I was reading up on some of the history of Delaware recently when I encountered an example of the pillory being used in the state.
I immediately stopped my reading and contemplated if perhaps crime would decrease if this invention were to come back into popular acceptance.
Sources indicate that the pillory was abolished for punishment in America in 1839 however there is some doubt as to the validity of this contention since it was clearly in use within Delaware in 1849.
In the mid 1800s in New Castle County, a Mr.
John R.
Williamson was convicted of forgery.
In addition to his $500 fine he was instructed to sit in the cities pillory for one hour.
As if this were not bad enough he was also imprisoned for three months and forced to wear a letter "F" on his coat for several years.
Would you consider this to be a cruel and unusual punishment? I am sure that liberal sources would certainly jump up and down at the initiation of punishments such as these.
The current concept of the pillory dates back to the Gothic days of the 16th century however in some form or other it has existed since the 13th century.
It was frequently made from wood and erected upon a post.
There were holes in for securing the imprisoned person's head and hands.
The main objective of the authorities was that by the pillory use it could cause behavior modification by the mere process of public humiliation.
In its physical construction the pillory was composed of hinged wooden boards which formed a series of holes through which the prisoners head and limbs were inserted.
The boards were then securely locked together in order to prevent the captive person from escaping.
Their use was usually reserved for petty crimes which were conducted within the local marketplace or other public locations.
In order to increase their visibility the pillories were frequently erected upon platforms.
A placard detailing the committed crime was usually placed nearby within view of all.
Due to the fatal aspects associated with the use of the pillory the usual subjected time was limited to a few hours at the most.
The dangers associated with this form of punishment were that the offender was forced to remain standing and generally exposed to the elements.
Use of a pillory assumed several basic ideas in general.
One it assumed that the criminal could reasonably expect to be verbally and in some cases physically abused although not to the extent of losing his life.
He may have garbage tossed at him or verbal insults direct his way.
Usually since the prisoner's hands were secured he had great difficulty avoiding the thrown objects.
Although most objects were harmless such as rotted food there were an occasional heavy stones tossed at his person.
These had the potential for causing blindness, permanent maiming or in some cases even death.
The second concept would be that the prisoner was presumed to have committed a serious crime against the community at large.
As in the case of Mr.
Williamson stated above the criminal could also endure further punishments during their time in the pillory.
Humiliation was accomplished by shaving of their body hair, flagellation using the pillory as the whipping post, or in some situations permanent mutilation such as cutting an ear off as was the case with John Bastwick.
In the case of Williamson he was force to wear the letter "F" on his coat.
Often the criminal who was convicted and required to serve prison sentence would be committed to the pillory for a few hours prior to his incarceration.
As I sit here I wonder if the reinstitution of such a means of punishment would restore a measure of respect for the law in American society.
Civil disobedience was certainly dealt with in a diverse method in those olden days.
For the sense of discussion what do you think about this thought? Copyright @2010 Joseph Parish http://www.
survival-training.
info
I immediately stopped my reading and contemplated if perhaps crime would decrease if this invention were to come back into popular acceptance.
Sources indicate that the pillory was abolished for punishment in America in 1839 however there is some doubt as to the validity of this contention since it was clearly in use within Delaware in 1849.
In the mid 1800s in New Castle County, a Mr.
John R.
Williamson was convicted of forgery.
In addition to his $500 fine he was instructed to sit in the cities pillory for one hour.
As if this were not bad enough he was also imprisoned for three months and forced to wear a letter "F" on his coat for several years.
Would you consider this to be a cruel and unusual punishment? I am sure that liberal sources would certainly jump up and down at the initiation of punishments such as these.
The current concept of the pillory dates back to the Gothic days of the 16th century however in some form or other it has existed since the 13th century.
It was frequently made from wood and erected upon a post.
There were holes in for securing the imprisoned person's head and hands.
The main objective of the authorities was that by the pillory use it could cause behavior modification by the mere process of public humiliation.
In its physical construction the pillory was composed of hinged wooden boards which formed a series of holes through which the prisoners head and limbs were inserted.
The boards were then securely locked together in order to prevent the captive person from escaping.
Their use was usually reserved for petty crimes which were conducted within the local marketplace or other public locations.
In order to increase their visibility the pillories were frequently erected upon platforms.
A placard detailing the committed crime was usually placed nearby within view of all.
Due to the fatal aspects associated with the use of the pillory the usual subjected time was limited to a few hours at the most.
The dangers associated with this form of punishment were that the offender was forced to remain standing and generally exposed to the elements.
Use of a pillory assumed several basic ideas in general.
One it assumed that the criminal could reasonably expect to be verbally and in some cases physically abused although not to the extent of losing his life.
He may have garbage tossed at him or verbal insults direct his way.
Usually since the prisoner's hands were secured he had great difficulty avoiding the thrown objects.
Although most objects were harmless such as rotted food there were an occasional heavy stones tossed at his person.
These had the potential for causing blindness, permanent maiming or in some cases even death.
The second concept would be that the prisoner was presumed to have committed a serious crime against the community at large.
As in the case of Mr.
Williamson stated above the criminal could also endure further punishments during their time in the pillory.
Humiliation was accomplished by shaving of their body hair, flagellation using the pillory as the whipping post, or in some situations permanent mutilation such as cutting an ear off as was the case with John Bastwick.
In the case of Williamson he was force to wear the letter "F" on his coat.
Often the criminal who was convicted and required to serve prison sentence would be committed to the pillory for a few hours prior to his incarceration.
As I sit here I wonder if the reinstitution of such a means of punishment would restore a measure of respect for the law in American society.
Civil disobedience was certainly dealt with in a diverse method in those olden days.
For the sense of discussion what do you think about this thought? Copyright @2010 Joseph Parish http://www.
survival-training.
info