Society would be a much better place if everyone, from birth, was allowed 10 punches. Full on, in-the-face, punches. This would be regulated by law, but would gradually become a social convention as people realised the benefits of a form of limited violent freedom. Everyone would have some sort of 'counter' on their person or public record which would be reduced by one for each punch expended. It is difficult to accurately describe this counter without a pilot of the action, but suffice to say that social rules would demand honesty as strongly as criminal law. People could use these punches at any time, for any reason, so long as it did not break other crucial laws. E.g. an angry husband could not punch their wife ten times really hard and get away with it; a punch could not be delivered to someone who would clearly die from it or be permenently injured.
Why would this make the world a better place? Take one example: Have you ever heard the elderly lamenting the days of corporal punishment; telling us how children were much better behaved due to the threat of physical pain? That was a horrible system, as people in positions of trust and authority were allowed to beat children for testing their boundries and generally acting as children do. That said, any adult among those reading this will almost certainly have experienced suppressed rage at the cheek of some git teenager who has learned that s/he can fuck with everyone with absolutely no fear of serious repercussion. Back to the teenagers on a bus listening to their music on speakers, swearing, ripping the bus driver, beeping the 'stop' button over and over and lauging that no one is even acknowledging them. Imagine the Ten Punch rule is in place, a man gets up from his seat. He walks to the back of the bus and expends one of his punches TO THE FACE of the most annoying offender. By law and most importantly social custom, the rest of the bus nods and accepts this as 'fair enough'.
There is no explosive fight back, everyone knows they have only ten punches for life. That's pretty much 1 per decade. If you got into a massive fight over one punch you'd be commiting an offense every time you punched someone in the future. So gradually teenagers stop fucking around on buses because of the fear of physical violence, but not in a 'oh god i'll get whipped' way. For the same reason that fights would become rarer, actual events of punching a teenage would be damn, DAMN rare. There would be no terror that it was likely to happen, just an accepted fact that if you mess with someone enough, they have that option.
Now of course the rule would be abused. People would go over their limit. People would use the rule to embarrass, to take advantage and to take unfair revenge on an undeserved receipient. Just in the same way that driving is abused, the ability to create fire, open access to shops. Exceeding the speed limit, setting fire to a park bench and shoplifting are all socially unacceptable, and therefore relatively rare. Most members of society realise that if people break convention, things generally become a lot shitter when the rules tighten and freedom is reduced. That's why the Ten Punch rule would get off the ground. It allows greater freedom than we currently have, and would be more advantageous than detrimental.
I was explaining this to a friend yesterday evening and she pointed out that ten punches would be a lot more valuable to some people than others. Wolverine, for example, would be a lot more satisfied with a punch than a 10 year old girl with no hands.
In general I think it's one of my best ideas. What do you reckon? Could there be a sub-rule that gives certain individuals another option than punches, if their punches wouldn't have much effect?
Uhh, no, can't agree with you on this one. Since you're saying that you can use your 10 punches for *any* reason, I could punch someone at random on the street just because she (it usually is a she) is blocking my way. The abuse of the system would rapidly get out of hand, and it would be very difficult to keep track of how many punches you've used.
ReplyDeleteA much better system, I suspect, would be a return to a legal system where corporal punishment is doled out instead of (or in addition to) prison sentences, fines or "community service". Things like shoplifting are not just 'socially unacceptable'; they are illegal. If the perps were, say, flogged publicly or put in the stocks for a day, I suspect it would have a lot more deterrent effect than whatever is done these days.
The fascinating town of Culross, on the north bank of the Forth just a few miles west of the bridges, is a town that has been largely preserved as it was several hundred years ago. If you take a tour of the town, you will be shown a large wooden post known as the Tron in the public square. The Tron was used mainly for weighing goods arriving on ships in the harbour, but it had another use that perhaps we could reinstate.
Someone convicted of a fairly minor offence would be taken to the Tron and have their earlobe nailed to it. There was no time limit on the punishment; the miscreant was left there until he worked up the courage to tear himself free. The practice was abandoned after some years, not because of sentimentality or health and safety, but because whenever someone had his ear nailed to the Tron, the entire town would take the day off work to go and taunt him, so it had a detrimental effect on business. Them were the days, like.
I think the tight limit on legal punches per individual would, after inevitable teething issues, prevent the most part of system abuse. Who would punch someone who got in their way for a moment if it meant they lost a punch that could be used for far more important reasons? If they were just the type to extract violence for poor reason and were taking advantage of the system, then that would be balanced out by their inability to legally punch in the future after they'd wasted them all. I think it's work-able.
ReplyDeleteI'm on the fence about inventive corporal punishment. How long until we get to the stage where we cut off the offending appendage of a criminal just as a matter of course?
As a side-note. I lived close to Culross and yet had never heard of this Tron thingy. I should go and have a look.