Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So there's a general consensus in the west today that corporal punishment administered by the judiciary is a bad thing. But in a world full of overcrowded prisons, in which young people who do commit crimes are simply cautioned, fined, put on suspended sentences or, if worst comes to worse, interred along with others who will simply perpetuate and further train their criminal tendencies, are law-breakers actually deterred and punished?

I understand a general feeling against corporal punishment; like caning or whipping is that it is unjustly cruel and legitimises violence in the mind of the victim. But is this a valid point? I'll admit that my reading on this is solely Wikipedia, for I am the curious peasant that trawls said site to solve all life's problems. At any rate, the article on corporal punishment has the following as a defense against the aforementioned:

The professor of philosophy, David Benatar, points out that using this last argument, fining people also teaches that forcing others to give up some of their property is an acceptable response to unwanted behaviour in others. "Why don't detentions, imprisonments, fines, and a multitude of other punishments convey equally undesirable messages?" According to Benatar, the key difference lies in the legitimacy of the authority administering the punishment: "[T]here is all the difference in the world between legitimate authorities—the judiciary, parents, or teachers—using punitive powers responsibly to punish wrongdoing, and children or private citizens going around beating each other, locking each other up, and extracting financial tributes (such as lunch money). There is a vast moral difference here and there is no reason why children should not learn about it. Punishing children when they do wrong seems to be one important way of doing this."

Thoughts? It seems to me like society today is already failing kids. And I think the point about legitimacy is fair enough; if we take the logic levelled against corporal punishment and apply it to other punishments, does incarceration or 'state robbery' (through fines) not legitimise those crimes?

It seems that we're overly compassionate when, really, we should be avoiding getting people into prison at all costs - because rehabilitation seems too elusive in there. Yet, if to avoid sentencing criminals to prison, it seems that all you get are suspended sentences, cautions and fines.

Isn't corporal punishment a quick, cheap and effective means of instilling 'the fear of God' into wrong-doers?

Every generation is worse than the one that went before. Unless, you know, you look at them objectively. There have always been people who break the law, or behave poorly, etc. The death penalty, transportation, corporal punishment and inprisonment have all been used for various crimes at various times with various levels of 'success'and acceptance.

While I think the option should be there, not really sure that it should be the go to method of punishment.

Though I would love to see a return of the stocks...

SilverMK2 wrote:Though I would love to see a return of the stocks...

We're in agreement. The stocks should be an option to minor social crimes, such as public lewdness or public drunkenness.

It's easier than Jail, cheaper than jail, more humiliating than jail, and it can be a better deterrent than jail.

I'm okay with corporal punishment, but only from parents. Tell you, when my Da slapped me, I just endured, but if a teacher lifted a hand 'gainst me, he'd end up picking his teeth from the ground (this hints another problem I'll issue as well).

We're too benevolent, as you say, parents too lenient, and as I see, when a parent dares ta give a timely slap to their kids, others around look at him/her as if he/she was some kid of monster.

What's worse, not sure there, but here my generation suffer from fathers that try to be more friends than parents. I had friend's fathers buy'n booze and cigars for them while we where 15. Most where irritant and thought they where entitled to have wathever they wanted.

Teachers on the other side, have lost all of their authority, specially 'cause parents undermine it. There was a sattire drawing on the newspapers, both had a student with horrible grades, panel A was "20 years ago" and both parents and the teacher where scolding the student, panel B was "nowadays" and parents where scolding the teacher because his son was not passing.

Add a (totally irresponsible) "I send my kids to be educated" attitude from parents and a "I'm not here to educate but to instruct" attitude from professors and we then should be thankfull that we're not in an even worse situation.

So yeah, a good ole slap in time may prevent lots of problems later.

I personally am in favour of both Corporal and Capital punishment. But only if done "right" (I know that's a very subjective definition ) It seems to me that for every criminal given life in prison; there are thousands more, who commit similar offences, that get off with much much less.

Corporal punishment I think would definitely act as a much bigger incentive to not commit (relatively minor) crimes. Nowadays all these "ASBOs" and s te seem to be collected and held as badges of honour amongst the scumbags of society. Might it be more of a deterrent to have them publically humiliated and even hurt in the process with a whipping for example? I can see the scars such a punishment might entail to also be collected like badges of honour, but even so, I think less people would be likely to want to collect them, or be repeat offenders.

It would also remove those in prisons for short term punishments, leading to more spaces for the longer term sentences.

Capital punishment is in a similar vein; I'm in favour of this (I know you yanks still have it in some states, but we haven't had it here for decades IIRC, although the Isle of Man still has the death sentence I believe), again, if done "right". By this I mean I don't think it should be a punishment passed around willy-nilly for parking ticket offences. This would be the punishment wheeled out for the major crimes, like serial-killings etc. It would also only be brought in only on a case-by-case basis.

Just my £0.02p I do think this could be an interesting discussion.

This thread reminds me of something a cantankerous neighbor of mine once said: "I love America. I love what it stands for: truth, justice, and freedom. The only trouble with America is that it's not enough like Saudi Arabia." Okay, I might have paraphrased. But he was definitely arguing that thieves should have their hands chopped off.

I trust that, since you're saying that students don't really respect their teachers, you're not suggesting that it is right that you would have kicked your teacher's teeth out if he'd lain a hand on you?

Because, if anything, teachers should be a young person's most frequent point of contact with a state; they're entrusted with their care and (along with parents) to make young people productive members of society. Ergo teachers should be perceived as legitimate organs of the state - so saying you'd hit one for trying to exercise authority over you betrays a problem, I think.

I'm all for it. Kids today are trash for the most part. Only way to is up, so I say drop this leniency BS and start whuppin yo kids.

Also, there is a difference between spanking them and beating them.

This thread also reminds me of how John Wagner conceived of Judge Dredd as a parody of fascism but then got a lot of letters from the fans saying they thought Britain would be better off with the Justice Department of Mega City 1 in charge.

Henners91 wrote:I trust that, since you're saying that students don't really respect their teachers, you're not suggesting that it is right that you would have kicked your teacher's teeth out if he'd lain a hand on you?

Exactly. Een when I was at highschool, no one respects them and I feel they do little to earn any respect.

So aye, if they hit me, I'd hit back, like if some random dude did it.

Henners91 wrote:Because, if anything, teachers should be a young person's most frequent point of contact with a state; they're entrusted with their care and (along with parents) to make young people productive members of society. Ergo teachers should be perceived as legitimate organs of the state - so saying you'd hit one for trying to exercise authority over you betrays a problem, I think.

When parents belittle teachers in front of their kids, you can't expect kids to respect and take teachers seriously.

Tbh my prime inspiration is Starship Troopers... there's a pretty good section where Mr. Dubois gives a long rant about the flaws of 'liberal' social policies with regards to treating crime.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If people are interested, it's pretty much a better-argued version of what i was saying:

http://www.magma.ca/~yeti/troopers.html

The section starts right at the top

Thing is, we can't seem to find the "middle term", and we always go from one extreme to the other.

We're either too authoritarial or too liberal...

@Henners91: Do you think that it weakens the character's argument that none of this actually come to pass since 1959?

The main thrust of these arguments, link included, is that our judicial system isn't completely ineffective, merely overworked.

Not long ago the stats came out that 1 in 100 people in the U.S. was incarcerated. At that same time, 2 in 3 prisoners was in for drug related charges, the vast majority of which were related to marijuana offenses.

Think about that.

Roughly 2 of every 300 (1 of every 150) people in the United States was locked up for marijuana related charges. Many states have begun to decriminalize marijuana, not because they suddenly realize the drug was is a big waste of time, but because the burden placed on the judicial system for marijuana was completely overwhelming.

Want a more effective judicial system, try getting one that's not bogged down with pointless lawsuits and prohibition mark II, and maybe we'll be able to start working on making it a fair judicial system.

Retributive approaches to dealing with crime are just plain silly to begin with. Deterrence is basically a myth and is about as effective method for preventing serious crime as blood letting is at preventing cancer.

The number of people willing to make a serious break from society by violating it's rules in a big, but who are also going to be stopped by fear of going to jail is incredibly small. Those that feel detached from society or who are part of a culture that embraces what the mainstream considers to be crime are similarly pretty far beyond bring the potential consequences into their decision making process.

People who are heated emotionally, intoxicated or otherwise committing a crime outside a clear state of mind aren't considering ANYTHING, much less their possible punishments.

EDIT: I may have misread the OP. Are you talking about beating kids in school? Similarly stupid for pretty much the same reasons above, only more so because they're children.

Manchu wrote:@Henners91: Do you think that it weakens the character's argument that none of this actually come to pass since 1959?

I think sci-fi has a habit of saying things will happen much sooner than they actually do; likely to give us a feeling of connection to the future (Terminator wouldn't have been a good film if judgment day were in the year 2400 )

Admittedly things aren't so bad here that we have youthes in the streets with chains and whatnot come nightfall (but I should stress that this scene is actually in the Phillipines; no idea if that might be the case over there ;P)

But take these excerpts:

"They had many more police than we have. And more courts. All overworked."

these young criminals -- They probably were not spanked as babies; they certainly were not flogged for their crimes. The usual sentence was: for a first offence, a warning -- a scolding, often without trial. After several offenses a sentence of confinement but with sentence suspended and the youngster placed on probation. A boy might be arrested may times and convicted several times before he was punished -- and then it would be merely confinement, with others like him from whom he learned still more criminal habits. If he kept out of major trouble while confined, he could usually evade most of even that mild punishment, be given probation -- 'paroled' in the jargon of the times.

"This incredible sequence could go on for years while his crimes increased in frequency and viciousness, with no punishment whatever save rare dull-but-comfortable confinements. Then suddenly, usually by law on his eighteenth birthday, this so-called 'juvenile delinquent' becomes an adult criminal -- and sometimes wound up in only weeks or months in a death cell awaiting execution for murder."

Can you not relate to those? The puppy analogy wraps up rather nicely at the end; you shoot it dead because you failed it.

Necroshea wrote:I'm all for it. Kids today are trash for the most part. Only way to is up, so I say drop this leniency BS and start whuppin yo kids.

Also, there is a difference between spanking them and beating them.

Was society a better, fairer, more just place when corporal punishment was commonplace? That's the only real way of judging the quality of "kids", right?

Chongara wrote:Retributive approaches to dealing with crime are just plain silly to begin with. Deterrence is basically a myth and is about as effective method for preventing serious crime as blood letting is at preventing cancer.

When one's an adult maybe; by then you should have understood what's right 'n' wrong. But surely kids and young 'uns should be treated differently? A child is not a fully-rounded and developed human being - at young ages they probably don't even have a three digit IQ. Pain = something is bad. Don't do it again.

Following that logic with a child from birth - is there not a point to be made that morality might have been instilled in them by adulthood? We are not born knowing the values of citizenship.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:

Necroshea wrote:I'm all for it. Kids today are trash for the most part. Only way to is up, so I say drop this leniency BS and start whuppin yo kids.

Also, there is a difference between spanking them and beating them.

Was society a better, fairer, more just place when corporal punishment was commonplace? That's the only real way of judging the quality of "kids", right?

One might ask if society was safer and if people knew their places within it.

When discussing history, it's a bad idea to factor in discussions about equality and whatnot; because that doesn't exactly relate to this discussion and is just going to skew things when we consider that history was generally 'worse' from a material perspective. Just because past societies were not as prosperous or enlightened when it came to classes/castes doesn't mean that they didn't know how to raise children.

When one's an adult maybe; by then you should have understood what's right 'n' wrong. But surely kids and young 'uns should be treated differently? A child is not a fully-rounded and developed human being - at young ages they probably don't even have a three digit IQ. Pain = something is bad. Don't do it again.

Following that logic with a child from birth - is there not a point to be made that morality might have been instilled in them by adulthood? We are not born knowing the values of citizenship.

Beating kids doesn't accomplish anything except making them more prone to violence and erratic behaviour.

This has been studied extensively and very well documented.

Henners91 wrote:Can you not relate to those? The puppy analogy wraps up rather nicely at the end; you shoot it dead because you failed it.

And yet, as relatable to the present as those excerpts may be, we don't actually shoot many puppies. And a substantial amount of us reject the notion that any puppies should be shot. And this lenient, compassionate, soft society has not been overwhelmed by crime and shows no signs of being overwhelmed by crime in the future. Arguably, life has never been as good for as many people as right now.

The keystone of fascism as a lived reality is the myth of "what must be done." Once you find that the thing to be done doesn't actually achieve anything except justification of its own pursuit, the myth dissolves.

I disagree, I think that if a society that not prosperous, just or enlighted by definition didn't know how to raise their children for at least several generations, no?

Otherwise, how do you quantify a society that does well at childrearing? By how effectively the populace "knows their place"? I think the question needs to be better defined before we can work on the question. What metrics are we using?

Chongara wrote:

When one's an adult maybe; by then you should have understood what's right 'n' wrong. But surely kids and young 'uns should be treated differently? A child is not a fully-rounded and developed human being - at young ages they probably don't even have a three digit IQ. Pain = something is bad. Don't do it again.

Following that logic with a child from birth - is there not a point to be made that morality might have been instilled in them by adulthood? We are not born knowing the values of citizenship.

Beating kids doesn't accomplish anything except making them more prone to violence and erratic behaviour.

This has been studied extensively and very well documented.

Then what do you have to say to the points I copied off of Wikipedia?

Namely that surely a kid must distinguish between *who* is dealing the violence?

Does fining somebody make them think it's acceptable to mug people for their possessions? Because that's what the state is effectively doing to the defendant.

If one can accept the person acting against them as a legitimate body, then they can differentiate their actions from those of the higher power.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:

Henners91 wrote:Can you not relate to those? The puppy analogy wraps up rather nicely at the end; you shoot it dead because you failed it.

And yet, as relatable to the present as those excerpts may be, we don't actually shoot many puppies. And a substantial amount of us reject the notion that any puppies should be shot. And this lenient, compassionate, soft society has not been overwhelmed by crime and shows no signs of being overwhelmed by crime in the future. Arguably, life has never been as good for as many people as right now.

The keystone of fascism as a lived reality is the myth of "what must be done." Once you find that the thing to be done doesn't actually achieve anything except justification of its own pursuit, the myth dissolves.

We don't shoot puppies; and they're allowed to continue to be a problem.

If that puppy had been raised as badly as it was in the analogy, well, it became a threat to everyone - no? Imagine a dog that was effectively feral being kept as a pet!

Though, granted, this is a case of judging the analogy rather than the reality - life is better than it has been, that's certainly the case. But is there a problem with exploring other options? Because the criminal system doesn't seem to work; at least, that's what the Daily Mail would tell us.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:I disagree, I think that if a society that not prosperous, just or enlighted by definition didn't know how to raise their children for at least several generations, no?

Otherwise, how do you quantify a society that does well at childrearing? By how effectively the populace "knows their place"? I think the question needs to be better defined before we can work on the question. What metrics are we using?

Hrm, I'd say keep it basic and just look at street crime, but I can't really think of a time that 'had it better' than we do. If I were feeling cynical I might ask 'when were kids less entitled and assuming of their own greatness?' that is - it seems that society is a tad too enabling toward kids who don't really have much in the way of talent or skills.

SilverMK2 wrote:Every generation is worse than the one that went before. Unless, you know, you look at them objectively. There have always been people who break the law, or behave poorly, etc. The death penalty, transportation, corporal punishment and inprisonment have all been used for various crimes at various times with various levels of 'success'and acceptance.

While I think the option should be there, not really sure that it should be the go to method of punishment.

Though I would love to see a return of the stocks...

This is such an important element that people miss. You can not judge historical cultures by today's standards and yet people continue to do so time and time again.

Henners91 wrote:Because the criminal system doesn't seem to work; at least, that's what the Daily Mail would tell us.

From what I understand, the Daily Mail is written by people who think Starship Troopers is a non-fiction book.

buh-zing!

Henners91 wrote:
Namely that surely a kid must distinguish between *who* is dealing the violence?

Not in any meaningful fashion. Ultimately the takeaway message is "I was doing something [Dad/Teacher/Grandma] didn't want me to and they beat me" this tends to translate into
"When some is doing something you don't' want them to do, or you want them to do something they don't' want to do force them with violence if needed" or
"[Dad]/[Teacher]/[Grandma] was able to get what they wanted (changing my behaviour) through violence. Violence is a good problem solving tool".

Generally speaking when an authority figure does it, the only thing that can change is to further reinforce the idea that "Violence = Legitimate way to deal with things.. Because hey, the authority figure is using it"

They'll also tend to try and avoid future beatings not by changing their behavior, but by trying not to get caught in the act. This is because ultimately a beating doesn't really say very much about the behaviour you're trying correct.

Necroshea wrote:I'm all for it. Kids today are trash for the most part. Only way to is up, so I say drop this leniency BS and start whuppin yo kids.

I love it when XKCD can sum up one's feelings.

I think there should be a choice between Death or Life in Prison.

rockerbikie wrote:I think there should be a choice between Death or Life in Prison.

I don't. If you kill 5≤ people in the first or second degree, you die. You don't get to live the rest of your life. You do not pass go. You do not collect 200 dollars.

Monsters shouldn't be treated nicely.

Chowderhead wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:I think there should be a choice between Death or Life in Prison.

I don't. If you kill 5≤ people in the first or second degree, you die. You don't get to live the rest of your life. You do not pass go. You do not collect 200 dollars.

Monsters shouldn't be treated nicely.

I agree with you but the backlash from the Human Rights and the Liberal groups would be too much. If people want him to die that much just say he wanted to die anyway.