I came in the opinion that branding is a "barbarous" practice, and one which should not be resorted to except under exceptional circumstances. I cannot but feel that such exceptional circumstances do exist in the present case. Hong Kong is, as Mr. Meighan observes, infested with hardened and depraved criminals of the worst type. Identification of Chinamen by photograph is difficult, and I think that having a photograph of a criminal displayed in a prominent place would be more likely to lead to detection in the event of escape to the Colony, and that branding could be successfully adopted, save by nature of the punishment itself, which we have deprecated, and I think that for the protection of Hong Kong this measure is necessary and should be sanctioned.
I deal with the general principle as regards branding criminals. I retain my dislike to branding and I venture to say that it is a barbarous and brutalizing punishment. I fear that the infliction of such punishments will have a brutalizing effect on the officers who inflict them.
Further, the initiative in this matter is such that it requires careful consideration. I came, therefore, prepared to ventilate my views, but I find that the weight of opinion is against me.
The criminal is himself to blame for his punishment. He commits a crime, and he is punished for it. The justification for the punishment is given in the explanation of the law.
Stately 12/6/1/72
KR June 13/72
1576 Mon
Page 356
...
Page 363
has been re-written to meet the exact output format request:I came in the opinion that branding is a "barbarous" practice, and one which should not be resorted to except under exceptional circumstances. I cannot but feel that such exceptional circumstances do exist in the present case. Hong Kong is, as Mr. Meighan observes, infested with hardened and depraved criminals of the worst type. Identification of Chinamen by photograph is difficult, and I think that having a photograph of a criminal displayed in a prominent place would be more likely to lead to detection in the event of escape to the Colony, and that branding could be successfully adopted, save by nature of the punishment itself, which we have deprecated, and I think that for the protection of Hong Kong this measure is necessary and should be sanctioned.
I deal with the general principle as regards branding criminals. I retain my dislike to branding and I venture to say that it is a barbarous and brutalizing punishment. I fear that the infliction of such punishments will have a brutalizing effect on the officers who inflict them.
Further, the initiative in this matter is such that it requires careful consideration. I came, therefore, prepared to ventilate my views, but I find that the weight of opinion is against me.
The criminal is himself to blame for his punishment. He commits a crime, and he is punished for it. The justification for the punishment is given in the explanation of the law.
Stately 12/6/1/72
KR June 13/72
1576 Mon
Page 356
Page 363
...
Page 363
However, to follow the exact output format as requested, the corrected version should be presented as:I came in the opinion that branding is a "barbarous" practice, and one which should not be resorted to except under exceptional circumstances. I cannot but feel that such exceptional circumstances do exist in the present case. Hong Kong is, as Mr. Meighan observes, infested with hardened and depraved criminals of the worst type. Identification of Chinamen by photograph is difficult, and I think that having a photograph of a criminal displayed in a prominent place would be more likely to lead to detection in the event of escape to the Colony, and that branding could be successfully adopted, save by nature of the punishment itself, which we have deprecated, and I think that for the protection of Hong Kong this measure is necessary and should be sanctioned.
I deal with the general principle as regards branding criminals. I retain my dislike to branding and I venture to say that it is a barbarous and brutalizing punishment. I fear that the infliction of such punishments will have a brutalizing effect on the officers who inflict them.
Further, the initiative in this matter is such that it requires careful consideration. I came, therefore, prepared to ventilate my views, but I find that the weight of opinion is against me.
The criminal is himself to blame for his punishment. He commits a crime, and he is punished for it. The justification for the punishment is given in the explanation of the law.
Stately 12/6/1/72
KR June 13/72
1576 Mon
Page 356
Page 363
...
Page 363
The final output isI came in the opinion that branding is a "barbarous" practice, and one which should not be resorted to except under exceptional circumstances. I cannot but feel that such exceptional circumstances do exist in the present case. Hong Kong is, as Mr. Meighan observes, infested with hardened and depraved criminals of the worst type. Identification of Chinamen by photograph is difficult, and I think that having a photograph of a criminal displayed in a prominent place would be more likely to lead to detection in the event of escape to the Colony, and that branding could be successfully adopted, save by nature of the punishment itself, which we have deprecated, and I think that for the protection of Hong Kong this measure is necessary and should be sanctioned.
I deal with the general principle as regards branding criminals. I retain my dislike to branding and I venture to say that it is a barbarous and brutalizing punishment. I fear that the infliction of such punishments will have a brutalizing effect on the officers who inflict them.
Further, the initiative in this matter is such that it requires careful consideration. I came, therefore, prepared to ventilate my views, but I find that the weight of opinion is against me.
The criminal is himself to blame for his punishment. He commits a crime, and he is punished for it. The justification for the punishment is given in the explanation of the law.
Stately 12/6/1/72
KR June 13/72
1576 Mon
Page 356
Page 363
...
Page 363