Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
Now define "general welfare" and "necessary and proper".
There is a reason that only titanium bats have been banned based on the alloy used. It is the only alloy that could be proven to increase the speed of the ball. No other alloy or composite carries that distinction in the world of softball. IOW, there is absolutely no proof that the bat itself causes a dangerous environment. IOW, this law cannot be proven as a remedy, so how would this law be to the benefit of the general welfare, or necessary or proper to enact?
In my mind, it would be "necessary and proper" to return to the whipping post as a means of punishment for convicted criminals because it benefits the "general welfare" of the community. And I have an argument to accompany this. Would a criminal (dealer, user, thief, etc.) knowingly commit a crime in your community where the punishment would be 30 lashes and 5 years or go down down the road where the punishment would be 5-7 years? Granted, many criminals are not that smart and think doing the time is easy, but they know pain.
I'm sure some in your class would be repulsed by the idea of a whipping post. Then ask them, if they had to commit a crime to survive, and had an option of a jurisdiction with flogging as opposed to one without, where would they commit the crime  |
I think this is a great response, Mike. You bring up points already debated in class. Can you give supporting documentation (and, further, enough public support) to return the whipping post? Can you document that it would actually deter crime? Or, would it cause criminals to, as you put it, go to one without it? This is the MEANINGFUL conversation that happens in a good debate!
I do not have the document in front of me, but I will look for it, so you know I'm not making this up. A study done several years ago showed that punishments do not deter most crimes. The study was about the death penalty (the ultimate punishment in the minds of some). It showed that most murders will openly admit that they did not care what the penalty was; they were going to commit the murder. Having talked to several muderers (as their teacher) they honestly did not care what the penalty was...they were going to do it.
Crimes of necessity? A great topic for debate! Having already debated this, my class decided that there should still be a penalty, but (again, from their experiences) it was still worth it to commit the crime (i.e. stealing money for food or rent or whatever they deemed necessary).
They only way to truly and accurately define necessary and proper is to ask the person who wrote it...and they've been gone for 200 years, so it's up to our ELECTED officials to determine the meaning of necessary and proper.
Then again, with enough public support, any rule can be changed (see ASA men's FP pitching rule over the last 10 years)!