Comparing The Pillory And The Brutal Punishment

416 Words2 Pages

Since the 1700’s punishment for crime has been decreased due to more strong laws and mostly common sense. People would get punished because they practiced a certain religion (what?), or committed an act against rules, or sinned. Punishments included the bloody execution, the painful torture, or lonely imprisonment. Three common ways of being horribly punished were, The Stocks, The Pillory, and The Brutal Whipping Post. The Stocks were used for minors, they had foot rests where a seated criminal would have their ankles shoved in so their legs would be straight The Pillory was a wooden plank held sideways a few feet above the ground, it would have three holes were the criminal would have their head and hands, they would then be locked into the wood and would have to stand for long periods of time while people passing by could throw rotten fruit or stones at their face. The Whipping Post would have a criminal attached to a post with rope while people could whip them. Here are some that I find cruel and interesting. The Ducking Stool: The Ducking Stool was a …show more content…

S.L: Seditious Rebel M: Manslaughter T: Theif R: Rouge F: Forgery B: Burglary And I for: Someone who traded weapons with the Indians The Branks: The branks is an iron cage put over the person's head with a sharp, spiked iron plate placed over the recipients tongue, so when ever the criminal spoke, their tongues would almost be punctured. The cage was used mostly for gossipers of all kinds. Now here’s why you shouldn’t remove me from the group, I will help you build the best of prisons, the best of torture devices. Without me, you wouldn’t have a place to put your criminals! They would just be let free, stabbing and sinning! Doing whatever they want without discipline! They would just be creating more trouble without me, you need me in order to have a strong, flexible society. People would lose lives!