Friday, March 23, 2012

Amusing Coincidences In Judicial History

The Delaware Supreme Court upheld a sentence of 20 lashes for a larceny probation violator in 1963, deciding that it was not cruel and unusual punishment, prohibited by the Bill of Rights.  When I went to find information about that case, I found a newspaper article from the April 4, 1963 Sarasota (Fla.) Herald-Tribune.  The Delaware Supreme Court upheld the sentence, and returned the case to the trial court: Judge Stewart Lynch presiding.

3 comments:

Anthony said...

Which is more cruel, 20 lashes, or 30 days in jail?

I think we'd do pretty well to bring back the whipping post as an alternative to short prison sentences, especially if the defendant is allowed to choose between the two.

Rich Rostrom said...

It would have been a lot funnier if his name had been Caine, Birch, Whipple, or Lasham.

Epsilon Given said...

"I think we'd do pretty well to bring back the whipping post as an alternative to short prison sentences, especially if the defendant is allowed to choose between the two."

I completely agree with this sentiment. I'm not sure how locking individuals up would teach those individuals how to live in a free society.

I'm not completely adverse to locking up rapist, murderers, or their ilk--but in this case, it would be to remove them from society, not to figure out how to get them to fit in.