I don't usually start these kinds of discussions, but I've got a cold on a Friday and another thread got me thinking about corporal punishment.
Here's my question: Where did society get the idea that progress means moving away from corporal punishment?
I'm not going to say that corporal punishment is the cure-all for society's problems, but I am curious as to why it is not even an option, legally speaking, anymore. Compared to the current system of imprisonment, it does have some apparent advantages. Here's what I've come up with sitting in front of the computer in the last few minutes:
1) Corporal punishment is violent, and the lack of violence in society equals progress. I have issues with this because society is inherently violent. Whether your society functions through violence or the threat of violence makes little difference. Western societies have evolved to the point that the threat of violence is sufficient to control people. Society will do what is necessary to control you -- if you go along peacefully, great, if not you'll get restrained, beaten, shot, tasered, or whatever until you are under control. Of course, there is a difference between lawful violence - that which is sanctioned by law and applied relatively even-handeddly -- and indiscriminate violence prevalent in mob rule or vigilante justice. But western society is kidding itself if it believes that its "civilization" is not enforced through violence.
2) Corporal punishment is cruel and unusual. Of course this depends on society's definition of "cruel and unusual." Where did we get the idea that beating a man is cruel or unusual, while locking him in a small room with little opportunity to make right for his crimes, or prepare to do right in the future is somehow not cruel or unusual? For as long as man has been around, he has understood violence. Don't stick your hand in a fire, or it will hurt. Don't slam your hand in a door -- it hurts. Don't steal from someone - it hurts when they catch you. These concepts definately are not unusual. What is unusual is the idea that man can be confined to a cage for years on end, with no purpose other than watching the calendar tick by the days.
I can begin to answer my own question, historically speaking: Back in the day some guy got the idea that men could be locked away to do penance for their crimes -- in a "penitentiary." Ok, that's a decent idea, but that has been lost on modern societies (at least American society) that makes little effort to get its criminals to do penance for their crime.
Now, going back to my criminal justice classes, punishment serves four purposes in society: retribution, restitution, incapacitation, and deterrence. How are these purposes served by corporal punishment, as opposed to imprisonment?
--Retribution. Served equally by both corporal punishment and imprisonment, but it's relative. Either way it sucks for the convicted, but which sucks more is of course judged by each person individually.
--Restitution. Neither of these punishments makes restitution to society or to the victims of the crime. However, imprisonment is a long term drain on society's resources, which causes society to suffer by diverting resources from other, more beneficial purposes. You can argue that prison work programs are a positive for society, but these are rare enough that imprisonment is still a net drain on society's resources.
--Incapacitation. Refers to the idea of removing the threat posed by the criminal from society. Imprisonment has the advantage here, as corporal punishment does not remove the criminal from society beyond the length of time it takes the person to lick their wounds.
--Deterrence. Both punishment ideas have merits from this aspect. Nobody wants to get his bellybutton beat. Nobody wants to lose years of his life living in a crappy room. Both are pretty good deterrents to a guy like me, but since I don't understand criminals particularly well, I can't comment on which has greater deterrent effect.
Of course, for any punishment to work it has to be applied uniformly (no bias), swiftly (to associate the punishment with the crime), and must be of appropriate scope. There's no reason that courts couldn't hand out corporal punishment the same as they hand out incarceration now.
I've already talked to much, and most of the ADHD folks here won't bother to read all of that, but there's a lot more to say about the topic.
Sooo... where do you, and your society, get your views on corporal punishment?
