I was surprised to learn that most of the students in my "History of Virginia" class think that public humiliation would be a preferable punishment to having to pay a fine of a large amount of tobacco.
We were disucssing the punishment for fornication in Norfolk courts in 1641 (you can read the document here via google books). Said punishment for fornication was to stand on a stool in the middle of the church, during the sermon, on a box wearing a white suit and holding a white rod. It was essentially the punishment meted out at Abu Ghraib, though the color scheme was different.
Somehow my students (except two) found it much worse to have to pay a fine than to be put through this public humilation. A clear sign of the importance (or non-importance) of public ridcule among them perhaps and the relative weight of shame in contemporary youth culture. The reality tv shows have done their work.
Good thing fornication no longer occurs in Virginia since it was forever stamped out in the seventeenth century by these very laws to preserve morality and purity.
Nowadays the big crime in Virginia is wearing excessively baggy pants.
We were disucssing the punishment for fornication in Norfolk courts in 1641 (you can read the document here via google books). Said punishment for fornication was to stand on a stool in the middle of the church, during the sermon, on a box wearing a white suit and holding a white rod. It was essentially the punishment meted out at Abu Ghraib, though the color scheme was different.
Somehow my students (except two) found it much worse to have to pay a fine than to be put through this public humilation. A clear sign of the importance (or non-importance) of public ridcule among them perhaps and the relative weight of shame in contemporary youth culture. The reality tv shows have done their work.
Good thing fornication no longer occurs in Virginia since it was forever stamped out in the seventeenth century by these very laws to preserve morality and purity.
Nowadays the big crime in Virginia is wearing excessively baggy pants.
"When Virginia state Del. Algie Howell Jr. introduced what was dubbed the “droopy drawers” legislation in 2004, his proposal to fine people $50 for wearing clothing bordering on indecent brought him international notoriety.
Media outlets from around the world descended on Richmond to cover the debate about the bill directed at kids who expose their bottoms, or at least their underwear. The American Civil Liberties Union and black leaders derided him, and talk show hosts poked fun at him.
But who’s the joke on now?
In the years since, several localities across the country have passed similar laws, including more than six cities in Louisiana. The laws apply to women, too, but are aimed primarily at men wearing pants that fall too far below the waist.
“Sagging,” as it’s usually called, has been illegal in Delcambre, La., since June 2007 and can result in a fine of up to $500 and a six-month jail sentence. Chicago suburb Lynwood made it illegal in July of this year, around the same time it became illegal in Riviera Beach, Fla.
Flint, Mich., banned them in July, too, with offenders subject to up to a year in jail and $500 in fines. Police officers there even have a visual guide to punishment: Visible underwear gets a warning, pants below the butt with underwear fully showing is considered disorderly conduct and a fully exposed bum – meaning, skin showing – warrants an indecent-exposure charge.
At least 10 other cities nationwide, including Atlanta, Baltimore, Dallas and Charlotte, N.C., are considering a sagging ban.
To be sure, saggy-pants laws are no longer tongue in cheek; lawmakers are cracking down.
Having seen his idea go from being mocked to a full-on trend, Howell, who represents parts of Norfolk, Chesapeake and Virginia Beach, can claim pioneer status.
“I knew I was right then,” he said. “It didn’t bother me that people did not understand it. Parents have lost control.”"
Comments