Page 1562 : PUNIC WARS — PUNISHMENT
Individual articles:
sion of words from a quotation; the index (☞) used to point out any particular sentence or statement; the star or asterisk (*), the dagger (†), the double dagger (‡), the section (§), the parallel (‖), the paragraph (¶), which refer to notes at the tottom of the column or page or at the end of the article or chapter. There are numerous rules for the use of these various points, but perhaps no two writers or printers would agree as to the proper point to be used in all cases. Good judgment and taste and a certain amount of practice are essential to anyone who would punctuate in such a manner as to secure the fundamental object of punctuation — the expression of the sense. To illustrate the aid that punctuation will sometimes render to an understanding of the sense of any composition, take the following example:
Every lady in the land
Has twenty nails on each hand
Five and twenty on hands and feet
This is true without deceit.
Now read the same properly punctuated:
Every lady in the land
Has twenty nails; on each hand
Five, and twenty on hands and feet
This is true without deceit.
To show how punctuation may sometimes vary the sense of any speaker or writer, the following example will serve: A member of the English house of commons called one of his fellow members a liar and was compelled publicly to apologize for the offense. He did so by rising in his place and meekly saying: “I said he was a liar, it is true; and I am sorry for it.” The apology was deemed sufficient; but in the newspaper which published an account of the matter the next day, the apology was printed thus: “I said he was a liar; it is true, and I am sorry for it.” See Proof-Reading.
Pu′nic Wars. This is the name commonly given to those contests which occurred between Rome and Carthage for the supremacy of the western world. The Romans called the Carthaginians Punici, in allusion to their Phoenician descent. The Romans never trusted their foes in the matter of their treaties, and so came to speak of Punic faith as synonymous with treachery. The wars between Rome and Carthage are under the nimes of these cities or are told in the biographies of the commanders engaged. The first Punic War broke out in 264 B. C.; the second in 218 B. C.; and the third in 149 B. C.
Pun′ishment. The methods by which society has dealt with those who break its regulations have in the course of history suffered radical changes. Four stages in this evolution may be noted. The earliest of these is that in which retaliation is the dominant motive. This method is illustrated by the ancient Hebrew law: “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” Acceding to it, every injury committed by any individual was punished by inflicting a similar injury upon him, and justice required that these injuries should as nearly as possible be the same in character and amount. Psychologically this theory is founded on the instinct of revenge, and, like all instinctive acts, that of retaliation is adapted, though somewhat crudely, to an end — in this case that of terrifying the wrongdoer. Among civilized men, as among the brutes, the fear of wrath and revenge checks many an impulse to harm one’s fellows. It will be noticed, however, that the instinct does not secure justice to the weak, whose revenge is not an object of dread; nor does it impose justice upon the powerful, who do not fear the anger of the weaker over whom they tyrannize. When, however, the state begins to interfere with private feuds and strengthen itself by administering equal justice to all, whether feeble or powerful, the limitations of the instinctive method of securing justice are to some extent removed. The notion that retaliation is the aim of punishment prevails long after the state has assumed the administration of justice. Eventually, however, the community comes to realize that retaliation is not the aim of public punishments, but rather the deterring of its members from committing similar offenses. Punishment does not need the broken law, nor does it compensate the injured party except when it takes the form of a fine for his benefit. It does, however, in a startling fashion reveal the probable consequences of crime, and this comes to be recognized as its true purpose. In punishment, for example, attention usually is not fixed on the welfare of the offender but, rather, on that of society. It is natural to suppose that the severer the penalty the more effective its influence in preventing crime. Blackstone cites 160 crimes that, according to the English law of his day, were punishable by death. In the latter part of the 18th century a movement for reform in the treatment of criminals began, led by John Howard (q. v.), the great philanthropist. As a result of this the penalties of many crimes became less severe and the treatment of those imprisoned far more humane. Society began to feel that there had been far too little charity in the treatment of criminals. The theory that punishment should be for the protection of society from the offender himself rather than to terrify prospective offenders by the spectacle of his wretched fate began to appear. Public executions, various forms of torture, the exposure of the bodies of executed malefactors, the pillory, the stocks, the whipping post — all gradually disappear. Instead, the criminal is kept imprisoned so that he will not harm others. Hard labor and confinement have replaced torture of all kinds. Care is taken
