Do you think public flogging might be a useful sentence option for certain crimes?

Is selling dead horses still a thing? 

Well ,it's cruel to beat them now I believe ,so the next best thing is to flog them .....  People then could if they wish have a whip round to raise the money if they lost all theirs with a flutter on the derby....:)

What we need to keep in mind is OJ spent millions of his own dollars for that defense team, it isn’t incumbent on taxpayers to fund such a legal team for any Tom, Dick and Harry. 

I would hope surprise isn’t the only emotion that such miscreants would experience. 

Yes, OJ spent millions on his legal defense...and in what should have been a slam-dunk case he was acquitted.

Meanwhile, the Innocence Project has spared hundreds of people further incarceration and sometimes rescued them from death row.

I think the net takeaway from the above is if you're poor and/or not white, you are far more likely to face the wrath of the State than if you are rich and/or white.

Since perfection in criminal trials is impossible, the very least the State can do before it tortures or kills the accused in our name is make sure that person has the very best legal defense possible, not some underpaid overworked possibly-not-sober burnt-out public defender.

In the absence of such safeguards, your proposal amounts to semi-randomly whipping poor/urban/ethnic people. I cannot support it.

That’s fair.
The so-called Justice System has long been slanted away from punishing the well-to-do and toward the poor and dark skinned. No more reason to expect judicial perfection in this than when flogging actually was an option, in the Middle Ages. 

My thought was to suggest a formidable alternative to long and costly incarcerations for minor crimes. Think deterrent factor. What does a beating cost, and the convicted could be returned to their daily lives in short order, duly punished. But, alas, it is moot. 

I consider flogging a "brute force" deterrent, and a great deal of criminology research suggests there are much more effective ways to spend our time and energy.

I won’t advocate for brute deterrence either, because of its obvious potential for abuse, but it should tire us all to observe that nearly endless studies and research absorb untold time and resources, and have solved so few of the problems for which they are commissioned. Meanwhile the police are outmanned, have their hands tied (or are corrupt), lockups overfill and criminals are not deterred. 

It is interesting, however, to tap the ideas of people who are not constrained by PC or sympathy for the feelings of criminals. Crime is low in Singapore, and no lengthy studies are needed to see why. Hence the source of my question. 

This post was edited by Don Barzini at January 22, 2020 6:50 PM MST

Or, conversely, we can do what judicious study of discernible reality tells us is actually effective (e.g. do everything we can to get lead and other environmental toxins mitigated) versus what makes us feel righteous and powerful (various forms of corporal punishment).

Unfortunately, the latter comes far more easily (and is certainly more emotionally satisfying) than the former...

  I disagree because far to too many lynchings were done that way. Lynching resulted in the deaths of men, women and children of all demographics, but were especially used against minorities, just like I am.  Being extra-judicial actions carried out by mobs of vigilantes, both public and hidden lynchings were nothing more than ignored murder. Few if any guilty of lynching were ever held legally nor morally accountable for the terror they perpetrated, and in many cases, they were celebrated and praised by their ilk. The public spectacle of a lynching was an orgasmic gathering for those attendees who found mirth and profit in the act. 
  Were modern-day government sanctions of public executions to be instituted, I can’t imagine how corrupt they’d be, with the promise of monetary gain they would bring, it wouldn’t be long before they’d evolve into mirror images of their centuries-old predecessors. 

:( This post was edited by Randy D at January 22, 2020 9:20 PM MST

Other than the targeting of minorities (that’s uncool) I fail to see the problem with the rest. But if I ran the world, I’d be an equal opportunity torturer/lyncher—it would still be corrupt, but you wouldn’t be able to buy your safety. 

One more thing: 

“I disagree because far to many lynchings were done that way.”

Is that...a...grammatical error from Randy? Say it isn’t so!

Doh!