I'm quite open to restitution rather than incarceration, if only because the Old Testament outlined precisely that sort of system of justice for ancient Israel.

How would it work for those whose crimes far outweigh the net worth of their financial belongings?

In theory at least, more stockades, more fines, and fewer prisons wouldn't be a bad thing.

I have always understood there was the concept of the Pillory as distinct from the stocks. One being legitmately pilloried could and would be expect to have things thrown at him, usually for a serious offense such as theft or worse. OTOH, many merely sentenced to an afternoon in the stocks for having a malicious tongue would not be subject to pillory. I'm sure others will correct me if I'm wrong.

Depending upon the state, keeping a man in prison costs about $25K per year. Those costs are rocketing up as the public sector unions find new ways to game the system. That's why states like Texas have been experimenting with home detention and other ways to handle non-violent offenders.

Use of the stocks or flogging is not a bad idea. Another idea is banishment. We outsource everything these days. Why not prisons? Instead of foreign aid to Mexico, let them keep some of our prisoners. They take our lifers, for example, and we pay them $25K a year.

For lesser criminals like rapists, buggerers, tax cheats and so forth, give the convicted a yearly stipend and a one way ticket to Equatorial Guinea. Once their sentence is complete, they can return to the states with whatever money they saved up.

The concept of shame only works when there's a sense of shame and guilt. Kevin, if you really think the average grafitti exhibitionist would see this as a disincentive you're completely missing the point.

We have banished shame entirely. People publicly brag about their failings, even make ones up, so as to gain public absolution. Shame- and humiliation-based punishments won't work anymore, except with a tiny remnant of society who realistically will never commit an offense.

Even Scalia has said he likely would not uphold corporal punishment as constitutional even though it existing at the time of the adoption of the Eighth Amendment in 1791.

I would prefer forced labor to corporal punishment, especially for non-violent offenders. As for Michael Fay, I would have preferred that he be sentenced to spend three months cleaning the streets of Singapore.

Patrick J>> "We have banished shame entirely."

Absolutely. It is a corollary to the mellonheaded notion that we "must not judge." (I have confronted more than one whiny lib who trotted out that krap.)

"The list of things I think should be criminal is very short, and I tend to favor restitution-oriented justice over our current mass-incarceration model."

Most detainees are in for violent crimes, and the majority of the remainder are in for serious property crimes. You can't really restitute your way out of a rape or a savage beating or an attempted murder, and I don't think we want to head toward that direction.

Restitution for property crimes sounds great until you get back to the real world: most non-violent criminals locked up are unemployed people who steal or damage hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of property annually when they're free. They're not going to be able to restitute anything if you assign them that as their punishment, and they're not going to try. They're just going to steal more and dare you to add it to their tab whenever they're caught.

>Most detainees are in for violent crimes

Thank you. This fact needs to get out more.

Next, we can go after people complaining about all those poor prisoners doing time for "mere drug possession," when in fact they are usually dealers who plea-bargained their way down, Roman Polanski-style.

Pavlovian theory states
that behavior relates
itself with actions and reactions.
Thus, six swats of bamboo rod
on bare butt of American ass
serve to prevent further displays
of spray paint illiteracy.