Question

1. Do you think public humiliation, public execution, and unusual punishments would reduce the amount of crime? Why do you think so? Why not?

Answer 1

Debate on this issue is going on from long time as some people favour that public executions are good for society but some falls over negative side.

Public humiliation, public executions and unusual punishment are proved to be effective and extremely valuable in the improvement of crime rate and improvement in social discipline. It was constantly used in the former times and is still used in modern era. As this been practiced for years as punishment for petty offenders. In Japan for example adulterers were publicly humiliated and exposed and sometimes even unusual punishments were given the main reason was to show to the people so that they can see and mock the offenders with also having a fear that if they commit same crime then they could be the next one.

For obvious reasons not all crimes are punishable by public harassment or public executions, sometimes for petty offenders though it's a another case like sentencing a shoplifter to prison may seem a harsh thing to do and sentencing a serious criminal who has some serious charges against his/her name like murder, rapes etc would expose him/her to sometimes violent nature of prison life and instead of reforming or being a better human he/she may comes out from prison with even more dangerous thoughts of taking revenge and becoming more violent and hardened than before and becomes an even bigger threat to society.

Public Executions, harassment adding with unusual punishment given to criminals seem to be efficient way to communicate the message that if you shed innocent blood, you will pay high price. I agree on the matter of accountability but also believes such publicity would serve to deter homicide.