Here’s an interview with an author who is suggesting that we re-introduce flogging into the penal code. His idea: give the convict a choice… prison time, or a rattan cane to the ass. Something like one whack per six months of jail time. It’s an idea I’ve considered for *years.*
The basic points:
1: It would be difficult to claim that this is “cruel and unusual punishment” if the convict *chooses* it. If the counter-claim is that “well, of course the convict would choose twenty lashes when faced with the prospect of ten years in prison,” you now have to ask if prison is “cruel and unusual punishment.”
2: Flogging a guy, having a prison doctor patch him up, let him recuperate in the infirmary for a few days then sending him on his way is going to be a damn sight cheaper than locking him up for *years* at taxpayer expense. Instead, he is back out at least *maybe* working a job.
3: No extended prison sentence = no extended time hanging out with hardened criminals, learning to be more criminal and being involved with prison rape, violence and gangs.
4: The purpose of prison is supposedly to reform criminals. Ha. The prison system makes little enough attempt at doing such a thing, and of course the prison population itself works to make other prisoners as criminal as possible. Flogging would of course do nothing to “reform” the convict, but it would certainly stay clearly within his mind. Not an experience likely to be quickly forgotten, or lightly overlooked when contemplating recidivism.
It is a concept at least worth some examination. However, I’d bet good money that it’s a concept that doesn’t get past the “you’re a monster” or “you’re a racist” level of debate.
But ask yourself: you’ve been convicted of, say, tax fraud. You’re staring down the barrel of ten years locked up with violent felons. You will of course lose everything… job, house, finances, family. Or… you can get 20 lashes and be back out next week. Your job is probably gone and your finances are likely a mess, but you still have your family, some job prospects, valid and up-to-date contacts, etc. What would *you* choose?
6 Responses to ““In Defense of Flogging””
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Excellent points, Scott.
It would need a complete re-evaluation of our justice system…. something I don’t picture the powers-that-be actually ever doing. But a swat on the ass, even one powerful enough to potentially require medical treatment, would be infinitely better, more humane, more “just” than subjecting a civilian to the horrors of what our criminal justice system has become.
Western culture has managed to convince itself that we have transcended the barbarity of needing to inflict physical punishment for the seemingly humane alternative of “rehabilitation”. Being locked up in the big house, suffering depravations from perverts and asocial maniacs, becoming a degenerate yourself or being otherwise mentally damaged is supposedly going to cure you from your evil ways. Sounds like good, solid, Victorian age science to me!
The real fight is going to have to be the idea of rehab versus punishment. Is the gov’t, in the name of the “People”, going to “fix” somebody instead of “break” them for being bad. We see that gov’t, thru lack of responsibilty, incompetance, or just plain bureaucratic stupidity has problems fixing potholes, much less fixing a personality.
Two things.
The dude doing the flogging is only getting paid a wage. The private prison industry can hire a _lot_ more lobbyists to write legislation for them.
Second, consider the sheer volume of “Golly, I hope he gets butt-raped a lot” comments in every single prison-related discussion. Clearly you are soft on crime.
Nope, we like our retributive justice profitable, and prefer it to involve sexual violence over the course of years.
This isn’t going to work.
If there were enough money to be made by a criminal act, I’d be quite willing to get my ass whupped severely 10 or 20 times, waiting for the time I got away with it, and they didn’t catch me. 😀
If you’ve got a real problem with a crook, just kill him and have done with it.
We do that all the time with enemy troops, who’s only crime is taking orders rather than doing something antisocial for their own ends.
What made flogging work in the Royal Navy was the fact that it was given for disobedience to orders, not making a monetary gain (or in Singapore for littering or spitting on a city street), and if you got too far out of line, the fact that you were going to get “flogged around the fleet”… the chances of which you surviving were pretty slim, and was even less fun than getting “keel-hauled” and shredded by the barnacles on the bottom of the ship’s hull.
Check out “Cane “Em Good” here:
http://www.bobrivers.com/#v8731
> If there were enough money to be made by a criminal act, I’d be quite willing to get my ass whupped severely 10 or 20 times, waiting for the time I got away with it, and they didn’t catch me.
In a logical penal system (Ha!), the choice of getting flogged instead of warehoused would be taken away if you were a proven danger to society. Repeat offenders, rapists, murders, hackers, child molesters and collectivists should be locked up for the duration for the safety of society.
> If you’ve got a real problem with a crook, just kill him and have done with it
Depends on the crookery.
> . Is the gov’t, in the name of the “People”, going to “fix” somebody instead of “break” them for being bad.
Science fiction is replete with tales of the near-future when the government has figured out how to “fix” criminality. Only a very small percentage of these stories feature a government that’s not a nightmare. The ability to tinker with someone’s brain is just plain creepy at best (which was why Professor X transformed from a Good Guy into a Bad Guy at the end of “X-Men: First Class”… he tinkered with the brain of a good guy for his own benefit).
> The dude doing the flogging is only getting paid a wage.
Even better: flogging is the sort of thing that can probably be done by a machine. Now, someone might ask, “Who’d be willing to design and test a flogging robot?” Here’s how I see that going:
Official: “We want you to design a flogbot.”
Engineer: “I have a serious ethical problem with that.”
Official: “We’ll pay lots of money.”
Engineer: “I have less of an ethical problem with that, but I’m still disturbed and will likely have nightmares after the testing phase.”
Official: “We want you to make it look like Megatron.”
Engineer: “…” THUD
Official: “Sir, please wake up and don’t faint again.”
Engineer: “Where do I sign?”
Actually, I think I would have weird kinky sex images in my head if I were asked to design a flog-bot. I also doubt I’d have serious ethical problems with it, provided the machine was being used in an ethical justice system. I don’t really have much issue with doctors overseeing executions either.
“We do that all the time with enemy troops, who’s only crime is taking orders rather than doing something antisocial for their own ends.”
Logically, one could argue that the enemy is doing the exact same thing. However, for some strange reason, nobody ever seems to cut US troops a break.
> I think I would have weird kinky sex images in my head if I were asked to design a flog-bot.
I’m sure there’s a rational, reasonable response for a guy like me to produce to a statement like that coming from a woman, but I’m just not seein’ it.
> ethical justice system
Always problematic.