THE WHIPPING-POST.
Judge S. C. Baldwin, of Philadelphia, is in favor of the lash, or whipping-post, for incorrigible boys, and especially for wife-beaters, as they are often the only support of the wife and children. The September Grand Jury made such a recommendation before Judge Pennypacker, and he considered it worthy of consideration. But most of our Judges considered it not in harmony with the twentieth century ideas, and were unwilling to express any decided opinion offhand, as the whipping-post was a radical change. Judge Michael Arnold thought it would shock the public mind too much, and that the reason why our present plans fail is because the prisoner has too easy a time in jail, not required to work. Judge Robert N. Wilson held that in detaining a husband it often caused more suffering to the wife and children to be deprived of support, and it was a serious question whether it would not be degrading and lower a man’s whole moral nature.
Judge Wm. W. Whitbank thought the matter too radical to be decided without a careful consideration.
Judge Abraham M. Beitler had very decided views, but the public does not realize the situation. If they would only sit one day in court and see the cases of brutality brought before us, they would very soon recommend more drastic punishment. What are you going to do with a man who beats his wife in a most brutal manner (while drunk, generally), but who is the sole support of that wife and children? If you put him in jail you inflict ten times more suffering on his family.
In regard to the opinion of the Grand Jurymen, that the House of Refuge is not operating for the good of society, because not all the boys are reformed and converted, all the Judges unanimously expressed themselves as not in sympathy with the view taken by the Grand Jury, for we all know of very many cases where the House of Refuge has done splendid work. One of the Judges said:
“You cannot hope to make a law-abiding citizen out of every criminally disposed boy, and you cannot say that, because a few cases have not been benefited apparently, that the House of Refuge is a failure. I believe, on the contrary, that it is doing a most excellent work in elevating the morals of the community.”