Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Tarmac on December 16, 2005, 03:34:13 PM
-
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?
-
I think criminals can be reformed before they become criminals. After the fact, screw em. I have no sympathy for them.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
I think criminals can be reformed before they become criminals. After the fact, screw em. I have no sympathy for them.
A fair enough view, and one that I once held. It's easy to say when you're talking about "criminals" as a vague group. But when you have to look a man in the eye and tell him you're locking him up, probably for years, it's often a totally different situation. I don't enjoy it, but I know that it is necessary so I do it.
It's also a totally diffent situation when it's someone you know. My cousin spent two years in prison for armed robbery - at 18, he carjacked a newspaper guy while high/drunk with his friends. Nobody in my family ever said that he should not pay for his crime -- thank God nobody was hurt. We were all fortunate in that he had access to a small library in prison, and had the motivation to start to learn a skill -- computers -- by maintaining the few PC's in the prison library. He got out, took some computer classes, got his GED, and started an ISP (since nobody would hire a convicted felon), and has since moved on in the IT world.
My point is, there is hope for some people, and it's easy to forget that until it happens to you or someone you love.
-
When I was in Jr High, the Principle had a baseball bat that had been plained flat like a board and had 1/2" holes drilled across the flat surface to allow air to pass through (to reduce air resistance and to increase velocity on its unstoppable arc towards the soft tissue on the buttocks). It was a genuine two fisted mass complicator of youthful bliss.....
I was smart enough to evade its crippling blow but several friends were reformed by its devastating impact. I think we had only one guy in the entire school that went on to a life of crime and punishment. Most learned about consequences by way of that principle, and his plained basball bat.
By the time I got into High School the state had outlawed corporal punishment. Im sure we as a society are not better off in the absence of corporal punishment.
-
Police came to my house one night looking for my brother. I did not ask what he had done, but told them where he could be found.
That was 20 years (or so) ago, and I do not have a clue wher he is at today. He might be in jail. He might have been executed. I just do not know, nor do I care. He made his bed, he can lie in it.
I am not nor will I be held responsible for the actions of others.
And I agree with Yeager as well.
-
I always wondered why capital punishment or locking in stocks or other methods were outlawed under the amendment banning "Cruel and unusual punishment"
While locking a prisoner in stocks in the town square could be considered cruel, it was at one time certainly not unusual.
If the amendment said "Cruel or unusual" I can see how the legal minds made the decision.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
When I was in Jr High, the Principle had a baseball bat that had been plained flat like a board and had 1/2" holes drilled across the flat surface to allow air to pass through (to reduce air resistance and to increase velocity on its unstoppable arc towards the soft tissue on the buttocks). It was a genuine two fisted mass complicator of youthful bliss.....
I was smart enough to evade its crippling blow but several friends were reformed by its devastating impact. I think we had only one guy in the entire school that went on to a life of crime and punishment. Most learned about consequences by way of that principle, and his plained basball bat.
By the time I got into High School the state had outlawed corporal punishment. Im sure we as a society are not better off in the absence of corporal punishment.
I dont know the answer to the corporal punishment question but I also grew up when the principal had a big paddle and used it. And without digging up statistics I am confident that there were just as many criminals made who were hit as not.
-
Those that became criminals probably slid past the paddlings Silat. :D
We use to have 'licks' championships every year where I went to school. I was 8th grade champion, and runner-up for 9th grade and see how I turned out?
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Those that became criminals probably slid past the paddlings Silat. :D
We use to have 'licks' championships every year where I went to school. I was 8th grade champion, and runner-up for 9th grade and see how I turned out?
:rofl
Using you as an example skews the whole study :)
-
I believe in corporal punishment. If the actions of a child deserve corporal punishment, then I say call the workplace of both parents and announce to whomever answers the phone that the parents are to be at the school within one hour, and their behinds are going to be paddled when they get there.
Let's throw a little shame and embarrassment into the mix and see what happens.
-
Where I think imprisonment fails as a punishment is there is no support system after release to ease former inmates back into society as productive people (especially when they may not have been such a person to start with, and dont know how to be). Imprisonment is supposed to be rehabilitation, not just punishment.
Some people have a close family, strong support, and a way to get a job and earn a living and get on their feet without having to face the constant rejection that comes from being an ex-convict. Many of those in jail DONT have that support, and need an artificial system that serves the same purpose. Prison should be a chance for forced re-education and training, and the after prison support system a way to provide real world experience and references. Many private systems already exist to help ex-convicts readjust and get jobs, and could be expanded with a little help.
Corporal punishment needs to have a place too. We've gone too far down the "positive reinforcement" road, and we are suffering a breakdown from a lack of discipline structure in our society. I'm not sure it has much effect at the adult level, but used sparingly it has a great deal of effect when we are younger. Again, there has to be a balance, you cant get carried away with it or you lose the purpose of the punishment and it just becomes violence. Negative and positive reinforcement used in conjunction with each other provide structured discipline that gives clear punishments for doing wrong and clear rewards for doing right. Combine that with a true rehabilitory criminal justice system (when it can be applied, there are obviously some criminals who are incorrigable), and I dont think we would have near the rate of repeat offenders or long term jail residents that we do today.
Our prison system is run on politics and has nothing to do with rehabilitating criminals, except for those few who have the external support system already in place (family) and a desire or drive to better themselves. There is nothing in the current system that encourages them to become anything more than what they are, and indeed tells them that for the most part, they will never BE anything more than what they are now.
-
If corporal punishment is allowed in schools, then it's a bit contradictory that it's illegal everywhere else. It's illegal for the police to beat criminals, it's illegal to beat your spouse, and it's even illegal to beat your child in many places.
When it's illegal and morally wrong to physically abuse other people, why should it be allowed in schools of all places?
I'm not saying that it would always be bad thing, like in the example that came up in the other thread. I'm sure it's an useful tool, but it's just morally wrong IMO. My argument is the same as of those who oppose gay marriage.
-
Two kinds of people:
Those that see things black and white.
Those that see shades of grey.
Today there is no good or bad. It's someone elses fault or something wrong somewhere else. Nobody is really guilty of anything anymore.
Makes me sick.
If it was my way the trees, light poles and telephone poles would be full of swinging ex- death row inmates. Not in twenty years...no sir...today!
-
Originally posted by Silat
Using you as an example skews the whole study :)
Ya think? LOL!
-
Originally posted by mora
If corporal punishment is allowed in schools, then it's a bit contradictory that it's illegal everywhere else. It's illegal for the police to beat criminals, it's illegal to beat your spouse, and it's even illegal to beat your child in many places.
When it's illegal and morally wrong to physically abuse other people, why should it be allowed in schools of all places?
I'm not saying that it would always be bad thing, like in the example that came up in the other thread. I'm sure it's an useful tool, but it's just morally wrong IMO. My argument is the same as of those who oppose gay marriage.
The difference is that corporal punishment would be subject to rule of law and due process. When you talk about beating your spouse, police beating criminals, and beating your child, you are not talking about the rule of law and due process, you're talking about vigilantism. I agree that vigilantism has little place in society. Beating your wife is not corporal punishment, it's assault. Police beating a suspect who has not been proven guilty is excessive force. Beating your child is child abuse. Corporal punishment is something totally different, even though the means are similar.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
He got out, took some computer classes, got his GED, and started an ISP (since nobody would hire a convicted felon), and has since moved on in the IT world.
Why release them back to the society at all if they are tagged as criminals? It's good way to ensure that they will commit crimes again, just out of desperation. I've nothing against stiff sentences, but ones you've paid your debt to society you should get another change. Those who can't be given another change because of public safety shouldn't be released at all.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
The difference is that corporal punishment would be subject to rule of law and due process.
I do realize that, but in my view there's no defference. There's a reason why there's no due process for corporal punishment of criminals. And I don't think there should be due process to corporally punish school children either.
I'm not totally against using corporal punishment when bringin up children. It should be up to the parent, but should be applied to very young children only. I'm totally against using it in a public institution, especially in a one which is mandatory for everyone. In a private pre-school with parental consent, I've no problem.
-
Originally posted by mora
Why release them back to the society at all if they are tagged as criminals? It's good way to ensure that they will commit crimes again, just out of desperation. I've nothing against stiff sentences, but ones you've paid your debt to society you should get another change. Those who can't be given another change because of public safety shouldn't be released at all.
I provided that example to show that it is impossible at the time of the trial to determine if a person will reform themselves on their own or not. There are lots of people that commit their first armed robbery and never get out of the cycle of crime. My cousin did escape, and is doing well now. Of course, if someone was and will be a serious threat to public safety, imprisonment will accomplish something that beating/caning/whatever will not - incapacitation by removing them from society.
Originally posted by mora
I do realize that, but in my view there's no defference. There's a reason why there's no due process for corporal punishment of criminals. And I don't think there should be due process to corporally punish school children either.
You see no difference between:
--a few cops acting illegally and beating a suspect who has not stood trial and
--a court in Singapore sentencing a man to be caned for a crime he has been proven guilty of?
Am I understanding correctly?
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Those that became criminals probably slid past the paddlings Silat. :D
We use to have 'licks' championships every year where I went to school. I was 8th grade champion, and runner-up for 9th grade and see how I turned out?
:rofl
booo .. i have no balls to ask what did you lick at that time :D
(specialy after so many "teach abused young boy" :D )
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Let's throw a little shame and embarrassment into the mix and see what happens.
Well... it worked for the Cultural Revolution.. I geuss...
(http://www.trdparts.com/AH/IMG_3140.jpg)
(http://www.trdparts.com/AH/IMG_3139.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Yeager
When I was in Jr High, the Principle had a baseball bat that had been plained flat like a board and had 1/2" holes drilled across the flat surface to allow air to pass through (to reduce air resistance and to increase velocity on its unstoppable arc towards the soft tissue on the buttocks). It was a genuine two fisted mass complicator of youthful bliss.....
I was smart enough to evade its crippling blow but several friends were reformed by its devastating impact. I think we had only one guy in the entire school that went on to a life of crime and punishment. Most learned about consequences by way of that principle, and his plained basball bat.
By the time I got into High School the state had outlawed corporal punishment. Im sure we as a society are not better off in the absence of corporal punishment.
AHAA! SEE THAT!
You had 1 guy out of hundreds that went on to a life of crime.
Thats proof positive that corperal punishment does not work!
Cause lord knows if it doesnt save just 1 person.....
Wait I think I got that wrong;)
-
Corporal punishment does what concise and precise reasoning can't.
Either the punisher or the punishee is stupid, or both.
Someone who knows Good will do nothing else.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
The difference is that corporal punishment would be subject to rule of law and due process.
Well if you can put rules into effect to control it, it may work.
When little shamus was 10 he threw a spitwad at a kid and the old guy teaching the class lost it and proceeded to tear poor shamus's shirt compleatly off, blacken one eye and fatten his lip. The teacher from the class next door heard the ruckus and came in and pulled him off.
Now my floks being from the old school figured that even though the punishment was a bit excessive, they wouldnt push the issue, but I guess the other teacher did, as the old guy never returned, this is one extreme.
In JR. and Sr. high the coach and phys ed teachers were always wailing those of us who were smart azzez on the butt with the frigging big wood paddle with the holes in it, it produced a welt, but it was no big deal. You did think a bit more before you shot off your mouth the next time. this is the other extreme.
So I guess I dont like the concept of corporal punishment for the young kids.
shamus
-
Coporal punishmen teaches children an invaluable life lesson. He who hits hardest makes the rules.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
You see no difference between:
--a few cops acting illegally and beating a suspect who has not stood trial and
--a court in Singapore sentencing a man to be caned for a crime he has been proven guilty of?
Am I understanding correctly?
Yes I see the difference, but the western justice system doesn't issue corporal punishments. I dont't see how it can be legal or morally acceptable to beat school kids, if it's even illegal to beat criminals. I also wouldn't trust teacher to issue corporal punishments, it's pretty near of a situation where cops are beating a suspect. Even in singapore they are handed by court and the suspect has a chance to defend himself.
-
I find myself looking upon this subject with mixed thoughts.
I'm fairly sure I'm not alone.
Of all forms of discipline, self-discipline is the best. The best form of control is self-control. In fact IMHO the Bill of Rights and the Constitution don't work to well without them. And IMHO both are heavily based on them.
I was once told by my GrandFather that if I was unable to develope self-discipline to beware as there was plenty of people in the world waiting to apply their form of discipline upon me. If I could not control myself .... same thing. He pointed out the NAZI's and the things they did, and threw in Joseph Stalin, etc.
Children, and sadly some young people, need to develope self-discipline and self-control.
The manner used to teach them is the issue involved I think.
Violence is all around us. Happening every second of every day. It is Nature. And Nature is very unforgiving.
True we are thinking beings. This supposedly puts us above Nature?
I find myself thinking WTF is with this attitude/ thought process that equates advanced civilization with non-violence? It seems un-natural, anti-nature, even possible anti-progressive?
When I was young, shut-up Silat LOL:lol, you could say whatever pleased you IF you could take the results. Say some things and say them about them about certain people and you would find yourself dealing with the results, possibly at the local Dr. office, or the hospital emergency room. The police and the courts did sometimes get involved but there was a mmm "code" involved. No person had to except certain things. A reasonable person kinda thing.
The base for this code was often would YOU care to have such things said about YOU or loved one. That and reputation. People tended to judge you, ya there it is the word "judge", by your reputation. If it was KNOWN you lied ALLOT .... well you can get the picture.
Now it's to the courts and pay the lawyers etc.
Used to be cheaper, most of the time, to deal with it the other way.
OOPS kinda got off topic here sorry...........
Anyways.........
Some believed pain to be the fastest teacher. And for some people, with a certain type mindset, the best, and possibly only, teacher.
The concept is THINK! Before you do or say anything THINK! That is the totallity of the concept.
How to get some people to think is the problem. Far too many don't think it through before they speak, type, or do something.
Consideration, walk a mile in the shoes, whatever. Too many seem to avoid such.
DANG off topic again.
IMHO there are people that exist in the world that place the rest of us in danger every second of every day. (YA YA I know, some call those people politicians :lol)
What do you do with these people? How do you deal with these people?
IMHO Some, unfortunatly, should/must be removed for the saftey of our families. ( the news media report stories that prove this far too often )
SO IMHO an advanced civilization does NOT equate with non-violence. We haven't come far enough as a species to create such a society. We still have salvery, we still have people lusting for power and control seeking leadership of countries, we still have individuals willing to do murder to acheive their goals. IMHO NO amount of media fluff can change that reality.
-
That's my whole point -- why isn't corporal punishment used by the courts in western societies? I'm thinking along those lines -- schools are another issue altogether, as (of course) it's going to be harder to ensure that they follow due process and such, not to mention you're also dealing with juveniles.