I've been thinking about possible ways of dealing with people whose conduct is, uh, less than honorable during the upcoming elections, such as falsifying information or submitting multiple ballots or lying to the American public so as to persuade them to vote for one's side.
There's not going to be enough cells in jails and reformatories and prisons to deal with the tens of millions of Democ--er, criminals, engaged in election fraud. Besides, when imprisoned, they need to be fed, and the overburdened taxpayer shouldn't have to shoulder their grocery tabs.
Between 1788 and 1868, eighty years, the British exported circa 160,000 convicts to Australia. Australia was still new and hadn't gotten around to building any jails, but they needed to do something about keeping the new settlers, a rather recidivist lot, in line, so they used lashing.
Utterly unfamiliar with the practice, I looked it up, and was surprised to find out that an outback lawbreaker could be sentenced to as much as 1,000 or 2,000, or even 3,000 lashes, which was far beyond what I'd assumed was the maximum limit for the punishment, the ostensible 40 lashes.
Of course, all those lashes weren't applied at one time; that many seemed to demand a few weeks of daily application. A green and inexperienced flogger could kill someone with only a few lashes; someone adept at the skill could go on and on.
According to the history books, the most anyone was ever flogged and still survived, was in 2007 an Islamacist country; it was for two men, 7,000 lashes each. Their crime had been.....you guessed it.....sodomy.
A few thousand, minimum, lashes for any sorts of election fraud to me seems fair and just.
