JCP

[Tee Kay]

Judicial corporal punishment. Lashing, caning, whipping, and the like.

Inspired by outraged reaction of basically all the non-Muslims to lashings in the "Ask a Muslim Youth" thread. I don't agree with JCP myself, but... is it really so bad?

Westerners prefer imprisonment - America particularly has a love affair with jails - but they cost money, and more than just the cost of feeding and housing prisoners. There are costs to families, to communities, to the economy, to people's physical and mental health of putting people behind bars for years at a time. Many countries struggle with high recidivism rates. They become political footballs, leading to such disasters as privatised prisons.

Prison reform together with social programs, or alternative forms of movement restrictions (house arrests, say) could well improve things. But governments don't like to seem "soft on crime" lest they get voted out of office. The public wants tough actions against criminals. They want criminals punished. Softly-softly left-wing rehabilitation-focus policies look too weak.

How then shall we sate the public's thirst for toughness? Reintroduce the lash.

Convicted criminals who are low-threat and show remorse may be allowed to serve their sentence outside of prisons, instead having their movements restricted for a time and compulsorily enrolled in a rehabilitation program. But they'll be whipped. After a probationary period they can go back to work. No isolation from the outside world. No mixing with hardened criminals. Minimal economic and social loss. The public's bloodlust is satisfied.

It can work, surely. Can't it?

 

[Borachio]

I disagree with it both in principle and in practice.

In principle all punishment is wrong because criminals don't exist in isolation and punishing the individual for a failing of the wider society doesn't make any sense to me. It's just plain scapegoating.

In practice all punishment is wrong because you can never recompense a wrongly convicted person (and no matter how good your judicial procedures are, there will always be mistakes) for the punishment you've inflicted on them.

I don't expect anyone to agree with me, though.

 

[Tee Kay]

In principle all punishment is wrong because criminals don't exist in isolation and punishing the individual for a failing of the wider society doesn't make any sense to me. It's just plain scapegoating.

That guy who tried to break into our neighbour's house a few weeks ago might have his reasons but I bet he still knew it was wrong to do so.

In practice all punishment is wrong because you can never recompense a wrongly convicted person (and no matter how good your judicial procedures are, there will always be mistakes) for the punishment you've inflicted on them.

Well actually technically only the punishment wrongly inflicted is wrong but we might not get to know which is wrong or right.

But that's just it isn't it, we don't have a perfect knowledge of right or wrong so let's not do anything.

 

[Borachio]

I bet he still knew it was wrong to do so.

I expect so. But then we've to explain why he still did it.

But that's just it, isn't it? We don't have a perfect knowledge of right or wrong so let's not do anything.

Let's do the best we can, instead of just blindly following some primitive instinct for revenge?

 

[Tee Kay]

Let's do the best we can, instead of just blindly following some primitive instinct for revenge?

I'm not following mine, but I'm realistic enough not to expect other people to do likewise. At least, not enough of a majority to get legislations passed.

 

[Virote_Considon]

I expect so. But then we've to explain why he still did it.

Immoral opportunism.

 

[Borachio]

It's usually because the criminal, because of his past experience, doesn't think he owes the world anything. (I've maybe not put that well, though.)

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, there's a strong case to be made that we ramp up punishments too slowly in modern society, and this causes a greater overall harm. The goal of punishment is deterrence, so would more people be deterred by a caning, vs jail? The 2nd arm of the justice system is rehabilitation. It's clear we're utterly failing on that front, but how would you use JCP to improve the rehabilitative aspect?

 

[Tee Kay]

how would you use JCP to improve the rehabilitative aspect?

Well IMHO JCP is only really useful for deterrence, not so much rehabilitation. Particularly as a form of deterrence that is less taxing on society overall than long periods of imprisonment.

As suggested in the OP it might however help rehabilitation efforts be more accepted by society, particularly conservatives and others who want to see authorities be tough on criminals, not provide them with taxpayers-funded counselling and work experience. Criminals facing corporal punishment and less jail-time means saving money on prisons (money that could instead be redirected to rehabilitation programs; rather than having both expensive rehabilitation programs and expensive prisons) while showing the electorate that criminals are still being punished as they "deserve".

It could be a way of getting progressive legislations enacted and staying enacted in the face of money problems and conservative opposition. Except many Western progressives generally think of corporal punishment as too barbaric.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, it is barbaric, nearly by definition. it's potentially necessary, but should be replaced by a more humane and less violent option as soon as one become available.

 

[Tee Kay]

What's the definition of barbaric?

 

[classical_hero]

Let's do the best we can, instead of just blindly following some primitive instinct for revenge?

Jailing them is also revenge.

 

[Borachio]

Absolutely; if jailing is used as punishment, instead of just keeping the "offender" separate from society, in order to facilitate rehabilitation.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

There's the risk of serious physical damage. I prefer community service if they can't pay fines.

 

[JollyRoger]

What's the definition of barbaric?

Something that government union thugs should be able to do to children, but not to adults.

 

[Tahuti]

Prisons is basically a form of higher education in the ignoble art of crime. Getting sentenced to prison time is effectively equivalent to be accepted to college.

Anyway, I'm rather sympathetic to the reasoning of the OP. Hard labour should also be possibility, as well as executions.

 

[Darza]

Temporary removing from the society with an opt to a right to death, if you care about free will and not imposing the superficial stuff. As Life is a imposed contract, its looks not fair to punish for not fulfilling the contract being dealt without signer's consent (as it usually happens even by now), so its more like occasional incompatibility of individual's free will with society's free will, resulting in contradiction. While its doesn't looks correct to declare what the certain individual is wrong (as there is no proofs about it, and he\she also hadn't gave any obligations about), the free will of society also have a full right of defending itself. So, the least harmful solution for both sides of conflict is separation. As society is a winning side (its free will is prevail on a subject above individual's one), it have to take the "expenses" on itself (as individual in question have no accounts to do so instead). And as there is no point in false claiming this as "punishment", of course there is no chance for dragging labour or some other sort of "punishment" into it. The sides are own nothing to each other from the start, so there is no chance to "repay" the damage done (beside the obvious confiscation of unneeded assets, that are existing only in a society anyway).

 

[cav scout]

What's the definition of barbaric?

non-hellenistic

 

[warpus]

Jails are supposed to be a way to rehabilitate prisoners so that they can rejoin civilized society when their terms are up.

Hitting people with sticks will never rehabilitate them, unless I guess they're masochists, in which case it still probably wouldn't.