I'm reading A Tale of Two Cities at the moment, and was struck by this paragraph this morning:
Quote:
But indeed, at that time, putting to death was a recipe much in vogue with all trades and professions[...]. Death is Nature's remedy for all things, and why not Legislation's? Accordingly, the forger was put to Death; the utterer of a bad note was put to Death; the unlawful opener of a letter was put to Death; the purloiner of forty shillings and sixpence was put to death; the holder of a horse at Tellson's door, who made off with it, was put to Death; the coiner of a bad schilling was put to Death; the sounders of three-fourths of the notes in the whole gamut of Crime, were put to Death. Not that it did the least good in the way of prevention--it might almost have been worth remarking that the fact was exactly the reverse--but, it cleared off (as to this world) the trouble of each particular case, and left nothing else connected with it to be looked after
I liked that. Of course, I'm of the opinion that such punishment need not be implemented as a deterrant, and the failure of it to act as such is not an argument against its use. Merely that 'clearing off the trouble of each particular case', is a pretty good end unto itself.
_________________
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
Pretty much everyone agrees with Gnomes,
really, it's just some are too right on to admit it.