So what's wrong with corporal punishment?

Perhaps someone should check if there has been any deterrence resulting from Saudi Arabia's barbaric justice system. After all, Singapore is just one city - and it hasn't deterred anyone there either.

And then, of course, there is the fine example of IS's barbaric justice system. No news of any deterrence there, although it has caused quite a few people to flee. Some are not so lucky.

Retribution is essential for justice and is a legitimate goal of a justice system.

Actually, this is quite off the mark. You end up in the justice system, because of having been found guilty of breaking a law - or, in certain cases, because of being suspected of having done so. Retribution, deterrence or any such nonsense has nothing to do with it.
 
I think the rest of the middle eastern punishments should return, including crucifixion for insulting the jewish god. Saudi is something to aspire to.

Btw, if you have corporal punishments, you need to sustain a class/profession of people who do just that. I am sure they'd be among the brightest and most pleasant to be with, and take part in tv shows to argue nowdays too.
 
Maybe because the regressive left has too much influence? I think that a public weighing of pros and cons like I've done here would be enough to enter it into political discourse.
I wouldn't say it's because of 'the regressive left'. People would have a knee jerk reaction. They conflate it with barbarism.
But that's not what I meant by 'hard to implement'. We're terrifically bad at empathy. So, figuring out how many lashes someone deserves is hard. The public will always want more. As well, and I am not sure, but I expect different people have different levels of pain tolerance. So, knowing the appropriate number lashes someone could withstand is also not easy. This is something that could cause heart attacks.

Define "barbarism." Singaporeans don't seem too barbaric to me.
Singapore is a bit of an oddity, politically, though. I mean, it's a one-off social experiment. We'll see how well it works as the government power transfers from people to people.
 
He's less wrong than you think. This is a marked difference between those who identify as liberals vs. conservatives. And they're both significant minorities, so it's not like shouting them down is the goto response. We both try to build our sense of justice from first axioms, but some of those axioms are only built off of initial intuitions. And, one of the flavours of morality that conservatives have that liberals tend not to perceive is that 'retribution' is a component of justice. They're not incorrect. It's just that their understanding of morality has a slightly different basis.

It's a bit like a smoker and a non-smoker arguing about which dish is 'tastier'. Their senses are different. But, even with their different senses, they should have a much easier time coming to a consensus as to which dish is 'healthier'.
 
He's less wrong than you think. This is a marked difference between those who identify as liberals vs. conservatives. And they're both significant minorities, so it's not like shouting them down is the goto response. We both try to build our sense of justice from first axioms, but some of those axioms are only built off of initial intuitions.

Sense of justice and a justice system are two very different things. We don't have justice systems because humans have a sense of justice, but because authorities like some sense of order. Hence, laws, police and justice system. Now, we may add laws out of some sense of justice (but it's doubtful most laws come about that way), but that still doesn't make a justice system just - or even more just. The justice system is there, because of the law. That doesn't necessarily mean the system is actually just.
 
No, but the way we shape our justice system is a compromise being trying to be logical and trying to do what we think is appropriate. So, we have biases and we have first principles that are built off of axioms that are often derived from instinct.

Now, I have a liberal bias when it comes to how a justice system should be implemented and what its purpose is. But it's hella hard figuring out which of my axioms are completely consistent with objective reality and which are post-hoc rationalizations of bias. That people should incorporate concepts of 'justice' into the 'justice system' isn't unreasonable or unexpected. So, we then need to remember that there are different flavors of morality. And that we have a hard time perceiving these flavors if you don't have the ability to sense them.
 
No, but the way we shape our justice system is a compromise being trying to be logical and trying to do what we think is appropriate.

Actually, it's not. A justice system is something we've inherited from the past. We may try and mold it according to 'our' ideas, but that doesn't change the fact - or even enhances the fact - that there's nothing logical about a justice system, anymore than that there is anything moral about it. After all, moral is what we use to justify our actions - not the actions from the past that gave us a legal system in the first place. Any justice system is the result of various (political) compromises. That, by itself, already excludes all logic from it - save the logic of order - assuming there is such a thing. A justice system is not a set of laws; it's the administrative result of such laws. And administrative instructions may not necessarily reflect the intentions of the lawmakers when making their laws. In a sense, lawmakers take very little into account what their laws mean in practice. A law may even result in the exact opposite of what was originally intended - or simply not have the intended effect (there are numerous examples of this). The set of laws lawmakers make is the ideal; the justice system we get is the practice.
 
Last edited:
You have just been convicted of a felony. The judge gives you two options:

1) Fifty strokes of the lash
2) Fourteen months in prison

(Let's assume that Norway-style rehabilitation is impossible or impractical to implement in the United States, which it is.)

Option #1 provides the most simple kind of deterrence imaginable. Some plain old Singapore-style pain, and then you're on your way. Option #2 is to be locked up in a psychologically traumatizing prison where you are cut off from the outside world, treated as less than human, live on the taxpayer's budget and have it put on your permanent record so you can never get a good job afterwards. Oh, and be much more violent and criminal-y after being released, since your social group will consist largely of criminals.

I'm not entirely clear on why anyone would defend option #2. Compared to the horrendous treatment prisoners are getting right now, I'm not even clear on why anyone would prioritize stopping the death penalty (which has- let's see- killed 17 people this year. Yes, absolutely genocidal).

Will have to agree with OP. His arguments mostly cover me, but will have to add one more:

Lee Kuan Yew introduced caning as a mandatory punishment for vandalism, he said in Parliament, "[...] if (the offender) knows he is going to get three of the best, I think he will lose a great deal of enthusiasm, because there is little glory attached to the rather humiliating experience of having to be caned."

Also, Singapore, which has corporal punishment, has one of the lowest crime rates in the world:

Singapore continues to enjoy one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Almost all non-cyber crimes registered a decrease compared to 2014. In fact, violent/serious property crimes and housebreak-in-related crimes registered a 20-year low in 2015 while theft and related crimes registered a 10-year low.

https://www.osac.gov/pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=19732
 
I think the rest of the middle eastern punishments should return, including crucifixion for insulting the jewish god. Saudi is something to aspire to.
Btw, if you have corporal punishments, you need to sustain a class/profession of people who do just that. I am sure they'd be among the brightest and most pleasant to be with, and take part in tv shows to argue nowdays too.

Poor third world countries cannot afford to run large prison complexes ? Corporal punishment were back then an expedient way to punish criminals
Nowdays its The Rich and foreigners with money have access to special prisons.
 
The 8th Amendment prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishments" was specifically designed to outlaw corporal punishment. However, if the prisoner gets the option of choosing it, prohibition becomes a harder argument to make.

I remember seeing Watergate convict Charles Colson on a talk show saying that many of his fellow prisoners had said to him that they wished they could just be whipped and then sent home to their families.

A major proviso though. Some prisoners deserved, not only to be punished, but to put in cages. Dangerous felons such a violent offenders, child molesters, and rapist need to be kept out of society for our safety.
 
The 8th Amendment prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishments" was specifically designed to outlaw corporal punishment. However, if the prisoner gets the option of choosing it, prohibition becomes a harder argument to make.

I remember seeing Watergate convict Charles Colson on a talk show saying that many of his fellow prisoners had said to him that they wished they could just be whipped and then sent home to their families.

Brave words from someone who's never been whipped in his life (well oce, and he got sent to prison for it). I guess this is why laws aren't made by people who can't respect the law.

Also, Singapore, which has corporal punishment, has one of the lowest crime rates in the world:

But it doesn't top Japan, a country containing many Singapores - and then some. (Seriously, what's with this fascination with Singapore?) You seem to suggest there's some sort of correlation between low crime and corporal punishment. Sadly, no such correlation exists. As already pointed out.
 
You're wrong on both counts.

Good to know though, since now I know not to take any of your other views on justice seriously, since they're all working off a flawed premise.

Do you have anything to offer other than smugness?

What is the point of posting here in OT if you aren't willing to have a discussion?
 
You gave me nothing to work with. Your response contained only a negation of my original post with no further discussion.

You stated that retribution wasn't a legitimate goal of the justice system as if this was a given and a settled matter. My understanding is that retribution is present in most current justice systems so it didn't seem appropriate to just dismiss it out of hand like that.

My post wasn't a "I disagree" negation, it was an invitation for you make an argument (I prefer bouncing ideas back and forth over talking past each other with walls of text). I did add something by bringing up justice in addition to the justice system.
 
You stated that retribution wasn't a legitimate goal of the justice system as if this was a given and a settled matter. My understanding is that retribution is present in most current justice systems so it didn't seem appropriate to just dismiss it out of hand like that.

Really? In what way? As in paying for damages? Because that's not really something form 'the justice system', but rather something which is expected if you cause damage. 'If you break it, you fix it.' (Or, in this case, pay for the damage.)
 
Actually, it's not. A justice system is something we've inherited from the past. We may try and mold it according to 'our' ideas, but that doesn't change the fact - or even enhances the fact - that there's nothing logical about a justice system, anymore than that there is anything moral about it. After all, moral is what we use to justify our actions - not the actions from the past that gave us a legal system in the first place. Any justice system is the result of various (political) compromises. That, by itself, already excludes all logic from it - save the logic of order - assuming there is such a thing. A justice system is not a set of laws; it's the administrative result of such laws. And administrative instructions may not necessarily reflect the intentions of the lawmakers when making their laws. In a sense, lawmakers take very little into account what their laws mean in practice. A law may even result in the exact opposite of what was originally intended - or simply not have the intended effect (there are numerous examples of this). The set of laws lawmakers make is the ideal; the justice system we get is the practice.

You might not have noticed, but nothing of what you said contradicts what I said. If you're pointing out that we're all shackled by our own history and precedents when trying to modify things, I won't disagree.
 
Top Bottom