Corporal Punishment Debate: Reasons For and Against

Corporal punishment is typically justified as allegedly having ‘deterrent effect.’ Purportedly, it prevents the offense or wrongdoing from happening again by instilling or associating fear with these undesired acts.

Nations like Nigeria, Malaysia, Brunei, Saudi Arabia, and Singapore have retained the use of flogging or whipping as a punishment even if other countries had declared the system as a violation of human rights. So, is physical punishment for criminals justifiable or not?

The following are some possible reasons for believing that corporal punishment is justifiable:

1. The punishment method is a good deterrent against prisoners violating prison rules. Since prisoners’ freedom is already gone and their release may seem distant (or even non-existent), there is very little else with which to maintain order.

2. Corporal punishment proves to be effective. Singapore, for instance, has fewer crime rates compared to countries which do not use the method.

3. Physical punishment for criminals is an efficient, quick, and less cruel method than long-term imprisonment. It has greater deterrence rates, promotes less recidivism, and involves fewer costs to society. The method involves easier reintegration in society. Physical wounds generally heal quickly while incarceration may adversely affect economic undertakings and relationships.

4. In official settings like inside prisons, physical punishment has typically been carried out as a formal ceremony, with a standard procedure, emphasizing the solemnity of the event. It may even be staged in a ritual manner in front of other inmates in order to act as a deterrent to others.

Like all forms of punishment, flogging and whipping are subject to regulation. (For example, caning is usually confined to young males between 16 and 50, with a maximum number of 24 strokes administered all at once.)

Some of the possible reasons to believe that corporal punishment is not justifiable, and perhaps even abominable, are the following:

1. Government can always think of alternative non-corporal punishments that can be used in prisons such as solitary confinement, the removal of privileges, extension of sentence, and the like. Physically punishing the prisoners is practically open to excessive abuse from prison supervisors who seek to maintain order through the climate of fear.

2. Inflicting pain as a punishment is barbaric, a throwback to primitive societies built on physical might, brutality, slavery, and the treatment of criminals as humans without any rights. The mark of a civilized society is that it behaves better than its criminals. Imprisonment is necessary as a method of punishment, prevention, and rehabilitation, but it should not resort to cruelty.

3. Just because a country using physical punishment, like Singapore, has fewer crimes does not mean that the method is effective. There are many other factors to be looked at like the leaders’ political will, behavioral norms, effectiveness of pre-emptive policies, and the like. In fact, when the USA allowed the use of physical punishment in the past, there was still plenty of crimes.

4. The UN Declaration of Human Rights forbids torture or forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. One reason for this is that the countries that use physical punishment usually do not demonstrate a responsibility that is acceptable to human rights watchdogs. The regulations concerning implementing corporal punishment practically tend to be arbitrary and allow abuse … continue reading

ALSO CHECK OUT:
Reasoning and Debate: A Handbook and a Textbook by Jensen DG. Mañebog