
II propose to examine and weigh
these arguments in the light of the
experience Of the world. | shall be
brief, that you may have plenty Of
time for the heckling ordeal, to
which | willingly submit.
The argument based on retalia-
ton is simple. Its theory is approx
imately the Old Testament notion
of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a
tooth. 1t is simplified slightly,
however. All crimes are given a
value in terms Of pain, the society,
instead Of perpetrating in all cases
like crime on the offender, de-
mands that he yield up at least an
equivalent in pain. The law, it is
said, must be drawn to allow this.
A man who breaks into house and
lays hands upon an innocent girl
should not be put in a palace pri-
son. He should be flogged; he
should be made to give back to So
ciety an equivlent in pain. Flog-
ging is thus defended as a good
means Of making the criminal pay
back what he owes to society.
"There is no denying that this
desire to get even with the offender
is found in nearly every one Of us,
But the question is not whether
such feeling exists, but whether
1t is wise to give expression to it,
whether it is wise to let it dominate
our actions.
In speaking of flogging as pun.
lshment for actual crime, the noted
English criminologist, w. D. Nor
son, says: If we were to give way
to mere feeling of horror and de-
testatlon with regard to these sex
ual crimes, we should probably &c
beyond tiogging, and demand the
penalty Of death itself. But the
laws of the land cannot be framed
to satisfy the blind demands of out.
ragged feelings; they must be fran.
ed In accordance with sound judg,
ment and wise policy. The legisla-
lure must consider what are likely
TO be the permanent effects Of a
law
"They, | claim, are the senti.
mentaIists who made it possible fo1
feeling and passion legally to drive
out reason and to control the policy
OF a state in it's treatment Of Grim.
inals.
I'm requitting evil with evil, the
state says to each and every indi.
UlInDI