FULL TEXT: “There’s nothing so good for a wife-beater as the whipping post.
“Unless
it is a good beating by a man who meets him in a fair fight and licks him well.”
This
is the philosophy of John F. Donohue,
alderman and magistrate in Wilkesbarre, Pa.
Two
years ago he was on the bench, when a big, rough fellow was brought before him
upon a charge of wife-beating.
“You’ve
been up here before on the same charge,” said Judge Donohue, speaking to the
prisoner. “How long are you going to keep this up?”
“As
long as I want to,” answered the defendant “A woman needs a beating once in
awhile – it makes her behave.”
“Well,
let’s hope this will make you behave,” cried the judge. It was summer and he
threw off his light coat, pushed aside several chairs and vaulted over the
railing. And then and there he administered such a beating that before the man
at the bar – or who had been there – knew what was happening, he was a whipped
man. He cried in vain for mercy until he gave his solemn promise never to
strike his wife again. Then the justice released him.
“That
proved to me that all wife-beaters are cowards,” said the judge, “and you know
there’s nothing a coward fears more than physical pain.”
That’s
why the judge is going to ask the next legislature in Pennsylvania to establish
a whipping post such as they have now in Delaware.
[“Whipping
Post The Thing. - Pennsylvania Magistrate Considers Good Licking Best
Punishment for Wife-Beaters.” Spirit of the Valley (Harrisonburg, Va.), Apr.
29, 1904, p. 4]
***
►• You have been told that before the rise of feminism in the 1960s that domestic violence against women was tolerated by society as acceptable behavior and was not taken seriously by police and the courts.
►19th Century Intolerance Towards Domestic Violence
► Treatment of Domestic Violence Against Women Before 1960 – this post collects cases classified by the form of punishment or sentencing (whether judicial or through community action)
No, the claim that laws created by males were for the benefit of males is false. Yes, the "Rule of Thumb" myth has been proven to be a marxist-feminist hoax, taking an ancient English common historical notation published in the 18th century and extrapolating it into unsupported claims that 18th and 20th century United States communities, courts and legislatures (laws on the books) were in agreement with the18th century historical notation (Blackstone).
***
►• You have been told that before the rise of feminism in the 1960s that domestic violence against women was tolerated by society as acceptable behavior and was not taken seriously by police and the courts.
You have been lied to. The people who told you these
lies were paid to tell them you. In most cases you paid your own money (taxes
and tuition fees) to be lied to.
Here is one of countless pieces of evidence that demonstrate
the truth.
►•►• To see more eloquent, vivid
evidence proving the lie and giving you the truth, see:
►19th Century Intolerance Towards Domestic Violence
► Treatment of Domestic Violence Against Women Before 1960 – this post collects cases classified by the form of punishment or sentencing (whether judicial or through community action)
No, the claim that laws created by males were for the benefit of males is false. Yes, the "Rule of Thumb" myth has been proven to be a marxist-feminist hoax, taking an ancient English common historical notation published in the 18th century and extrapolating it into unsupported claims that 18th and 20th century United States communities, courts and legislatures (laws on the books) were in agreement with the18th century historical notation (Blackstone).
***
“[O]nly since the 1970s has the criminal justice system
begun to treat domestic violence as a serious crime, not as a private family
matter.”
From the entry: “Domestic Violence” on encyclopedia.com
This claim has been proven to be false.
***
No comments:
Post a Comment