(EXTRACTS) selected by World Corporal Punishment Research, corpun.com
President Roosevelt’s indorsement [sic] of corporal punishment for
wife-beaters in his recent message to Congress has caused widespread interest
in Washington. An almost unanimous expression of approval of the President’s
views on the part of the most distinguished churchmen of the city has resulted.
The three Commissioners of the District of Columbia are
heartily in sympathy with the idea of the whipping post for the chastisement of
petty criminals of this class, as are the judges of the Police Court. Some
clergymen, on the contrary, who have expressed their opinion upon wife-beating
and the most effective methods for correction of the evil, have not hesitated
to take exception to the views of the President on the grounds that brutality cannot
be cured by brutality, but the sentiment in Washington apparently is strong in
its second to the Executive’s declaration upon this crime.
In the course of his discussion of affairs in the city of
Washington in his annual message, President Roosevelt dealt in the following
unmistakable words with the problem which has been for some time past presented
to the authorities by the wife-beater, and which has now assumed proportions of
considerable interest:
~ President Roosevelt’s Opinion. ~
There are certain offenders, whose criminality takes the
shape of brutality and cruelty toward the weak, who need a special type of
punishment. The wife-beater, for example, is inadequately punished by
imprisonment, for imprisonment may often mean nothing to him, while it may
cause hunger and want to the wife and children who have been the victims of his
brutality. Probably some form of corporal punishment would be the most adequate
way of meeting this kind of crime.
For several years past the Police Court judges in the
District, the police officials, and a large number of thinking men both in and
out of the church have advocated the establishment of the whipping post for the
punishment of the wife-beater. The indorsement of President Roosevelt has
aroused a keener and stronger sentiment for the whip, and it is probable that a
determined effort will be made to secure from Congress during the present
session some legislation to meet both the views of the President and the
opinions of a large majority of the citizens of Washington, from some of whom
the following expressions have been obtained:
~ Whip Him, Says Bishop Satterlee. ~
Right Rev. Henry Y.
Satterlee, Bishop of Washington: “I would treat the brute who beats his
wife as though he were a bad boy -- whip him.”
“My sympathies just now are not with the wife-beater, but
with the beaten wife. The only suasion to which he is amenable is the lash. The
only argument that will deter or reclaim him is the whipping post.”
~ No Sympathy for Sentimentalism. ~
Rev. A. W. Pitzer,
Central Presbyterian Church: “I have never had the least doubt about the
usefulness and desirability of corporal punishment. There is a namby-pamby
sentimentalism now that rejects anything like the idea of punishment for
wrongdoing, a sentiment with which I haven’t a particle of sympathy.
“I would very cheerfully vote to establish not only one
whipping post in Washington for wife-beaters, but several, so as to have them
convenient. I don’t know that I would restrict this form of punishment entirely
to wife-beaters.
“The whipping need not be public. It would probably be
better if it were not public, and I think it would be far better than
imprisonment or fining.”
~ Punishment Should Fit the Crime. ~
Commissioner
Macfarland: “I think that corporal punishment should be administered
only in private.
“While the shame of a public punishment might have on some a
salutary effect and the actual sight of the punishment might make an impression
on possible offenders, these things are counter-balanced, I believe, by the
certainty that such scenes would have a demoralizing influence on the general
public.”
~ Delaware Law Successful. ~
Maj. Richard
Sylvester, superintendent of police: “For the past seven years I have
been favorable to the establishment of the whipping post for wife-beaters and
thieves. The State of Delaware is largely immune from professional criminals,
due in great measure to the fact that the lash is an institution of the law
there.
“In my opinion the application of the lash in one or two
cases in the District of Columbia and the holding of the apparatus in readiness
for the future would tend more to stay the cruel treatment of wives and
children and prevent the snatching of pocketbooks, assaults, and robberies,
than almost anything that could be devised.”
~ Flogging of Men Declared a Cruelty. ~
Rev. Thomas S. Lee,
St. Matthew’s Catholic Church: “When I was a boy, in Maryland, I
witnessed the whipping of a colored man who had tried to kill a white boy. The
colored man was stripped to his waist. [...] the magistrate [...] imposed a
penalty of twenty-five lashes.
“At the first blow a big purple welt was raised upon the
colored man’s back, and he winced in anguish. At the second blow another welt
was raised, while each successive cut of the whip brought bruise and blood. I
have seen a man whipped and I know what it is. I do not believe that many of
the advocates of whipping have seen this method of punishment inflicted. Since
my boyhood I have been opposed to the lash as a means of punishing criminals,
and I do not see how any man could favor it. I could not see a dumb animal
whipped.”
~ Should Women Be Flogged, Too? ~
Rev. W.E. Parson,
Church of the Reformation: “Respecting the proper punishment for
wife-beating there seems to be a wide diversity of opinion. As our leading
papers cannot get together on the subject, we can scarcely expect the public to
be a unit as to the best course to be pursued. In dealing with the question it
must not be overlooked that there are some women quite able to take care of
themselves. The wife of a well-known pugilist was charged with husband-beating.
Shall the new law, if enacted, send the women to the whipping post?
“The old adage about sauce for the goose, sauce for the
gander, would seem to apply. But, seriously, this matter deserves very careful
consideration before so radical a change should be introduced as would lead to
curing brutality by brutality.”
[“Capital
Needs Whipping Post - Ministers and Local Authorities Heartily Favor It -
Penalty For Wife-Beaters - President Roosevelt’s Suggestion in Message Touching
District Affairs - Meets with Warm Approval.” The Washington Post (D.C.), Dec.
25, 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.
***
[2971-10/24/21]
***
No comments:
Post a Comment