Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nice thought, but never proven to work. William Wallace was beheaded, drawn and quartered and pieces of him sent all over Scotland to dissuade rebels, it inspired them instead.
Burnings at the stake, drownings, mutilations of the corpses, branding, cutting out tongues, cutting off hands, blinding, all have been tried and some are still in practice.
Pirates and other lawbreakers used to be hung in raven's cages where they would die of exposure or dehydration, and their corpses left to rot and be eaten by birds all displayed on public thoroughfares so everyone could see them.
In the West during the 19th century, public executions were a day of grand entertainment. Didn't stop guys like the James Gang or the Dalton's etc.
Even after Big Nose George came Machine Gun Kelly, Bonnie and Clyde, Babyface Nelson.
Criminals are criminals. Capital punishment stops those that are caught, but doesn't seem to really have an impact on those that only live to hurt others.
We blow up terrorists, shoot them, burn them, reduce them to atoms, doesn't stop them.
IF something like this would stop a school shooter, I'd be fine with it, but what these losers want is notoriety, they are such nothings that the only way they can stand out or be noticed is by acts so heinous they should simply be shot on sight, buried in an unmarked grave, and forgotten, but as long as they get their 15 minutes on the national news, and on the internet, where their face and name become known by people all over the country, they won't stop.
What needs to be done is to forget them. Never put their face or name on TV or the news, refer to them as prisoner 12345 or something, don't validate their need to be recognized. They don't care if they die, they have nothing to live for which is why most of them kill themselves.
Remove their reason for doing these crimes, "fame", and they'll have to find some other way to be noticed, perhaps by doing something noteworthy instead of just notorious. The only reason we know Charles Manson is because of the brutality of his crimes.
In the 1800's, you had penny dreadfuls making heroes out of criminals, that was bad enough so we still remember Black Jack Ketchum or Billy Bonnie, but anti-heroes that are nothing more than useless scum to start with should receive no recognition for their crimes.
In my opinion, they should be shot in commission of the crime, dumped in an unmarked grave, and forgotten. Never put their name or image out to the public, let them die in the anonymity they earned.
Well, there is that. Plenty of horse thieves and other baddies were hung and dumped without ceremony, I am sure. Would have been on my place, at least. But once an outlaw has already reached enough fame to be referred to by a physical feature they possess, I would still suggest that their very notoriety would be more reason to ensure that their manner of death be a lesson to others who would be notorious. Then dump them in a hole and forget about them. One could argue that we will never know how many young boys were turned away from a criminal life by the sight of a hanging or three. Three hots and a cot is obviously not working out for us.
Last edited by countryboy73; 05-07-2018 at 04:32 PM..
Well, there is that. Plenty of horse thieves and other baddies were hung and dumped without ceremony, I am sure. Would have been on my place, at least. But once an outlaw has already reached enough fame to be referred to by a physical feature they possess, I would still suggest that their very notoriety would be more reason to ensure that their manner of death be a lesson to others who would be notorious. Then dump them in a hole and forget about them. One could argue that we will never know how many young boys were turned away from a criminal life by the sight of a hanging or three. Three hots and a cot is obviously not working out for us.
There's always the chain gang and Alcatraz. Those are time honored traditions for teaching malefactors the error of their ways.
Three hots and a cot, how about a bowl of mush for breakfast, a bologna sandwich for lunch, a bowl of soup for supper, 10 hours of work breaking big ones into small ones, no color TV, no recreation yard, no visitations for a little "action", no free college education while you're in the clink, how about making jail an unpleasant place to be. Bring back hard time in Yuma or some other delightful little garden spot?
Last edited by MTSilvertip; 05-07-2018 at 06:05 PM..
There's always the chain gang and Alcatraz. Those are time honored traditions for teaching malefactors the error of their ways.
Three hots and a cot, how about a bowl of mush for breakfast, a bologna sandwich for lunch, a bowl of soup for supper, 10 hours of work breaking big ones into small ones, no color TV, no recreation yard, no communal visitations, no free college education while you're in the clink, how about making jail an unpleasant place to be. Bring back hard time in Yuma or some other delightful little garden spot?
Yep... that's where reform of the criminal justice system needs to start. It needs to start by being very uncomfortable and very hard work. It needs to be something that nobody in their right mind would want to deal with. There are plenty of people who don't mind sitting on their cans all day watching TV or whatever other waste of time. But if you had them up at 5 AM breaking rocks, they may not be so willing to "do the time" for that crime they are contemplating.
There's always the chain gang and Alcatraz. Those are time honored traditions for teaching malefactors the error of their ways.
Three hots and a cot, how about a bowl of mush for breakfast, a bologna sandwich for lunch, a bowl of soup for supper, 10 hours of work breaking big ones into small ones, no color TV, no recreation yard, no visitations for a little "action", no free college education while you're in the clink, how about making jail an unpleasant place to be. Bring back hard time in Yuma or some other delightful little garden spot?
I am for all of that for thieves and other non violent offenders. Perhaps even robbers who haven't harmed anyone physically. But the rapists and murderers? Execution, and not taking too great a pains to make it quick or painless. Not torturing them, but if the rope isn't placed right to snap the neck, strangulation. Breaks of the game, pal when you hurt other people. Allowing them to live in captivity only punishes the rest of us who work to support them. Make it public, so the consequences are right there in people's faces. For the non-violent, they can be put to work, at something that brings enough capital in to cover the expense of holding them. As long as they don't run, they don't get shot. Or hanged upon recapture. We need to make crime a really unattractive option if we want less of it. What happened to a rapist in 1880? Hanging by a competent executioner, after a trial- if he was lucky. Unlucky? Depends on who caught him, I reckon. If it was kin of mine he assaulted, it would be tied to a stump, in the sun, soaked in blood and honey, and I'd stick around to make sure the wildlife did the job. I get vindictive over family, ya know? I agree with HIW on this at least, the late 1800's were the best time in America. Unless you were a violent crook, that is. They prefer 2018. I am sure Big Nosed George would. He could die with his ears, at least!
Last edited by countryboy73; 05-07-2018 at 07:42 PM..
Unless you were a violent crook, that is. They prefer 2018.
Definitely. We live in a time that, for the most part, criminal punishment is a joke. There is very little in the way of consequences for bad behavior legally or socially. You are more likely these days to be incarcerated or victimized legally if you think the wrong things or disagree with certain concepts. For some reason, society as a whole has decided that consequences for actual bad behavior, either criminal or just plain old being a jerk (this does not include thinking officially unsanctioned thoughts--that is witch hunt territory), is a bad thing. Just let everyone do anything they please. And even when there is punishment for criminal behavior, it usually doesn't kick in until about the fiftieth offense. That's why sociopaths and the worthless elements of society are walking all over everyone. They know they can, so they do.
Go to the inner cities and pillage, plunder, steal, rape, maim, and kill... over and over and over. No problemo. You are golden. Especially if you had a rough childhood. See... it's not your fault that you are a monster. This repressive society forced you into being a subhuman.
On the other hand, if you believe you should be able to think for yourself, hold any opinion you like, or, God forbid, own an "assault weapon" for your own protection or the protection of your family and home, well, then you are nothing more than a rabid dog that should be euthanized because you are obviously a huge threat to society.
See how the totalitarians get things 180 degrees out of phase? They are good at that. And they know EXACTLY what they are doing. It's too bad that so many sheep follow that shepherd... because they are headed straight for that cliff and hellbent on taking the rest of us with them over the edge.
I've got no problem with stretching the neck of some murderous scum, go for it. It won't probably stop anyone else, but it sure takes care of the problem of feeding, housing and providing medical care for a complete reject forever.
One thing I always thought would help with the delinquents before they get too old, is the stocks. For petty criminals, put them in the stocks in a public place for a few days.
Harsher crimes, start with caning or whipping, then go up from there.
The biggest problem I have with converting criminals into footwear and luggage is simply that I don't want to be as bad as they are.
Punishment is good, revenge for the families of the victims is good, but barbarism just for the sake of savagery doesn't change anything, it just makes us as vicious as they are.
I'm not real fond of incarceration for all offenses, unless it's tough time or hard time where it's a miserable experience that they won't want to repeat.
Removing religion and shame from our society is just creating a generation that really don't give a crap about anything.
In most of the US in the 19th century, there were 2 options for criminals, physical punishment like a good horsewhipping, or death. There weren't a lot of prisons, and the ones that did exist were pure hellholes.
John Wesley Hardin was put in prison for killing a deputy sheriff, (never mind he was supposed to have killed 40 men), and served his 20 year sentence and became a lawyer.
Once he got out, his spirit was pretty much broken and he had a really tough time until someone shot him in the back of the head as he drank at a bar. Vigilante Justice.
The town Marshal that looked at the body noted that the bullet had passed through his left eye and the back of his head.
The Marshals take on it was that if the killer had shot him from the front, he showed uncommon skill. If he shot him from the back, he had shown uncommon good sense.
Hardin killed people, but he never robbed anyone. Reading his autobiography, it's obvious that he never killed a man whom he didn't think deserved it. He was a loyal Texan who fought for his state and people during Reconstruction. He was remarkably fast and skillful with guns.
Live by the sword, die by the sword. That I could live with. 20 years in a hellhole prison? If thats the likely future, you got a wicked gunfight coming your way for trying to get me there. Seen some deputy sheriffs that needed shot, can't blame Hardin there without knowing the deputy's story. If Hardin killed 40 men, there is a chance he was too quick to do so, but then again, I have known at least that many in my life who desperately deserved it. Maybe he just had a low tolerance for bullies and stupidity. Funny we should be talking about Hardin. In my study of the west and its heroes and villains when I was a kid, Hardin was the one I admired the most.
I can't say I would be that quick on the trigger, but there were times I could have and probably should have dropped a person already in this life, and there will certainly be more. The jacked up attitude toward death and justice in this country is the only reason some folks are still walking around. I don't want to deal with the legal blowback for doing society a favor. You know its a crazy world when good people can't deal with the bad guys because the government and the law will come down on them like a ton of bricks. There is all this crime simply because the law prevents good men from taking out the trash. So the garbage just keeps piling up. Humans have a negative gut reaction to a man who will or has killed other men, justified or not. It's either a saving grace or a terrible weakness. So far, I lean toward the latter. Give me ten men who will stand together and pull the trigger when necessary, and the population of dregs in society would decrease in short order. The old saw about us sleeping safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm is true, but here we are hobbling hard men with the law at every turn. Even the cops we have charged with such work have been hobbled, and indeed act in concert to prevent such work being done. Its all ok though. With things so out of balance, it is all going to collapse at some point, and the attitudes will change. Maybe it will be 1880 again in the criminal justice realm...
Last edited by countryboy73; 05-08-2018 at 11:10 AM..
Hardin wasn't a nice guy. One man he killed for snoring too loud. He shot through the wall of a hotel and hit the guy by accident, but still killed him.
Part of the reason he had so much trouble adjusting back after prison was the fact the Reconstruction was over, people were tired of the gunfights and wanted peace, so he couldn't get away with arbitrarily killing people in the street.
The deputy he killed was a good man, and wasn't trying to arrest Hardin or threaten him, Hardin just felt like killing him. That's why the town demanded Hardin be tried and imprisoned.
Today, Hardin would be basically one of the mass shooters or a serial killer. He loved the power of making people fear him, no matter how he saw himself. He wouldn't count the Mexicans and Indians he killed as he didn't consider them human. He was the product of his times, right after the civil war, life was cheap and there were a lot of men for whom killing on a mass scale was normal. It wasn't a good time.
Myself, I always preferred Bat Masterson, (the real one not the TV farce). Buffalo hunter, Indian fighter, scout, lawman, he was considered one of the best gunmen of the day, but he was on the side of the law. He served as a deputy in Abilene with Wyatt Earp. He had been wounded in a gunfight and was shot in the pelvis, so he had to use a cane the rest of his life. He fought at the second battle of Adobe Walls with Billy Dixon against Quanah Parker's Comanche, and if it hadn't been for a threat against his brother's life, he would have also been at the OK Corral, but left the day before to try to save his brother.
While controlling rowdy cowhands instead of shooting them, he would crack them over the head with his cane and drag them to the hoosegow to sleep it off.
A tough and dangerous man, he had a highly developed sense of honor and ended his days as a sportswriter in New York City. The only crime he was ever convicted of was disturbing the peace with a gunfight trying to protect his brother. He was fined $2.00.
Sam Bass was a US Deputy Marshall that worked out of Judge Parker's court (the Hanging Judge), policing the Indian Nation. He's the man it's most likely the Lone Ranger character was based on. He once arrested his own son for killing a man that was fooling around with the son's wife (with the wife's approval), and he caught them in the act.
Judge Parker did sentence the son to 10 years in prison, but the son served his time, andcame back and made a good life for himself.
Those were tough men, but honorable men that served their sense of duty, not simply revenge or killing for the hell of it.
The difference between a good man with a gun and a bad man is the honor. Bad men have none. Good men are willing to risk themselves for the betterment of all.
Montana had a vigilance committee because no law existed. Yeah, they broke the back of Henry Plumber's gang of thieves, the "Innocents", but research proves that some of the men that were hung were killed on shaky testimony and little or no evidence, and some of the vigilante's ended up with the valuable property of some of those "outlaws".
No-one should be judge, jury and executioner, it places too much power in the hands of one man and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Under our Constitution, we do have rights that cannot be arbitrarily taken by any government or individual without due course of law. That's not just for protection of the guilty, but the innocent too so that the powerful can't ride roughshod over the regular citizen.
Punish criminals, I'm all for it. Anarchy does no-one any good.
Last edited by MTSilvertip; 05-08-2018 at 11:59 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
