In Defense of Flogging

[Alias]

I stand corrected.

So, um --- no flogging except for child-beaters?

[Alias]

Why there is punishment and what we want to achieve with it:

Revenge and retaliation: Crime must not pay.
Deterrence: By punishing prevent it from happening again and prevent others from doing it.
Prevention of own direction: The government punishes and not the citizens.
Resocialization: (= re-education) Improving the behavior by punishment.
Security of society: Protecting society against repetition.

A list in another language can still be incorrect.

Revenge and retaliation are not identical (hence 'and'). Revenge is inflicted by a person who has been hurt or wronged or deprived of something, to appease his anger. Retaliation is striking back - personal or societal - against an attack; it can be equal to the attack or more forceful.
Neither means "Crime must not pay". Hurting the criminal is unnecessary to achieve that goal: it's enough to take away the ill-gotten gains and prevent the wrongdoer from achieving whatever objective motivated the crime.
For example, if a student is caught cheating on an exam, she automatically fails; does not benefit from the crime.
Whatever extra punishment is added, it's for some other purpose.

Resocialization and education are never achieved through punishment.

[Arjen]

I stand corrected.

So, um --- no flogging except for child-beaters?

Child beaters definitely deserve a good flogging and some education on how to raise children.
I do think that in some cases corporeal punishment is a deterrent, but I think for long term purposes, it might not work so well. Just like beating children has an adverse effect. But, the argument in the OP was that criminals might prefer a flogging. I say that this depends on the severity and duration of the flogging as relating to the duration of the incarceration.

Revenge and retaliation are not identical (hence 'and'). Revenge is inflicted by a person who has been hurt or wronged or deprived of something, to appease his anger. Retaliation is striking back - personal or societal - against an attack; it can be equal to the attack or more forceful.
Neither means "Crime must not pay". Hurting the criminal is unnecessary to achieve that goal: it's enough to take away the ill-gotten gains and prevent the wrongdoer from achieving whatever objective motivated the crime.
For example, if a student is caught cheating on an exam, she automatically fails; does not benefit from the crime.
Whatever extra punishment is added, it's for some other purpose.

Resocialization and education are never achieved through punishment.

I agree, but society still demands revenge.
And, no punishment is also a bad thing in a society.
It would make crime pay, after all.

[Judaka]

That is what you said and you just did t again

Once again, no. That flogging is not as great of a deterrent or as good at satisying the victims and relatives, it has many diffeences you haven't talked about yet.

It's cheaper by an extreme margin to flog people.
Prisons can serve as "prison schools" which educate people on how to commit further crime.
Harm can come to you in prison which was not part of your sentence, this cannot happen in flogging.
Flogging allows the criminal to immediately attempt to re-enter society constructively.

The way I might argue for flogging, why would that require me to use your list of differences? I've only talked about two things in this thread, why flogging might be more immoral than prison and about your list of comparisons. There is no need to jump to conclusions at my expense when all I've done is point out things which are correct in accordance with both your and my understanding.

Now comparing flogging vs prison of 3-4 years might have some merit but because I know so little about flogging and its effects, I can't really have an intelligent discussion about something so specific.

[Alias]

[Resocialization and education are never achieved through punishment.]

I agree, but society still demands revenge.

Are you sure? Who speaks for "society" and how do you know it's representative of what people want?
When asked about this on a poll, are the respondents presented with better alternatives?

And, no punishment is also a bad thing in a society. It would make crime pay, after all.

As pointed out above, taking away the fruits of criminal acts is sufficient to keep crime from paying.
Anything inflicted on the miscreant beyond that is simply to make him suffer.
Whatever form that suffering takes is entirely without a useful product. It may cost society little or much, but it's never a net gain:

Even if the prisoners are put to work making mailbags, uniforms and license plates, a prison is far more expensive to maintain than a factory.
Nor do the people who feel angry over the crime get any satisfaction from the suffering, since it takes place behind high walls: their 'revenge' is purely theoretical, carried out by people with no emotional stake in the matter (unless they're sadists, in which case, they benefit unfairly). Society does not gain many reformed criminals in the productive work-force: the job training is inadequate and employers are mostly unwilling to hire them; after some kinds of crime, they can't even find a place to live. So they're either a drain on the welfare system, or commit more crimes to survive.
Most of the justifications are bogus.
And when you think about the victimless crimes, and "crimes" that are the result of outlawing normal human behaviour, society has nothing to gain - not even a petty pleasure at someone's misfortune - by punishing them.

The real reason is superstition. It's in the Bible or Quran or some damn book full of a god's wrath at being disobeyed.
If we seriously wanted to reduce crime, we could find more intelligent, more effective ways.

[Arjen]

Are you sure? Who speaks for "society" and how do you know it's representative of what people want?
When asked about this on a poll, are the respondents presented with better alternatives?

With society, in this case I meant the people in it. I will just give a literary example:

If you prick us, do we not bleed?
if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison
us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not
revenge?

Believe it or not, people want revenge.

As pointed out above, taking away the fruits of criminal acts is sufficient to keep crime from paying.

It is not.
1) It is a hard thing to figure out just how much a thief has stolen over the years.
2) People spend what they steal.
==> Conclusion, it cannot be taken away.

In different situations, like sexual crimes, there is no taking away at all.

But most of all, even in the simple case of a 1 time theft, taking that away without punishment sends the message that it is ok to commit a crime, because you will never be the lesser for it. And if you are not caught, you take the bounty of the crime. So, reasons to commit crime suddenly abound.






I want to ask you if you are a parent?
Being a parent changed my perspective.
I do not punish harshly, but my son certainly doesn't like being sent to his room.
I need it to end a situation and to show him things went too far.
Then, I let him think there a little while.
And then I talk with him about what happened.
There are times the he really doesn't want to listen or stop whatever he is breaking.
He is 5, so I am not worried, but it does show what people can be like.
I just thought that might help you understand a little bit more.

[Alias]

[Who speaks for "society" .... are the respondents presented with better alternatives?]
With society, in this case I meant the people in it. I will just give a literary example:

You asked every one? And they all quoted Shylock's speech about the humanity of Jews?
Strange. I might go so far as to say incredible.

Believe it or not, people want revenge.

Some people do; perhaps most. But they each have a notion of what that revenge should be and how they would prefer to administer it. They do not all voluntarily leave the decision and the application of revenge up to a third party.
[As pointed out above, taking away the fruits of criminal acts is sufficient to keep crime from paying.]

It is not.
1) It is a hard thing to figure out just how much a thief has stolen over the years.
2) People spend what they steal.
==> Conclusion, it cannot be taken away.

In different situations, like sexual crimes, there is no taking away at all.

Then they've already profited and you can't undo that by punishing them.

But most of all, even in the simple case of a 1 time theft, taking that away without punishment sends the message that it is ok to commit a crime, because you will never be the lesser for it.

That's a different matter from "must not pay". As i said, whatever punishment is assigned after the ill-gotten gains have been taken back is for a different reason. You simply confirmed that the reason to "send a message" to someone else; i.e. deterrence, which was listed separately.

And if you are not caught, you take the bounty of the crime. So, reasons to commit crime suddenly abound.

Nothing sudden about it. Every criminal's intention is avoid capture. If they expected to be caught, they wouldn't bother committing a crime.

I want to ask you if you are a parent?
Being a parent changed my perspective.

That doesn't answer any of the questions about justice or how a society can most effectively deal with crime.

I do not punish harshly, but my son certainly doesn't like being sent to his room.
I need it to end a situation and to show him things went too far.
Then, I let him think there a little while.
And then I talk with him about what happened.
There are times the he really doesn't want to listen or stop whatever he is breaking.

So then you take revenge by asking your neighbour to spank him or keep him in the basement for a week?
And you believe that will make him a better boy?

[Arjen]

I don't think we are going to be able to come closer together in this case.

[Alias]

Okay.

[meaningful_products]

Peter Moskos, a sociology professor at CUNY, wrote a book on incarceration in America titled In Defense of Flogging.

Readers are asked the following question: Imagine that you have been convicted of a crime and presented with the choice between serving a 10 years sentence in prison or being tied to a pole and given ten brutal lashes for your crime, which would you choose?

In the author's estimation, virtually everyone would choose the lashes over the prison sentence. I know that I would choose the lashes, and the small sample of acquaintances (n= 10 or so) felt the same way. This leads to two questions about our system of criminal justice:

1) Flogging is generally considered a brutal and inhumane form of punishment, but if people would prefer flogging to prison what does that tell us about how awful the prison system is?

2) Since, if given the option, people would choose to be flogged as an alternative to incarceration, then does it appear one can make a solid moral argument that flogging should be allowed as a form of punishment?

What do you all think?

1.) If people preferred it, then it would not be awful by definition.

2.) I distinguish optional flogging with mandatory flogging. The issue I think is whether humans have come to the opinion that optional flogging should be implemented in the prison system.

[Arjen]

2.) I distinguish optional flogging with mandatory flogging. The issue I think is whether humans have come to the opinion that optional flogging should be implemented in the prison system.

Sounds like a sado-masochists heaven.
"I need a good whipping today master"

[athena]

The logic flaws in your post are accentuated if you substitute "wedgey" for "flogging". Of course convicts would prefet it: because it isn't much of a punishment and does less than zero to protect the community.

What evidence do you have that flogging does less than zero to protect the community? I would bet you are wrong. I would bet flogging is very effective in changing behavior.

I remember a few years back when an American youth was sentenced to flogging in China and there was an international uproar.

The 19-year-old American who was caned in Singapore for vandalism says the bleeding it caused was "like a bloody nose."

The teen-ager, Michael P. Fay, said in an interview on Saturday that the four strokes with a rattan cane on May 5 had left three dark-brown scars on his right buttock and four lines each about half an inch wide on his left buttock.
https://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/27/us/t ... scars.html

I think there is a lot of psychological impact to this. Not just on the person who is caned but the whole community. It is a clear statement that what was done was wrong and the community will not tolerate such behavior. That social agreement is important. I bet every time the young man thought of breaking a rule he thought of the caning and decided to follow the rules because the drive to protect ourselves from harm or pain is pretty strong.

Next, it is cost effective and far more humane than what we are doing today. Our prison system is costly, ineffective and inhumane. Preventing people from having jobs and housing for life because what is in a file, as is the case in the US today, is just wrong. In my opinion, a caning and getting on with one's life is better and I would like to see some research that proves this right or wrong.

[athena]

1.) If people preferred it, then it would not be awful by definition.

2.) I distinguish optional flogging with mandatory flogging. The issue I think is whether humans have come to the opinion that optional flogging should be implemented in the prison system.

We are in agreement that people are brutalized in our prisons, right?

Cook County Jail guard beating prisoner - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtxewSiTQ-w
Video for video prison guard beating a man▶ 1:08
Apr 20, 2016 - Uploaded by Better Government Association
Correctional officer still has job, avoids criminal charges in spite of graphic video showing him pummeling ...

In the Micheal Moore movie, "Where to Invade Next" is a similar prison video of a man being beaten that is even worse. This is not the only inhumane problem.

[Consul]

What actually happens when you get flogged

[athena]

What actually happens when you get flogged

That was an interesting read. What is being used to flog someone, the skill of the flogger and number of times a person is lashed, matter. I am sure with this information we can increase the safety of flogging. The problem is, considering the alternative is prison, flogging could be the better choice.

I like what Scott said about alternatives such as rehabilitation and my favor restitution. I think although we are not flogging people we still do not have a correction system based on science and human concerns.