posted
The cost of keeping someone in jail for a year is $50k in the U.S. Can't we save a lot of money by simply administering corporal punishment?
Consider this situation: Someone resists arrest for drunkenness in public and strikes a cop. That person could go to jail for years. But what if corporal punishment was legal and a judge said to to this person: You can go to jail for a few years or you can submit to a flogging. The flogging is a choice that many might accept.
Perhaps to keep corporal punishment palatable, we can make it so that women are exempt, because the public would stand for men getting flogged but they wouldn't stand for women receiving the same treatment.
In some ways, corporal punishment is probably more humane than locking someone up for years.
Of course, if someone is a violent criminal, then we would have no choice but to lock away that person to protect the public. But for purely punitive purposes, flagellation can save the public a lot of money.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Perhaps to keep corporal punishment palatable, we can make it so that women are exempt, because the public would stand for men getting flogged but they wouldn't stand for women receiving the same treatment.
Exempt, in that they get to choose a flogging and then receive no punishment, or exempt in that they don't get the choice of flogging and have to spend those years in jail?
Neither would be acceptable.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, you're making an implicit assumption that flogging can serve the same function as jail time. Now...whether jail time is actually effective at what it purports to do is another matter...but if flogging doesn't actually affect the perpetrator's future behavior, or affect the likelihood that others may commit the same crime, then it may end up costing the taxpayer significantly more money in various other ways.
It's like saying, instead of putting them in jail for years, why don't we just buy them an ice cream cone! It'll be loads cheaper. You have to prove that the ice cream cone, or the flogging, will actually have the effect you think it will.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Designing a system to have zero equality seems like a baaad idea.
Flogging itself seems like it could be a decent and cheap punishment/deterrent.
[/edit]Come on Strider...taking 30 lashes is hardly comparable to a delicious, delectable, delightful ice cream cone. If you want some evidence for whipping as a deterrent, just ask...
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ooooh. But think of the revenue FOX* will make when the broadcast rights! *With their political connections, they seem likely, though not the only contender.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Designing a system to have zero equality seems like a baaad idea.
I have no idea what this means or what it is in reply to.
In reference to:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: ...we can make it so that women are exempt, because the public would stand for men getting flogged but they wouldn't stand for women receiving the same treatment.
posted
Obviously flogging is a stronger deterrent than ice cream (at least i hope it is), but I'm just making a point that just because something is cheaper, doesn't *necessarily* make it as effective. And further, just because something is effective, doesn't *necessarily* make it right.
In terms of the latter, it seems that if we as a society would like discourage violent behavior, beating people as punishment for it may not set the best example. "Violence is NOT okay...unless we have justification for it...in which case it's okay for us...but not for you...and if you're confused about when is okay or not...we'll just beat you again. Will that clear things up for you?"
How can we promote non violence in our citizens by beating them?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, but violence is tolerated, as a proper reaction to inappropriate violence. A hero with a gun who defends people from villains is still doing violence, but it is appropriate because it is defensive, not offensive.
Such would be the case with flogging...it is a (optional) consequence for bad behavior.
It's not like there is a government violence truck going around beating citizens with loud speaker declaring "Violence is bad! Stop violence!".
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Ah, but violence is tolerated, as a proper reaction to inappropriate violence. A hero with a gun who defends people from villains is still doing violence, but it is appropriate because it is defensive, not offensive.
I don't think that's immediately clear. You might be able to make case for retribution being equivalent to defense in this case, but I'm not sure it's that cut and dried.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it can. In some situations, it's the only possible solution.
That doesn't make it the best solution. Take the drug wars in Mexico, for example. Police crackdowns have led to increased violence and cyclesof retaliation.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, what would you do with a career criminal who simply viewed corporal punishment as a cost of doing business?
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that violence is not always the best answer.
However, there seems to be an idea floating around that violence is always a bad thing, and always going to propagate more violence. This I strongly disagree with. At times violence is the best answer, and if done properly, the end of the problem.
Violence is not evil, merely powerful, like money or sex. And like all powerful things it can be misused, corrupted and generally used for evil. But also like money and sex, violence can be used well, intelligently and for the good of all.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: Also, what would you do with a career criminal who simply viewed corporal punishment as a cost of doing business?
I would imagine that a criminal couldn't keep opting in for floggings...this option would be more likely used only once or twice in a lifetime as an acknowledgment of wrong doing, and a way of not disrupting your whole life with a prison sentence.
Of course, it is not my suggestion, so I could be wrong.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If my posts implied that as I saw this as a black and white issue of choosing one extreme or the other, I apologize, that wasn't my intention.
I have yet to see a defense of flogging (in this thread) that argues either for its effectiveness or its moral justification, but rather, simply an assertion that it would save us money, which I think is only true in the very short term, and I pointed out some reasons why I think so.
Accepting that some times violence is not the answer, and sometimes it is the answer, why would it be the answer in this situation? And is flogging the only available option to save money in the justice system?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should make it clear that I am not advocating a wholesale immediate conversion to this system. It should be experimentally implemented in a few states and then adopted nationwide should the results be promising.
Remember--keeping people caged up for years amid psychopaths, rapists and sadistic jail guards is already very cruel in and of itself. A flogging would be less cruel.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should also point out that I think the way our current justice system works is not very effective. It seems to me that we can't figure out whether we're in the business of revenge or rehabilitation. And there's a host of other problems that I think waste money, destroy peoples' lives, and don't in the end promote positive behavior or help people understand that their actions were wrong.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reason the public is so okay with the horrors of jail is that those horros are hidden from view and the anguish is mainly psychological. The public has a harder time shuddering at the prospect of jail than they would at the prospect of getting flogged even though the former could be on the whole considerably worse for a person.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say it was ever inherently good. I said that I am unconvinced that it is always inherently evil.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: Also, what would you do with a career criminal who simply viewed corporal punishment as a cost of doing business?
I would imagine that a criminal couldn't keep opting in for floggings...this option would be more likely used only once or twice in a lifetime as an acknowledgment of wrong doing, and a way of not disrupting your whole life with a prison sentence.
Of course, it is not my suggestion, so I could be wrong.
Hmm. I might able to support that. It would depend heavily on the details.
If we're going to drastically change an aspect of the way we punish crimes, though, I'd prefer we ended drug prohibition first.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
boots, someone can argue that violence isn't inherently evil, without jumping to the extreme alternative that it's in itself good. It could be that violence is not inherently anything. Violence just is. And to evaluate it we might have to look at the effects, or the reasons for it, etc...
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: Also, what would you do with a career criminal who simply viewed corporal punishment as a cost of doing business?
I would imagine that a criminal couldn't keep opting in for floggings...this option would be more likely used only once or twice in a lifetime as an acknowledgment of wrong doing, and a way of not disrupting your whole life with a prison sentence.
Of course, it is not my suggestion, so I could be wrong.
Hmm. I might able to support that. It would depend heavily on the details.
If we're going to drastically change an aspect of the way we punish crimes, though, I'd prefer we ended drug prohibition first.
I agree on that point. Or at least change the way we deal with people with serious drug problems.
But also, in regards to the quoted part, again, there is an assumption that the choice to get flogged is an acknowledgement of wrong doing on the part of the perpetrator, rather than a choice of what seems an easy way out.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I strongly disagree. Violence may be a necessary evil, but it is, in itself, evil.
I don't think it is. Violence I think is dependent on context before the act can be considered evil or good.
Two people I think you will agree who happen to enjoy physical pain in the context of sex, are not committing sin when they inflict pain on each other. Spanking/whipping/etc. There's nothing necessary about the circumstance, the violence isn't unethical I should think.
If I chose to vent my frustration by punching a bag at the gym, that violence to me is not a necessary evil, it's simply a means of using violence to accomplish a good thing.
If I were attacked by a man who was clearly out of his mind, and while using force to defend myself he accidentally dies, the violence in the exchange is not evil on either side.
I know I'm being a bit teleological but I'm not sure violence is one of those things that is inherently evil. It lends itself extremely well to evil, as it works well with coercion, but again coercion is not always evil. Think of me diving to save a man who is wandering into traffic and not watching where they are going.
Violence as a means to punish those who break the law, I'm not convinced is warranted, or effective at dealing with it. To be honest though, I really don't know what the best means of responding to the criminal element in society is. I don't think it's prison, but I don't have an alternative.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: If we're going to drastically change an aspect of the way we punish crimes, though, I'd prefer we ended drug prohibition first.
**Stands and claps** Stupid drug laws!
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Violence a means to punish those who break the law, I'm not convinced is warranted, or effected at dealing with it. To be honest though, I really don't know what they best means of responding to the criminal element in society is. I don't think it's prison, but I don't have an alternative.
Blacklade, I wrote something on my blog a while back that is tangentially related to this. I was specifically talking about how I think the arguments regarding free will often times miss the forest for the trees, in what should really be a conversation about responsibility, about the causes of human behavior and how to best address problems. I don't propose an answer to your question, but I do propose what I think is a more fruitful way to think about the questions. Link.Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I didn't say it was ever inherently good. I said that I am unconvinced that it is always inherently evil.
Ok. An example where it is neutral?
Um, you're the one making a claim about the nature of violence, not me.
How about you a give me a single example where it is evil itself (not because of any effects it might have, but as you say, itself).
And if you succeed in convincing me of it in that single case, you could try to explain to me how it always true.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade, I don't think we are defining violence in the same way.
Your first example I would not consider violence. The second also is not violence - it is force. The third example is violence - evil on both parts, but necessary on yours. You used violence to prevent more violence. If violence wasn't bad, why would you want to prevent it?
ETA: mph, the definition of violence I am using is that of physical force to cause injury or harm. Causing injury or harm is, I am pretty sure, harmful.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: Oh, I have no doubt that the person sentenced will be choosing what they consider to be the easy way out.
I don't think that necessarily precludes effectiveness as a crime deterrent.
Fair point, though not the one Stone Wolf was making. What I'm getting at...do we have an statistics that would indicate that this type of punishment does indeed decrease criminal behavior or save money in the long term? And if we do, do we have any further statistics about the relative differences in psychological damage from long term imprisonment vs. flogging. And if so, does the money saved outweigh the damage done?
Stone Wolf seemed to be implying that the choice of getting flogged already reflected an acceptance by the perpetrator that their action was wrong, and a further desire to right their lives.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:To be honest though, I really don't know what the best means of responding to the criminal element in society is. I don't think it's prison, but I don't have an alternative.
Would it be fair to say that while you think it's a terrible solution, it might actually be the best one?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:In terms of the latter, it seems that if we as a society would like discourage violent behavior, beating people as punishment for it may not set the best example. "Violence is NOT okay...unless we have justification for it...in which case it's okay for us...but not for you...and if you're confused about when is okay or not...we'll just beat you again. Will that clear things up for you?"
I've never understood this line of reasoning.
Our forms of punishment now include forced incarceration and fines. That doesn't mean that we endorse kidnapping and robbery. Penal systems pretty much invariably involve doing unpleasant things to offenders against their will, which is generally the sort of thing that, when individuals do it, is considered wrong and often grounds for them being subjected to the penal system.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
violence definition: Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
Given that definition, I would say that violence is not inherently evil. Because committing physical harm to someone with the intention of stopping them from committing physical harm to you or someone you love is not inherently evil. Same act, different moral judgment.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Stone Wolf seemed to be implying that the choice of getting flogged already reflected an acceptance by the perpetrator that their action was wrong, and a further desire to right their lives.
I was simply saying that this voluntary alternative should not always be available, especially to repeat offenders.
As to statistics, I have no idea...I think Sa'eed is suggesting that we try this out as a study and use the resulting statistics to decide about widespread use.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:violence definition: Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
Heh. Saying mean things to hurt someone's feelings could technically fall within this definition. You're using physical force (to form words with your mouth, to type the letters on the keyboard, etc.), with the intent to hurt someone.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: ETA: mph, the definition of violence I am using is that of physical force to cause injury or harm. Causing injury or harm is, I am pretty sure, harmful.
I got very few spankings in my life, but one I really deserved was violent, and didn't cause me any harm, it in fact was very helpful to me.
There is a branch of martial arts called Aikido, which uses pressure points and joint manipulation to cause pain, but not harm (it can harm, but you are taught to assess and decide before things get that far). It is violent. But doesn't cause injury or harm.
I think your definition is not very strong Boots.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Strider, that would be committing evil to prevent a greater evil. I acknowledged from the start that it may sometime be a necessary evil.
kmboots, only if you're starting from the assumption of that "violence is inherently evil". I would say it was committing an action to prevent another action. The initial violent action was not morally justified, not because it was inherently evil, but because let's say the perpetrator was causing unjustified harm to another individual. Violence != unjustified harm, or at least not necessarily so.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
