How do you feel about Hester's punishment and the townspeople's reactions to her? Do we still treat people in a similar fashion today? Do we need to do more public punishments?
17 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I think Hester Prynne's punishment of wearing a red "A" upon her breast is unwarranted. The matter of an adulterous, whether convicted righteously or not, is one to be decided by those of whom are primarily affected, such as the adulterer and his wife. Parading her through the town is punishment, yes, but it is not a suitable punishment, for adultery should not be for courts or townspeople to decide. Likewise, it is not a spectacle the townspeople should witness, however amusing they may find it in their dreary lives. For these reasons do our modern legal system remain unaffiliated with punishment for adultery, and in this way does our system better that of former days. On the matter of public punishments, it is not necessary, for it serves its purpose of bringing shame too well. Although trials in courts can be witnessed, the actual punishments now cannot be seen by public eyes, and thus cannot bring about unjust shame. It is n this way as well that today's court system are better previous ones.
In the puritanical time period, public humiliation was used to bring about shame to the culprit of a crime or sin. Public humiliation does not truly serve any purpose in that a culprit like Hester would often feel guilty without having ones wrong doing displayed in front of the whole settlement. For instance, when one lies to their parents, the often feel terrible after doing so and end up being worse off than if the would have told the truth. Also, this public humiliation wrong biblically. It states in Mathew "Do not judge or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others you will be judged […]"(Mathew 7:1 and 2). This fact baffles me considering that the Puritans relied on the bible so heavily. Thus, I believe that this punishment does absolutely nothing. If a crime is not enough for some type of real punishment such as a jail sentence, then it would be better to make the culprit deal with his guilt alone. As for the town's people's reaction, I think that is fairly standard. For instance, we do the same things today like talking about how people should be punished, or even who is cheating on who. The way the towns people reacted does not surprise me because the very same things happen today.
Hester's punishment was fitting for the time. I do not agree with it but i still feel that the reactions of the townspeople would still happen today. I don't know if its exactly right but i do know that it does happen. It is just idle gossip that goes around a little bit. I personally think that we should still have public punishments. I think that punishment in public would actually be twice as effective as our current system of punishment.
Hester's punishment, to be put as a spectacle to all the townspeople because of adultry, I think is a little far fetched. It may bring a point across, but it is not neccessary to have that form of humiliation. I agree with Andrew when he brought the Bible verse from Matthew to his ideas. It is not right to judge others when you yourself are doing wrong things just like them. Today we do not treat people to the full extent compared to those times, but yes we do have the tabloids and certain magazines with all the gossip on celebrities. This may just be the celebrities' form of punishment, but it also teaches people a lesson by reading them. Also, when someone does something wrong and is caught, what they did is all over the papers, news, or anything else. They automatically get treated like the people in the Puritan times; they just don't stand in front of everyone for humiliation. I'm honestly not sure if public punishments would make any difference because if the people are doing bad things, then when they are caught, they will be all over the news, the paper, or something else anyways. Either way they are in the public's eyes for punishment, just maybe not literally.
i personally dont really see how the wearing of an A on one's breast can do anything to punish them. we must also consider that they were in the 1600's and the impact that something of that sort may have had on a person is almost impossible to comprehend in a society that bases everything they hear off of something they read on the internet. this punishment is almost exactly like society is today. the purpose of the letter was to let everyone know what Hester had done wrong. in society today the internet is loaded with stories about how a certain celebrity did this and that so the purpose is the same. yes it is rather malicious and flat out rude but that type of crime is not necessarily punishable by death so what else could the puritans of done about the issue. the reactions were exactly as they are today in that people are generally appalled at the fact that someone would commit audultry. so i fully understand the reaction of the townspeople granted that they are in the 17th century so their views are somewhat different than those of people today. i disagree with Ben in that public punishment is no necessary. i believe that it is a decent form of punishment to humiliate someone who hase done something wrong. for instance the crime of sexual assault, the way i see things the person who commited the crime has scared someone for life so they have no rights that society should protect (i appologize if i step on anyone's toes with that) i do understand that this also should be taken with some leeway because i cannot say that all of a person's rights should be taken away that is just plain wrong but i think that we should not have to worry about hurting a serious criminal's feelings in any sort of way. dont mistake this to be saying an eye for an eye that is not what is ment i just mean to say that we need to do this type of thing publically more often to possibly set an example for others and maybe make society a better place for everyone.
For the time period in the book, Hester's punishment was acceptable. They liked publicly humiliating people. I personally would prefer this type of punshment instead of ones that involve physical pain. I dont think that it is acceptable in todays society. Things such as adultry should stay within the family and the people effected by it. We would like to keep things like this a secret but thanks to magazines, newspapers, tabloids, etc. the whole world can find out about what you have done. I think that public punishments are effective but I dont think they are necessary. There are other punishments that are just as effective.
Hester's punishment was harsh, but effective. People should mind their own business and not judge others, but it's human nature to be curious about things. Talk shows, tabloids, and even average gossip are all here to inform us on the world and people living in it. Unfortunately a lot of this stuff is made up for entertainment purposes and to make people feel better about themselves, and their wrongdoings. Her punishment reminds me of when I flipped our golf-cart. I was totally scared to tell my mom because I figured she wouldn't let me drive, so I called my friend so I would have someone to talk to about it. Being the big-mouth that she is, she went and told everyone she knew, and of course my parents eventually found out and told the whole family about my mishap. Every Christmas since, I've "enjoyed" countless different stories of the incident, and even some of my friends, friends have teased me about it. So basically I think, although times have changed, and we’re not friends with our whole community, our misdoings still have a way of being made public, and more public punishment is definitely one of the last things people should be worried about. Finally I believe people should forgive and forget. People need to be punished, but to be humiliated for the rest of their lives is unnecessary. Everyone makes mistakes, some worse than others, but people need to eventually get over it.
I feel that the punishment of the letter is a bad choice. To some extent public humiliation is a punishment but it isnt ussually something that sticks with you. Next week everyone will be making fun of the guy down the street and they will forget about you so it just vanishes and your problem or punishment is over. In my opinion a punishment has to be something that will stick with you and constantly remind you of what not to do. I think that people are very similar now to what they were then and i believe we would react very much like they did. Everyone loves gossip whether they admitt to it or not. Everyone has done it and will do it again so i see no point in denying it. I think it would be a bad idea for public punishments now because everyone wants noticed. Criminals would have no problem with public punishment because they would be getting attention which is what they want. They would get nothing out of this punishment because they would enjoy the attention.
In the Puritan villiages, the punishments for wrongful actions usually consisted of cruel humiliation of the person that committed the action. In this case, going off the Puritan ways, I feel that the punishment was not horribly bad, and quite effective. She made a bad decision, and she was punished for it. However, I do not personally agree with the punishment. With my beliefs, i think it was a little too over the top. If the same crime were comitted today, I do not believe the punishment would be the same. Yes, there would still be much gossip, and maybe a few magazine/newspaper articles (if the person were that important), but no public humiliation. If a person made a bad decision, I believe it is no ones business but their own, and the person responsible for punishing them. Going along with that idea, I think more public punishments would be unneccisary and not as effective as it was during the time of the story.
I agree with Olivia on how, for the time period, the punishment was effective and just. It'd stick with me for a long time to stand in front of a silent audience like that. I agree with Hester's idea that a mocking crowd would be easier to face than a silent audience. Besides, Hester was pretty much humiliated in front of her whole world. I mean, where else would she be able to go and make a living by herself? That town and those people are her life and what they think of her would probably effect her deeply. Another thing to consider, being raised by such Biblical teachings and everything, wouldn't it be more of a sin than what she's already committed to try and run or hide her punishment? I guess it really depends on how long she'd have to where the letter. A few weeks could hardly be considered punishment. A few years would seem bad, but that's probably fair considering what she did. For the rest of her life would be aweful considering how, even if she learned her lesson, she'd never be free of the letter, permenatly branded until the day she'd die. And to live with the knowledge that running from or hiding it would be an even worse sin?...Talk about cruel... Current day though, I think we do treat people in a similar fashion. Actually, let me take that back. It really depends on who did it and what exactly they did. If there was a cerial killer or a famous person who got pulled over for speeding, those receive lots or publicity, which is similar to parading people around and mocking them. But other times, it's a simple community crime. People who do smaller crimes never get that public shame and scorn, which cuts back severly on what they might actually learn from their punishment. yeh they pay a few fines, sure they spend a couple months in a cell. In the end, the money they spent they can earn back again and, looking back on it, those boring months seemed to fly by. But public humiliation like that, in front of your whole world, that'd haunt someone for years to come. So, I guess I think it would probably be a good thing if punishments became a littler more public. Worse comes to worse, if people really don't want to see a public punishment, then they can simply stay home.
I agree that Hester’s punishment by public humiliation was typical of that time period, and was probably not the best choice for a punishment. A person’s wrong-doing and punishment should be kept somewhat private. The magistrates of that time period most likely used these kinds of punishments more as a way of putting on a show than actual punishing. They wanted everyone to know that they would not tolerate sin, and they probably believed God would punish them all if they did not publicly disown a person who went against the laws of the church. The behavior of the townspeople is typical and remains the same today. People are always curious about everyone else’s personal affairs and are equally willing to give their personal input as to what should be done about others’ actions. However, public punishments today would not be very effective because most people would want the attention anyway, and it wouldn’t take people long to forget, especially if everyone was punished for things like adultery. Moral values are not held as high in today’s society as they have been in the past, so a lot more people would be getting publicly humiliated, reaching a point where it’s not a big deal anymore.
I agree with Greg that the punishment for the crime was right for the time (rhymed). I think that the older woman's perspective that she should be killed is way over board, maybe in her time, but definitely not now. Public humiliation does take its toll and could be considered a punishment, one that probably would change someone's behavior. We do publicly humiliate many people today still, but not because they're sentenced to it, but because we want to know information (i.e. tabloids, reporters attacking people with cameras, etc.). I join Andrew in his bafflement of the heavy reliance on the bible and the hypocritical things they did aginst it. You can't help but ask,"Why?" I think that we don't need public punishment, because no matter how much ridicule and mocking we do, it probably won't change a hardened criminal. It'll just be a slap on the wrist. We pretty much do it anyways, like I said before, on the news and in the papers.
Being put up in front of all of these godly people just to be mocked is ridculous. It disgusts me that anyone who claims to be so godly would even think of doing such a thing. Obviously she knew she did wrong. She will have a reminder of it for the rest of her life in the form of an innocent child. I mean, sure she did wrong, but don't we all. I really like the verse Andrew has. It really does bring it into a new light and I agree that if they were living by the Bible they must have missed something. I do not think that was an acceptable or even useful punishment. I do agree that we still have this kind of a punishment in our world today. It is very different because it is on millions of copies of magazines and newspapers. I think that if someone decides to pull something like shoot up the school or something they did it so that someone sould notice them so giving them the recognition seems just give them another reason to do it. Our society kind of reacts the some way theirs did. Astonished that someone would do such a thing. I think they should get over it. People mess up, which does not by any means justify their wrong doing but should help someone who has done wrong move on. That's how it works: people mess up and life moves on with or without you... I dont really know if that answers the questions so maybe I will respond again later. :)
Putting Hester on display and publicly humiliating her is not a fair punishment. Honestly I don't think any punishment is fair. Committing adultery is not something that needs to be brought to the attention of the rest of the town. In God's eyes it is just as bad as coveting a neighbor. Therefore the townspeople had no right to judge her, because they too sin. Andrew's verse about not judgeing or you too will be judged is very fitting. These people were not God and thus should not be ridiculing Hester. Today we often treat people this way. Whether it is gossiping about someone at school who was doing something scandalous the night before or tabloids boasting that britney spears is losing her kids. These people probably know that whatever they were doing is wrong; they don't have to be reminded of it by everyone else too. Public punishments seem cruel and unusual. Although being on display with everyone murmuring about what you've done would probaly bring you to your knees asking for repentence, you can realize your wrongdoings on your own time just as effectively.
I think Hester actually got off pretty easy. Normally the Puritan punishments were much worse than a harmless letter. It may have been a little embarassing and a constant reminder of what she had done wrong, but a burn on the forehead did the same thing, and it hurt. Hester's scarlet letter caused her absolutely no pain and she lived. They didn't think she was a witch, so she didn't get burnt at the stake or anything like that. The townspeople reacted to her like they would react to any other woman that committed a crime. They are always going to gossip and talk about her as she is walking down the street. These women are no different than women today. They sit around in their little coffee shops sipping their nice warm beverages and talk about EVERYTHING that is going on in the neighborhood. So in fact we still treat people the same today. There is a lot of embarassment involved in punishment and people are supposed to learn from their mistakes. As for public punishment, i think we should definately do more of it. Not only does the person that is being made a fool out of learn something, but so do the townspeople. People can start seeing what certain crimes will bring them and i'm certain nobody wants to be the laughing stock of the town. I just think that public punishments would change society's views a little bit and mess things up a little bit. We can't let people fall into a comfort zone, thinking that if they ever do anything bad, they can get off really easy. Change things up a little bit and keep people on their toes.
well congrats Brock because you did step on my toes. =]] i think that Hester's punishment was unnecessary, and public humiliation is really really unnecessary. It was no one else's business what had happened with Hester's situation. What she did in no way affected all the people of the town. They purposely went out of their way to make it their business. Don't get me wrong, I would never encourage someone to cheat on their spouse, but what goes on in one relationship is between those in the relationship. I don't think we make as big of deal today about adultery because we have learned it is more beneficial to us to mind our own business. Now I know that there are those select few that have nothing better to do with their time then stick their nose where it doesn't belong, but it is apparent that those people do not have many things going on in their life. People screw up all the time, and yes, sometimes punishment is necessary. However, public punishment is not the way to go. So Brock, I am glad you have your own opinion and I am not saying you are wrong, but if you sit and think about it, is it really your business or your right to judge and mock someone else's situation that doesn't relate to you?
17 comments:
I think Hester Prynne's punishment of wearing a red "A" upon her breast is unwarranted. The matter of an adulterous, whether convicted righteously or not, is one to be decided by those of whom are primarily affected, such as the adulterer and his wife. Parading her through the town is punishment, yes, but it is not a suitable punishment, for adultery should not be for courts or townspeople to decide. Likewise, it is not a spectacle the townspeople should witness, however amusing they may find it in their dreary lives. For these reasons do our modern legal system remain unaffiliated with punishment for adultery, and in this way does our system better that of former days.
On the matter of public punishments, it is not necessary, for it serves its purpose of bringing shame too well. Although trials in courts can be witnessed, the actual punishments now cannot be seen by public eyes, and thus cannot bring about unjust shame. It is n this way as well that today's court system are better previous ones.
In the puritanical time period, public humiliation was used to bring about shame to the culprit of a crime or sin. Public humiliation does not truly serve any purpose in that a culprit like Hester would often feel guilty without having ones wrong doing displayed in front of the whole settlement. For instance, when one lies to their parents, the often feel terrible after doing so and end up being worse off than if the would have told the truth. Also, this public humiliation wrong biblically. It states in Mathew "Do not judge or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others you will be judged […]"(Mathew 7:1 and 2). This fact baffles me considering that the Puritans relied on the bible so heavily. Thus, I believe that this punishment does absolutely nothing. If a crime is not enough for some type of real punishment such as a jail sentence, then it would be better to make the culprit deal with his guilt alone. As for the town's people's reaction, I think that is fairly standard. For instance, we do the same things today like talking about how people should be punished, or even who is cheating on who. The way the towns people reacted does not surprise me because the very same things happen today.
Hester's punishment was fitting for the time. I do not agree with it but i still feel that the reactions of the townspeople would still happen today. I don't know if its exactly right but i do know that it does happen. It is just idle gossip that goes around a little bit. I personally think that we should still have public punishments. I think that punishment in public would actually be twice as effective as our current system of punishment.
Hester's punishment, to be put as a spectacle to all the townspeople because of adultry, I think is a little far fetched. It may bring a point across, but it is not neccessary to have that form of humiliation. I agree with Andrew when he brought the Bible verse from Matthew to his ideas. It is not right to judge others when you yourself are doing wrong things just like them.
Today we do not treat people to the full extent compared to those times, but yes we do have the tabloids and certain magazines with all the gossip on celebrities. This may just be the celebrities' form of punishment, but it also teaches people a lesson by reading them. Also, when someone does something wrong and is caught, what they did is all over the papers, news, or anything else. They automatically get treated like the people in the Puritan times; they just don't stand in front of everyone for humiliation.
I'm honestly not sure if public punishments would make any difference because if the people are doing bad things, then when they are caught, they will be all over the news, the paper, or something else anyways. Either way they are in the public's eyes for punishment, just maybe not literally.
i personally dont really see how the wearing of an A on one's breast can do anything to punish them. we must also consider that they were in the 1600's and the impact that something of that sort may have had on a person is almost impossible to comprehend in a society that bases everything they hear off of something they read on the internet. this punishment is almost exactly like society is today. the purpose of the letter was to let everyone know what Hester had done wrong. in society today the internet is loaded with stories about how a certain celebrity did this and that so the purpose is the same. yes it is rather malicious and flat out rude but that type of crime is not necessarily punishable by death so what else could the puritans of done about the issue. the reactions were exactly as they are today in that people are generally appalled at the fact that someone would commit audultry. so i fully understand the reaction of the townspeople granted that they are in the 17th century so their views are somewhat different than those of people today. i disagree with Ben in that public punishment is no necessary. i believe that it is a decent form of punishment to humiliate someone who hase done something wrong. for instance the crime of sexual assault, the way i see things the person who commited the crime has scared someone for life so they have no rights that society should protect (i appologize if i step on anyone's toes with that) i do understand that this also should be taken with some leeway because i cannot say that all of a person's rights should be taken away that is just plain wrong but i think that we should not have to worry about hurting a serious criminal's feelings in any sort of way. dont mistake this to be saying an eye for an eye that is not what is ment i just mean to say that we need to do this type of thing publically more often to possibly set an example for others and maybe make society a better place for everyone.
For the time period in the book, Hester's punishment was acceptable. They liked publicly humiliating people. I personally would prefer this type of punshment instead of ones that involve physical pain. I dont think that it is acceptable in todays society. Things such as adultry should stay within the family and the people effected by it. We would like to keep things like this a secret but thanks to magazines, newspapers, tabloids, etc. the whole world can find out about what you have done. I think that public punishments are effective but I dont think they are necessary. There are other punishments that are just as effective.
Hester's punishment was harsh, but effective. People should mind their own business and not judge others, but it's human nature to be curious about things. Talk shows, tabloids, and even average gossip are all here to inform us on the world and people living in it. Unfortunately a lot of this stuff is made up for entertainment purposes and to make people feel better about themselves, and their wrongdoings. Her punishment reminds me of when I flipped our golf-cart. I was totally scared to tell my mom because I figured she wouldn't let me drive, so I called my friend so I would have someone to talk to about it. Being the big-mouth that she is, she went and told everyone she knew, and of course my parents eventually found out and told the whole family about my mishap. Every Christmas since, I've "enjoyed" countless different stories of the incident, and even some of my friends, friends have teased me about it. So basically I think, although times have changed, and we’re not friends with our whole community, our misdoings still have a way of being made public, and more public punishment is definitely one of the last things people should be worried about. Finally I believe people should forgive and forget. People need to be punished, but to be humiliated for the rest of their lives is unnecessary. Everyone makes mistakes, some worse than others, but people need to eventually get over it.
I feel that the punishment of the letter is a bad choice. To some extent public humiliation is a punishment but it isnt ussually something that sticks with you. Next week everyone will be making fun of the guy down the street and they will forget about you so it just vanishes and your problem or punishment is over. In my opinion a punishment has to be something that will stick with you and constantly remind you of what not to do. I think that people are very similar now to what they were then and i believe we would react very much like they did. Everyone loves gossip whether they admitt to it or not. Everyone has done it and will do it again so i see no point in denying it. I think it would be a bad idea for public punishments now because everyone wants noticed. Criminals would have no problem with public punishment because they would be getting attention which is what they want. They would get nothing out of this punishment because they would enjoy the attention.
In the Puritan villiages, the punishments for wrongful actions usually consisted of cruel humiliation of the person that committed the action. In this case, going off the Puritan ways, I feel that the punishment was not horribly bad, and quite effective. She made a bad decision, and she was punished for it. However, I do not personally agree with the punishment. With my beliefs, i think it was a little too over the top. If the same crime were comitted today, I do not believe the punishment would be the same. Yes, there would still be much gossip, and maybe a few magazine/newspaper articles (if the person were that important), but no public humiliation. If a person made a bad decision, I believe it is no ones business but their own, and the person responsible for punishing them. Going along with that idea, I think more public punishments would be unneccisary and not as effective as it was during the time of the story.
I agree with Olivia on how, for the time period, the punishment was effective and just. It'd stick with me for a long time to stand in front of a silent audience like that. I agree with Hester's idea that a mocking crowd would be easier to face than a silent audience. Besides, Hester was pretty much humiliated in front of her whole world. I mean, where else would she be able to go and make a living by herself? That town and those people are her life and what they think of her would probably effect her deeply. Another thing to consider, being raised by such Biblical teachings and everything, wouldn't it be more of a sin than what she's already committed to try and run or hide her punishment? I guess it really depends on how long she'd have to where the letter. A few weeks could hardly be considered punishment. A few years would seem bad, but that's probably fair considering what she did. For the rest of her life would be aweful considering how, even if she learned her lesson, she'd never be free of the letter, permenatly branded until the day she'd die. And to live with the knowledge that running from or hiding it would be an even worse sin?...Talk about cruel...
Current day though, I think we do treat people in a similar fashion. Actually, let me take that back. It really depends on who did it and what exactly they did. If there was a cerial killer or a famous person who got pulled over for speeding, those receive lots or publicity, which is similar to parading people around and mocking them. But other times, it's a simple community crime. People who do smaller crimes never get that public shame and scorn, which cuts back severly on what they might actually learn from their punishment. yeh they pay a few fines, sure they spend a couple months in a cell. In the end, the money they spent they can earn back again and, looking back on it, those boring months seemed to fly by. But public humiliation like that, in front of your whole world, that'd haunt someone for years to come. So, I guess I think it would probably be a good thing if punishments became a littler more public. Worse comes to worse, if people really don't want to see a public punishment, then they can simply stay home.
wow...I typed a long one...
Sorry, my bad ><
I agree that Hester’s punishment by public humiliation was typical of that time period, and was probably not the best choice for a punishment. A person’s wrong-doing and punishment should be kept somewhat private. The magistrates of that time period most likely used these kinds of punishments more as a way of putting on a show than actual punishing. They wanted everyone to know that they would not tolerate sin, and they probably believed God would punish them all if they did not publicly disown a person who went against the laws of the church. The behavior of the townspeople is typical and remains the same today. People are always curious about everyone else’s personal affairs and are equally willing to give their personal input as to what should be done about others’ actions. However, public punishments today would not be very effective because most people would want the attention anyway, and it wouldn’t take people long to forget, especially if everyone was punished for things like adultery. Moral values are not held as high in today’s society as they have been in the past, so a lot more people would be getting publicly humiliated, reaching a point where it’s not a big deal anymore.
I agree with Greg that the punishment for the crime was right for the time (rhymed). I think that the older woman's perspective that she should be killed is way over board, maybe in her time, but definitely not now. Public humiliation does take its toll and could be considered a punishment, one that probably would change someone's behavior. We do publicly humiliate many people today still, but not because they're sentenced to it, but because we want to know information (i.e. tabloids, reporters attacking people with cameras, etc.). I join Andrew in his bafflement of the heavy reliance on the bible and the hypocritical things they did aginst it. You can't help but ask,"Why?" I think that we don't need public punishment, because no matter how much ridicule and mocking we do, it probably won't change a hardened criminal. It'll just be a slap on the wrist. We pretty much do it anyways, like I said before, on the news and in the papers.
Being put up in front of all of these godly people just to be mocked is ridculous. It disgusts me that anyone who claims to be so godly would even think of doing such a thing. Obviously she knew she did wrong. She will have a reminder of it for the rest of her life in the form of an innocent child. I mean, sure she did wrong, but don't we all. I really like the verse Andrew has. It really does bring it into a new light and I agree that if they were living by the Bible they must have missed something. I do not think that was an acceptable or even useful punishment. I do agree that we still have this kind of a punishment in our world today. It is very different because it is on millions of copies of magazines and newspapers. I think that if someone decides to pull something like shoot up the school or something they did it so that someone sould notice them so giving them the recognition seems just give them another reason to do it. Our society kind of reacts the some way theirs did. Astonished that someone would do such a thing. I think they should get over it. People mess up, which does not by any means justify their wrong doing but should help someone who has done wrong move on. That's how it works: people mess up and life moves on with or without you... I dont really know if that answers the questions so maybe I will respond again later. :)
Putting Hester on display and publicly humiliating her is not a fair punishment. Honestly I don't think any punishment is fair. Committing adultery is not something that needs to be brought to the attention of the rest of the town. In God's eyes it is just as bad as coveting a neighbor. Therefore the townspeople had no right to judge her, because they too sin. Andrew's verse about not judgeing or you too will be judged is very fitting. These people were not God and thus should not be ridiculing Hester. Today we often treat people this way. Whether it is gossiping about someone at school who was doing something scandalous the night before or tabloids boasting that britney spears is losing her kids. These people probably know that whatever they were doing is wrong; they don't have to be reminded of it by everyone else too. Public punishments seem cruel and unusual. Although being on display with everyone murmuring about what you've done would probaly bring you to your knees asking for repentence, you can realize your wrongdoings on your own time just as effectively.
I think Hester actually got off pretty easy. Normally the Puritan punishments were much worse than a harmless letter. It may have been a little embarassing and a constant reminder of what she had done wrong, but a burn on the forehead did the same thing, and it hurt. Hester's scarlet letter caused her absolutely no pain and she lived. They didn't think she was a witch, so she didn't get burnt at the stake or anything like that. The townspeople reacted to her like they would react to any other woman that committed a crime. They are always going to gossip and talk about her as she is walking down the street. These women are no different than women today. They sit around in their little coffee shops sipping their nice warm beverages and talk about EVERYTHING that is going on in the neighborhood. So in fact we still treat people the same today. There is a lot of embarassment involved in punishment and people are supposed to learn from their mistakes. As for public punishment, i think we should definately do more of it. Not only does the person that is being made a fool out of learn something, but so do the townspeople. People can start seeing what certain crimes will bring them and i'm certain nobody wants to be the laughing stock of the town. I just think that public punishments would change society's views a little bit and mess things up a little bit. We can't let people fall into a comfort zone, thinking that if they ever do anything bad, they can get off really easy. Change things up a little bit and keep people on their toes.
well congrats Brock because you did step on my toes. =]] i think that Hester's punishment was unnecessary, and public humiliation is really really unnecessary. It was no one else's business what had happened with Hester's situation. What she did in no way affected all the people of the town. They purposely went out of their way to make it their business. Don't get me wrong, I would never encourage someone to cheat on their spouse, but what goes on in one relationship is between those in the relationship. I don't think we make as big of deal today about adultery because we have learned it is more beneficial to us to mind our own business. Now I know that there are those select few that have nothing better to do with their time then stick their nose where it doesn't belong, but it is apparent that those people do not have many things going on in their life. People screw up all the time, and yes, sometimes punishment is necessary. However, public punishment is not the way to go. So Brock, I am glad you have your own opinion and I am not saying you are wrong, but if you sit and think about it, is it really your business or your right to judge and mock someone else's situation that doesn't relate to you?
Post a Comment