Bring back the birch?

[silverfox]

Some people say we have a broken society with crime out of control, widespread drug and alcohol abuse, feral youth, no-go problem estates and a general breakdown in respect for each other and manners.

We all know the reasons advanced - decline of religion, breakdown of the family with absent fathers, the pressures of modern living etc.

Whatever the causes, most people would agree that there is something absurd about the threat of being stabbed or shot by a young child because you have 'dissed' them, and that gangs and drug barons cannot run around as untouchables meting out their own notions of justice, whether it's 'just business' in their eyes or not.

Is it not time for us to say enough is enough and consider bringing back corporal punishment along the lines of caning like in Singapore? I realise Amnesty International objects to the practice but I understand that even the most hardened criminals can be reduced to blubbering wimps after a thrashing applied to the buttocks by a karate black belt.

It may also humiliate some of the young toughs in the eyes of their peers and provide a genuine deterrent to a life of crime. It may be cool to have an ASBO but I doubt many would strive for a caning.

[Brendan]

......

[Brendan]

Did you get whacked with sticks in school? Don't you remember that the welts on your back and arse were often shown off as a badge of honour in the boys change rooms?

[silverfox]

Yes I did, old fashioned sized 10 plimsole on the backside and caned on the hand/wrist. And yes, it did lend a certain street cred when you showed off the welts.

However, I'm talking about a much more severe form here. A quick look at Wikipedia's explanation of the punishment is enough to make your eyes water.

[SeanMacGabhann]

A thread about slapping people in the face and now this.

I'm no psychiatrist, but....

[SteveT]

It suddenly 'HIT' me too Sean. Must be an ex-public school border dreaming of the good old days..............

[silverfox]

It's probably better not to try to analyse me Sean, however there is a serious side to this. Things are getting out of hand in some quarters with people too frightened to speak out for fear of retribution from local thugs or organised crime.

Caning may be a brutish uncivilised remedy but Singapore doesn't seem to agree. Our liberalism has created a paradox whereby we've outlawed many punishments which we quite rightly feel are unacceptable today and in doing so have created a situation where crime and violence can breed with little concern for existing deterrents.

Surely, if a caning prevented a person from adopting a life that lead to prison (and let's face it, far worse can and does happen inside prison) wouldn't you be doing that person a favour as well as making his peers think twice?

The real questions are would it work? Does it work in Singapore? If it does/did work why shouldn't it be reintroduced if it would cut down street robbery, knifings, rapes? etc.

As a society we have to ask ourselves some serious questions if we really want to address some of the problems facing us.

[Santerme]

Mr Maybe at DKH used to write your name in reverse on a hairbrush and imprint it on your backside.

I was caned a boarding school, the effect lasted as long as the pain.

My essays on the life of a blade of grass and the inside of a table tennis ball, were a much more effective deterrent having to be done over a precious weekend.

[Keef]

A society that tortures people who misbehave (and it is torture IMO) is not a society that I could be proud of, or would want any part of.

[SeanMacGabhann]

You are starting from the premise, silverfox, that society has, on the whole, become worse

Thomas Hobbes wrote in the 16th century that man's life was ""solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short"

We have come a long way since then

Arguing with the wrong people will see you in big trouble, no debate there. But that has always been the case. Are things worse now than 100 years ago? In almost every way they are better. Are they worse than they were 50 years ago? Possibly, anecdotally in some parts of the country. Is the solution physical punishment? (or as keef has pointed out "torture" )

I think you'll find many of this miscreants are well used to being on the end of pysical punishment, from a young age

Blaming liberalism may fit in with your world-view but it doesn't help with your prognosis.

Whenever the subject is raised I repeat.:There are parts of the world, and you don't have to go as axtreme as Singapore, with far les violence, higher levels of happiness and enlightenment. They are also broadly liberal. But they don't follow the "dog eat dog" capitalism as slavishly as the US & UK. But the general populace in this country, including yourself would abhor any drift towards such a scandanavian model, given who little interest most English show in the European project

[????]

Brutalsisng people who often are brutalised already don't make much sense to me on any levels - crime prevention, retribution, punsihment or indeed rehabilitation. Still in favour of tougher punsihment and senticing but not this

[silverfox]

I agree with all that Sean, and with Keef who sees it as a form of torture. On the whole things are probably much better now than ever before and it's easy to forget that it wasn't too long ago that places like Whitechapel were full of cut throats with murders an everyday occurrence despite draconian punishments being in place. It's probably also true that too many of our young tearaways have been on the receiving end of physical abuse.

Also, if you allow me to quote Wikipedia on Singapore's caning: "...In 1993 the number of criminals caned was 3,244 ... By 2007, this figure had doubled to 6,404 criminals sentenced to caning ... " This seems to question the deterrent effects of the punishment and I can't find any facts to say crime would be worse in Singapore were it not for caning.

There is a perception though that violence and criminality are spreading and are no longer confined within violent subcultures or groups and part of the reason for this is the drugs trade. Whole communities are now being affected by the activities of ruthless gangs in a way they weren't affected even by gangs such as the Krays who generally only dealt with their own kind.

Obviously things here haven't got to the stage of Mexico where the army has had to be called in. But how do we prevent young people joining gangs, where being a 'gangsta' is seen as cool, gives people identity and a sense of belonging once they have proved themselves by stabbing someone? etc. I can't count the amount of times I've seen young people driving around in top of the range cars who look as if they've never done a day's work in their life. It's easy to see the attraction even if their life expectancy may be low.

Would tougher sentencing work? There's a view that people come out of prison more of a criminal than when they went in. Preventative measures don't seem to be working and shaming people by putting up posters in local areas has caused a fuss because of 'Human Rights'. I wouldn't recommend Vigilantes and having private security guards patrolling posh parts of town looks like an admission that we've lost confidence in the ability of the police to protect us.

Somehow we have to get tough without becoming authoritarian and undemocratic.

[Huguenot]

It's impossible to judge the success of corporal punishment in Singspore by the crime rate.

There are other far more fundamental cultural elements that impact on attitudes to crime before you could question the impact of a physical deterrent.

Not least of these are the social bonds of family, community and respect for their elders. Social support networks mean that locals rarely get into the state of desperation that cause some crimes.

However, you could also observe that drink and drugs aren't popular, thereby reducing both the incidence of 'moments of madness' and the addictions that feed crime.

Either way, a society that can get away with corporal punishment also demands other restrictions on its citizens that the British would find unpalatable.

Interestingly, corporal punishment seems largely to be reserved for those crimes which 'violate' the rights of another individual - such as robbery, burglary and vandalism. It does strike that if you were stone cold sober and knew that there was a signifcant threat of a bit of very painful whup-ass, it might make you think twice.

[Ladymuck]

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's probably better not to try to analyse me

> Sean, however there is a serious side to this.

> Things are getting out of hand in some quarters

> with people too frightened to speak out for fear

> of retribution from local thugs or organised

> crime.

>

> Caning may be a brutish uncivilised remedy but

> Singapore doesn't seem to agree. Our liberalism

> has created a paradox whereby we've outlawed many

> punishments which we quite rightly feel are

> unacceptable today and in doing so have created a

> situation where crime and violence can breed with

> little concern for existing deterrents.

>

> Surely, if a caning prevented a person from

> adopting a life that lead to prison (and let's

> face it, far worse can and does happen inside

> prison) wouldn't you be doing that person a favour

> as well as making his peers think twice?

>

> The real questions are would it work? Does it work

> in Singapore? If it does/did work why shouldn't it

> be reintroduced if it would cut down street

> robbery, knifings, rapes? etc.

>

> As a society we have to ask ourselves some serious

> questions if we really want to address some of the

> problems facing us.

Singapore...doesn't the State dish out 2 years' in prison for homosexuality? And doesn't it still have the death penalty too?

Having asked those (rhetorical) questions, I have to say that one thing I REALLY like about Singapore, is that I can walk around without worrying about whether my purse is going to be snatched, whether I am going to be confronted by glue-sniffers or crack addicts, whether I am going to be pestered etc. etc... At a lower level, I've never even seen commuters place their feet on train seats. They just would not dare.

To get back on topic, I received the cane(on the hand) once for "back-chatting" a teacher ...it stung like hell, and I certainly did not show off the resulting inflammation.

[Huguenot]

The official line on homosexuality in Singapore is that it is illegal - this is a religiously divided nation with an absolute moral code - but that the government doesn't interfere with what consenting adults do in their bedrooms.

There is a homosexual community in Singapore with the usual bars and clubs, but they're asked to keep their actions private (as, I should add, are heterosexuals).

As you say, nothing to do with caning though.

[PeckhamRose]

Singapore canes are very highly prized items of - tools in BDSM.

Beware of what you wish for. Some people grow up to be happy fetishists as a result of their punishments in their school years, recreating and sexualising their experiences to turn them in to a good thing.

Not me, obviously. I was never caned at school, I was too good.

[PeckhamRose]

Singapore canes are very highly prized items of - tools in BDSM.

Beware of what you wish for. Some people grow up to be happy fetishists as a result of their punishments in their school years, recreating and sexualising their experiences to turn them in to a good thing.

Not me, obviously. I was never caned at school, I was too good.

[LegalEagle-ish]

I was beaten by my mum,caned at school and ended up an angry disfunctional adult who hated authority.

Not much deterrent to me.

[LegalEagle-ish]

I was beaten by my mum,caned at school and ended up an angry disfunctional adult who hated authority.

Not much deterrent to me.

[legalbeagle]

Keef Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A society that tortures people who misbehave (and

> it is torture IMO) is not a society that I could

> be proud of, or would want any part of.

Couldn't agree with this more. Capital punishment also ignores the point that there are two parties involved - the punisher and the prisoner. It's not just about who they are, it's about who we are too. We shouldn't inflict that sort of punishment on people because we don't want to say that the state considers it to be an acceptable way to treat its citizens however badly they have behaved. Incidentally study after study has shown that capital punishment doesn't work as a deterrent and costs more than a life sentence. Plus I just don't get the logic. You are going to thrash someone who has thrashed someone to prove that thrashing someone is wrong?

[legalbeagle]

Keef Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A society that tortures people who misbehave (and

> it is torture IMO) is not a society that I could

> be proud of, or would want any part of.

Couldn't agree with this more. Capital punishment also ignores the point that there are two parties involved - the punisher and the prisoner. It's not just about who they are, it's about who we are too. We shouldn't inflict that sort of punishment on people because we don't want to say that the state considers it to be an acceptable way to treat its citizens however badly they have behaved. Incidentally study after study has shown that capital punishment doesn't work as a deterrent and costs more than a life sentence. Plus I just don't get the logic. You are going to thrash someone who has thrashed someone to prove that thrashing someone is wrong?

[silverfox]

legalbeagle, I don't understand your post.

LB said: "Capital punishment also ignores the point that there are two parties involved - the punisher and the prisoner..."

No mention of victim here.

LB said: "...We shouldn't inflict that sort of punishment on people because we don't want to say that the state considers it to be an acceptable way to treat its citizens however badly they have behaved...."

As I understand citizenship, a citizen is granted certain rights from a state in return for certain responsibilities (a social contract). Wicked villains therefore forfeit this status.

LB said: "...study after study has shown that capital punishment doesn't work as a deterrent and costs more than a life sentence..."

Not sure what you mean here. If we assume a life sentence in England/Wales is around 15-20 years then if I pay a hangman ?10,000 to hang a murderer simple sums tell me the state has made a saving rather than keeping someone in prison for that time. If you're quoting American studies, where life may mean 35 years plus (and countless legal appeals) then the studies you refer to would seem even more ridiculous. Surely 50,000 volts costs less than bed and board for 35 years. That aside, the post is about birching not killing people.

LB said: "...Plus I just don't get the logic. You are going to thrash someone who has thrashed someone to prove that thrashing someone is wrong?..."

You do have a point here LB, it is illogical - except that wicked villians don't play by these nice rules of what makes sense, is logical, rational. Rather, from a birching point of view, it's more if you look at me like that you're dissing me and I'll stab you.

Keef's concerns about a society that tortures people are concerns we should all share. However, is a humiliating thrashing on the backside as a deterrent any worse than keeping prisoners in Victorian-standard cells, using potties for toilets, slopping out, braving the showers, accepting the dominance of the daddy on the wing?

Perhaps someone should start a new thread on what exactly torture is.

[LegalEagle-ish]

From the International Red Cross:

What is the definition of torture and ill treatment?

International humanitarian law prohibits torture and other forms of ill treatment at all times and demands that detainees be treated according to the rules and principles of IHL and other international standards.

The 1984 United Nations Convention Against Torture (Article 1) provides a definition of torture that is considered customary.

International humanitarian law (IHL) differs somewhat from this definition in not requiring the involvement of a person acting in an official capacity as a condition for an act intended to inflict severe pain or suffering to be defined as torture.

The ICRC uses the broad term "ill-treatment" to cover both torture and other methods of abuse prohibited by international law, including inhuman, cruel, humiliating, and degrading treatment, outrages upon personal dignity and physical or moral coercion.

The legal difference between torture and other forms of ill treatment lies in the level of severity of pain or suffering imposed. In addition, torture requires the existence of a specific purpose behind the act ? to obtain information, for example.

The various terms used to refer to different forms of ill treatment or infliction of pain can be explained as follows:

* Torture: existence of a specific purpose plus intentional infliction of severe suffering or pain;

* Cruel or inhuman treatment: no specific purpose, significant level of suffering or pain inflicted;

* Outrages upon personal dignity: no specific purpose, significant level of humiliation or degradation.

Methods of ill treatment may be both physical and/or psychological in nature and both methods may have physical and psychological effects.

http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/69MJXC

[legalbeagle]

I think we are always going to disagree Silverfox, which is fine, we are all entitled to an opinion. But clarifications are below in capitals (not because I'm shouting at you but just so you can see it amoungst the other type!)

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

legalbeagle, I don't understand your post.

LB said: "Capital punishment also ignores the point that there are two parties involved - the punisher and the prisoner..."

No mention of victim here.

NO - I DON'T BELIEVE VICTIMS SHOULD HAVE A SAY IN SENTENCING BEYOND THE IMPACT STATEMENTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY ALLOWED. IF ANYONE HURT MY CHILDREN I WOULD HUNT THEM DOWN AND KILL THEM IN THE MOST PAINFUL WAY I COULD MANAGE. WHICH WOULD BE TOTALLY WRONG, SOMETHING FOR WHICH I SHOULD BE PUNISHED, AND THE REASON I DON'T BELIEVE VICTIMS SHOULD HAVE A SAY IN PUNISHMENT.

LB said: "...We shouldn't inflict that sort of punishment on people because we don't want to say that the state considers it to be an acceptable way to treat its citizens however badly they have behaved...."

As I understand citizenship, a citizen is granted certain rights from a state in return for certain responsibilities (a social contract). Wicked villains therefore forfeit this status.

I DON'T AGREE. THE STATE SHOULD GRANT SOME BASIC RIGHTS THAT STAY WITH YOU REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU DO AND BEING PROTECTED FROM THE STATE KILLING OR TORTURING YOU IS ONE OF THEM.

LB said: "...study after study has shown that Capital punishment doesn't work as a deterrent and costs more than a life sentence..."

Not sure what you mean here. If we assume a life sentence in England/Wales is around 15-20 years then if I pay a hangman ?10,000 to hang a murderer simple sums tell me the state has made a saving rather than keeping someone in prison for that

time. If you're quoting American studies, where life may mean 35 years plus (and countless legal appeals) then the studies you refer to would seem even more ridiculous. Surely 50,000 volts costs less than bed and board for 35 years. That aside,

the post is about birching not killing people.

IN ORDER TO HAVE AN ACCEPTABLY FAIR AND THOROUGH LEGAL SYSTEM YOU HAVE TO ALLOW FOR APPEALS. I HAVE DEFENDED PRISONERS ON DEATH ROW IN JAMAICA AND EVEN THERE, WHERE THE LEGAL SYSTEM IS FAR FROM PERFECT, IN CASES OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT THESE APPEALS CAN TAKE LITERALLY DECADES. THE SITUATION IS THE SAME IN THE US WHERE THE LEGAL COSTS OF LENGTHY APPEALS PLUS COSTS TO HOUSE PRISONERS ON DEATH ROW DURING THAT TIME, FAR OUTWEIGH THE COST OF YOUR AVERAGE LIFE SENTENCE FOR MURDER. (THOUGH AS YOU SAY THIS IS NOT RELEVANT TO YOUR OP.)

LB said: "...Plus I just don't get the logic. You are going to thrash someone who has thrashed someone to prove that thrashing someone is wrong?..."

You do have a point here LB, it is illogical - except that wicked villians don't play by these nice rules of what makes sense, is logical, rational. Rather, from a birching point of view, it's more if you look at me like that you're dissing me and I'll stab you.

BUT TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT. WE, AS A NATION STATE, ARE ABOVE THAT KIND OF INHUMANE BEHAVIOUR. WHAT DISTINGUISHES US FROM THE VILLAIN IS EXACTLY AND ONLY THAT. IF WE STOOP TO THEIR LEVEL WE DEBASE THE WHOLE OF OUR SOCIETY.

Keef's concerns about a society that tortures people are concerns we should all share. However, is a humiliating thrashing on the backside as a deterrent any worse than keeping prisoners in Victorian-standard cells, using potties for toilets, slopping out, braving the showers, accepting the dominance of the daddy on the wing?

Perhaps someone should start a new thread on what exactly torture is.

THIS IS TORTURE IN MY VIEW - JUST MY VIEW BUT THERE IT IS.

[silverfox]

Reading your reponse legalbeagle it's now clear to me that you're coming at this from more of a considered legal angle.

I see you're not ignoring the victim, rather accepting a crime/misdemeanour has occurred and now how does the state deal with the perpetrator. I agree the victim should not be involved in sentencing. The process should be objective and the crime measured against agreed sanctions.

My social contract argument about citizens actively or tacitly giving power to the state in return for rights is a bit disingenuous. However, it is more of a philosophical matter than a practical legal question and I think there is a strong argument to say some actions are of such a gravity they justify individuals forfeiting certain rights in the same way as loss of liberty is justified.

I agree Capital punishment doesn't work as a deterrent but question it costs more than a life sentence. However, I shouldn't have dismissed those studies you referred to but are unknown to me so readily. And yes, appeals are a necessary process in a civilised society.

I also agree the eye for an eye principle shouldn't have any place in a civilised society.

However, the attention-grabbing title of this post is meant to invite views as to how we do deal with what appears to be a growing menace of lawlessness and violence. There is a paradox in being a civilised society and granting rights which by virtue of those rights limits society's options in dealing with criminality and lawlessness. Like the issue of climate change some radical and uncomfortable decisions have to be confronted.

I'm sure there are many things we agree upon legalbeagle. Perhaps I should set the record straight. I'm not pro-birching,not pro-slapping people in the face, not a tambourine shaking born again christian and I'm not anti-queuing for William Rose (use it myself but don't tell SeanMacGabhann).