I've long held the view that certain categories of offences deserve not only long periods of imprisonment, but corporal punishment as well. Those who've read any of my mutterings herein, would know that I oppose Capital Punishment for any offence, save for ISIL operatives caught in the act, and only then, executed contemporaneously with that terrorist act !

The class of crimes that I believe deserve judicial flogging, are those that are strictly limited to 'against the person', where violence and/or aggravation are a constituent (or criminal proof), of that crime. Essentially crimes of; (Rape) Sexual Assault involving violence and/or aggravation against women, children and in some instances, men. All of which should attract corporal punishment, together with an appropriately protracted gaol term.

There are several other crimes that should entice similar punishments, however there's enough substance herein, to attract sufficient commentary I would've thought ? Other then I should perhaps attribute (for the purpose of this Topic) a referential construction as to the term; 'flogging' ?

Flogging in my view is that which is currently employed by both, Malaysia and Singapore, and is administered by an individual, with the deployment of a rotan (cane) across the exposed buttocks, with the kidney area and upper thigh areas of the anatomy, heavily shielded. A medical Doctor is always present, and can cease the punishment' immediately, if considered medically appropriate.

Interesting to read your perspective, o sung wu. My only question would be (with the rationales of corrections in mind): what would you hope to be achieved through what you propose, and how do you feel your proposal would achieve it?

Without specifying this, I think it would be hard for any meaningful discussion to ensue.

o sung wu

the fools who demanded that children not be smacked are responsible for much of the 'you can't touch me' arrogance of many criminals. The jails are generally are joke in this country and most crims know that. The social engineers have made it far more about the criminal than the victim. Unfortunately the natural family structures have been destroyed by engineers (generally those who have failed miserably in their own lives). We are reaping what we have sown now in society where people in their 80's are bashed by druggies for $20.

o sung wu, I have some sympathy for the idea of alternatives to prison sentences for crimes where the intent of the justice system is not to restrain the offender (those who if not locked up are likely to just keep re-offending).

I do have concerns about the ability of government to implement and administer any laws fairly. I've got concerns about how physical punishment could be manipulated for political ends, laws that satisfy the blood lust of some elevate that risk to a point where I wonder what safeguards could be put and kept in place.

Your own post contained a rider that highlighted another part of the problem "and in some instances, men".

It appears to be suggested that the same crime earns a different penalty primarily dependant on the gender of the victim. The law should always be neutral in regard to issues such as that, if there are extenuating circumstances to allow for then they should be on a case by case basis and not on the basis of gender, race or other broad brush assumptions.

R0bert

runner,

As usual, you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. Prisoners (I say "prisoners" because our society is far more punitive towards, and obsessed with, blue collar crime despite the fact that white collar crime costs us all far more) are actually more likely to have come from homes where they were smacked. Most prisoners come from low socioeconomic households, which are far more likely to choose smacking as a form of punishment due to the lack of patience that often results from the constant financial stress that parents of such households are placed under, and the relative emotional distance that may also result from financial stress.

That's not to say that smacking caused their criminality (that's another line of debate), but your suggestion that criminals, nowadays, come from homes where smacking wasn't a form of discipline is utterly baseless.

Hi there ROBERT...

I agree with you when in essence it might appear, that only certain classes of males should be included in those cases that might justify corporal punishment. I was referring to violent and/or aggravated instances of sexual assault of males. Generally speaking violence occasioned by males on males wouldn't necessarily warrant corporal punishment, not from my own personal experience. I hasten to add, that I may well be completely demolished by many on this Forum, as a consequence of my somewhat, revolutionary views ? It's a matter of degree, I suppose ?

Further, there's virtually no chance that corporal punishment will EVER receive assent in Australia ! Never ever ! Irrespective of what the political persuasion is, of a government ? Furthermore I honestly believe there's not a politician alive, who would possess the political intrepidity to introduce a private members Bill, even to explore the complex machinations of such a tendentious proposal ? It is for this reason I suspect that this Topic is merely an exercise in unabashed futility ?

Hi there RUNNER...

Your submission apropos gaols being easier on crooks, is in part, quite correct ? From the official perspective, definitely. Inmates enjoy many freedoms and much greater latitude then years past. However, the internal controlling strata within the average NSW maximum security boob, is quite onerous, for those who've never done gaol previously ?

Long Bay is controlled mainly by the criminal Bikie gangs and their cohorts, and not far behind are the Lebanese (Muslim) crime gangs, who are diametrically opposed to the Bikies ! And thirdly there are a few smaller Asian gangs, and the most inconsequential of the lot, are the anglo's who are not aligned, nor protected by any of the other groups. A fundamentally happy mix don't you think ? And it's the poor ol' screws who laughingly believe the run the gaols !

Hi RUNNER (again)...

I'm sorry I exceeded my allotted 350 words - Anyway, another much greater problem for NSW Gaols at least, was caused by the passage of different governments, trying to experiment with different types and styles of Commissioners.

On one hand a former academic (a PhD) was appointed after the previous long serving Comptroller had retired after quite a successful incumbency as top man of NSW Prisons. Well this new fellow though apparently quite a sound academic, failed miserable as the Commissioner. Rioting, disobedience, insurrection and considerable industrial disputation with prison staff. Together with some serious escapes, not to mention some particularly savage bashings both of inmates and staff.

Apparently this new fellow thought by giving prisoners everything they demanded he'd have a happy ship so to speak, making the prison staff's job much harder, and infinitely more dangerous ! When he finally left the system, it was in a state of chaos, and it took some years, and millions of dollars to repair much of the so called 'reforms' that this bloke had introduced ! Politicians will never learn ?

This academic bloke, caused so much dissent, so much dislocation to what harmony that had existed there, in the few short years he was in charge, it was a sorry mess for sure. I'm not suggesting his heart wasn't in the right place ? I'm sure it was, apparently too, he was considered to be quite a personable sort of bloke. It's just that he had no idea, how to handle and manage hardened criminals, and the staff necessary, to control those hardened criminals !

That's strange. I would have thought my question warranted a response given that the title of this thread suggests defending corporal punishment.

Regarding prisons, we need to remember that around 80% of prisoners will be released one day. These people are no longer used to having to think for themselves, and have now learned how to better commit crimes through discussions with fellow inmates; when released, prisoners often re-enter the environment in which they committed their offence, or acquired their offending behaviour. One of the most important factors in reducing the chances of re-offending - finding a job - is extremely difficult, too, because no-one trusts an ex-con. With all that going against them, the last thing the community needs is an even more mentally damaged person re-entering society than what went in, but that's what prison almost guarantees us. Despite all the exaggerations of prison life being a walk in the park nowadays (when in reality, it's an incredibly boring, stressful and sometimes dangerous existence in an ugly environment that is extremely noisy and stinks of bleach), people more often than not leave prison in a worse mental state than what they went in with.

While retribution and restitution are important aims of imprisonment, we would not be doing ourselves any favors by releasing someone into the community who is bound to re-offend. All this does is create even more victims and cost the tax payer more by putting a re-offender through the system again. We're so hell bent on revenge that we never seem to think of any of this and anyone who does is accused of going soft on crime.

Now sure, we could keep them all in prison for the rest of their lives, but I suspect that would raise humanitarian concerns and (at $200 a day) cost the tax payer an absolute fortune.

There's another interesting theory in support of corporal punishment, and that's based on a fiscal imperative ? An individual is offered a choice; serve a period of imprisonment, or receive a specified number of strokes of the cane ? The cane is the preferred instrument of choice, being of four feet in length and one half inch thick, before use, the cane is soaked in water to add weight and flexibility and is treated with antiseptic. This is the Singapore, Malaysian, and Brunei model, for the safe application of corporal punishment ?

Needless to say such august bodies as Amnesty International will have no truck with such a suggestion, and have roundly condemned the Singaporean authorities and others, for engaging in such medieval and inhumane, practices. It's been asserted nevertheless, Singapore who continue to energetically practice corporal punishment, is amongst one of the safest city/states in the world !

Apparently this theory, as I mentioned above, is based on a financial imperative ? The cost of sending an individual to gaol is increasing exponentially, according to United States figures. Further once an individual is swallowed-up in the penal system, often it only serves to further escalate his criminality, and guarantees his recidivism ?

It's for this reason some pundits are suggesting a discretionary punishment regime. A case of either, a set number of strokes of the cane ? Or a predetermined period of penal servitude ? Entirely up to the offender.

AJ Philips your post surely justifies either deportation [roll on moon settlement], or the death penalty for all violent crime. It would appear you have no answer to the problem.

I lean toward corporal punishment on the grounds that most bullies & violent criminals are cowards, usually needing the back up of a gang to be "tough". They depend on appearing tough to gather their following.

If the cane was applied publicly, & displayed the lack of toughness the criminals usually display under this punishment, it would definitely reduce their standing as a gang member.

From what I am told of Singapore experience, once is definitely enough for most thugs, & they become very careful not to commit similar offences again.

We would be in danger of creating some heroes, who could display toughness under such punishment, but it is worth taking that chance to make our streets safer.

G'day there HASBEEN...

So I gather that you'd support the application of corporal punishment under certain circumstances ? No doubt, it would be a very big step indeed, and I don't believe there'd be many politicians with the political courage to support such a measure. I've not been physically present when caning has occurred, though I have witnessed a video of a black man receiving six strokes at the hands of the Malaysian authorities. A sight I'd not wish to witness again, without a very good reason to do so.

Other than pursuant to the most extreme circumstances of violence and aggravation of a kind occasioned against women, children or a defenceless male person, if at any time in the future, such a measure is introduced, it must be applied very judiciously I believe ?

Yes A J PHILLIPS...

The last time I read your thread you were pontificating about RUNNER not knowing what he was talking about ? And of course, you do ? Drawing upon your vast repository of expertise on criminality ? Therefore it would be an immense waste of your time, speaking about anything I seek to furnish an opinion, as you'd need to 'dumb it down' significantly I would've thought, in order that us dull witted, uneducated ex coppers could understand the thrust of your commentary ?

o sung wu,

Yes, I also demonstrated that runner didn’t know what he was talking about. I don’t know why you insist on writing yourself off as some dumb ex-copper, though. You certainly don’t have the vocabulary of someone who’s all that stupid.

As for your recent elaboration on your views on caning, the problem is that you’re then going to have victims complain that the offender is being allowed to choose what they perceive to be the lighter of the two punishments. How is retribution then properly fulfilled? No matter what you do, you’re going to upset someone. The rationales behind corrections are difficult, if not impossible, to balance with the sometimes contradictory goals, but we need to keep trying.

As for Singapore's low crime rate, it would be naive to assume that it all boils down to caning and harsher punishments in general. Certainly some of it does (according to rational choice theory, at least), but as far as criminologists can tell, it’s statistically insignificant. Of the three key elements that describe the law's ability to control behaviour (the swiftness, severity, and the certainty of punishment), only the swiftness and severity of punishment have been found to be effective deterrents. The severity of punishment plays a statistically insignificant role in controlling behaviour, and that’s the only element that caning would satisfy by itself.

To add to the problems of caning as a form of punishment, it has been found to have a far greater detrimental effect on an offender’s sense of self-worth, and given that most offenders already have a low sense of self-worth (a causational factor in their offending), caning would likely increase recidivism - particularly when served in conjunction with a prison sentence - creating more victims and expense to the tax payer.

Back to Singapore, however, their social ecology is completely different to ours. Singapore’s small size would also help for various reasons. Nations that are small in size tend to have less crime regardless of how harsh their punishments are. Broken windows theory can also help to explain Singapore’s low crime rate.

Hasbeen,

Take what you want from what I’ve said. That’s how it is. The death penalty, however, (according to America’s procedures, at least) is not as cheap as you may think. It’s been argued that it’s actually more expensive, but I haven’t looked into it that deeply. It’s certainly a good measure for reducing recidivism, but we can’t kill them all. Deportation would have all sorts of humanitarian problems and/or fiscal restrictions, depending on what you mean by that exactly.

As for public caning, all I could add to what I’ve already said to o sung wu is that doing it publically might act as a general deterrent for those of us who were probably never going to offend in the first place, but most crimes are not thought out rationally, and when they are, the focus tends to be disproportionately on the benefits of committing the offence rather than the risks. Furthermore, public punishment only creates more resentment and instills in an offender the belief that society is the enemy and something to work against. Authorities also lose their perceived legitimacy amongst the general public as the barbarity of penalties increase.

I don’t think that any potential benefits of public caning would achieve much in light of the problems it would cause. The issues are complex and we need to think with our heads, not with our anger.

By the way, Hasbeen, no I don’t have an answer. If I did, then I’d have myself a Nobel prize and the world would be a better place. But that doesn't mean that I can’t spot, or point out, the problems with the proposals of others.

Just imagine how many problems would need to be repeated before everyone could identify them, if those who didn’t have a suggestion of their own were not supposed to point to the problems in the suggestions of others until they did.

AJ Philips, your confidence in your arguments, when you have absolutely no practical tests to base them on, leads me to suspect you are an academic.
Just why your theory of why Singapore, [& remember we are including Malaysia, a somewhat larger area] is more correct than the idea that increase in overcrowding leads to more crime I can't accept. To then argue that you have some proven idea is kind of fanciful.

I for one am getting very tired of criminologists, with all theory & no practice, being taken seriously. It is since we started applying their theory that our problems escalated to an amazing degree.

Time we got back to the techniques that worked for centauries. If we were to select one state & apply the cane, we could then test which system works. At least that state would manage to export most of it's thugs to elsewhere quite quickly. Should work for the continent as well.

I have posted a few similar remarks on this forum some time ago.

There are augments for and against corporal punishment, but I feel that there is certainly a case for administering the cane in some cases. We were all beaten at school for even minor infractions, even by the head boy of the house, all on an official basis and the details were entered into the punishment book and signed off by the Housemaster. It was a very good means of keeping us in line although probably overdone in some instances and I'm not necessarily advocating it to the extent is was used in the past. I can honestly say that it didn't have any lasting effect. It was quick and easily administered and pretty soon forgotten. I never met anyone who held a lasting grudge anyway.
As has been stated on this forum there are acts of violence perpetrated against innocent citizens, which I think should be punished with the same sort of pain inflicted on victims. It would serve as a reminder and also be a good cheap deterrent as the alternative of locking up criminals is so expensive. There is a video on Youtube (that requires membership and signing in before viewing) that illustrates the sort of punishment meted out in Singapore that is quite salutary. I firmly believe it acts as a positive deterrent. I wouldn't want to risk a drug offence, for instance, if this was the result.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxWg6JDoRFs

'. Most prisoners come from low socioeconomic households, which are far more likely to choose smacking as a form of punishment due to the lack of patience that often results from the constant financial stress that parents of such households are placed under, and the relative emotional distance that may also result from financial stress.'

actually AJ if you did a little homework before slagging off you will find that over 90% in prison actually grew up fatherless or with step fathers. Again I suspect it does not fit your narrow narrative however true.

Hi there HASBEEN...

I forgot to ask, that dreadful event, that had such an awful impact on you and your family, where a group of Lebanese thugs unmercifully bashed a member of your family ? Had the statutes provided an option of corporal punishment in lieu of penal servitude, and your 'Victim Impact Statement' (VIS) permitted the offender(s) such an option, 'without' your objection being heard or allowed ? What would your response be ?

Please remember, it's the 'OFFENDER' who may choose, without any regard to you, or anything contained in your VIS ? An example might be; the offender(s) may choose 6 years gaol ? You yourself might prefer they receive 12 strokes of the cane. Conversely, they elect to receive the 12 strokes of the cane, and then having completed their punishment, are released. Rather than going to gaol ?

My reason for inquiring; A US academic from John Jay, New York, is exploring the case of corporal punishment as a fiscal imperative. As I'd previously alluded to in an earlier thread ? Simply HASBEEN, I'm just trying to establish where the victimology may lay, in such instances ?

The bloke does make a compelling argument for constructing such an option. Considering the physical/psychological impact gaol can have on a someone who's never done 'boob' before. Unfortunately, there's scant regard for the intrinsic emotional needs of the victim once again ? If anything they tend to pay 'lip service' by touching on some vague extrinsic matters of the poor hapless victim ! A very common oversight by those who's job it is to safeguard the rights, and the physical and psychological needs of victims.

In conclusion, in my over 32 years in the police, those who should know better, worry more for the 'rights' and 'needs' of offenders, than ever for the rights and needs of victims. It's as though the entire criminal justice system is inverted ! Thanks HASBEEN !

Hasbeen,

There are a ton of practical tests. Perhaps the biggest and broadest is the fact that crime rates overall in most Western countries have continued to fall since the ‘70s and are lower now than they were even 80 years ago, if you want to go by the more stable measurement of homicide rates.

Why you would bring up Malaysia, I don’t know. They have a high crime rate.

Overcrowding is only one factor that can influence crime rates, it can be negated by other factors such as the omnipresence of police in the small area. This is as silly as your suggestion once that poverty couldn’t be a factor in crime because rural areas don’t have much crime. Crime is the result of a complex interplay between multiple factors that must converge for it to take place.

<<It is since we started applying their theory that our problems escalated to an amazing degree. Time we got back to the techniques that worked for centauries.>>

This gave me a laugh. The old techniques were failing miserably, that's why we changed them. The only reason things appear - to the more ignorant - to be getting worse is because media reporting of crime has ramped up ten-fold; we’re now more aware of certain crimes (e.g. paedophilia, domestic violence); we’re better at detecting crime; courts have become more punitive - especially with violent crime; community corrections have been a double-edged sword in that they now give police/judges the ability to put an offender through the system when they would have once been let go due to the severity of imprisonment; feminism has seen women sentenced more equally to men; the list goes on and on.

Every generation has thought that things were getting worse and that the end was nigh. It seems to be in our DNA; a coping mechanism for those of us who are about to check out, perhaps.

runner,

I’d have to check those stats, they don't gel well with your smacking theory, though. Either way, that’s not the reason for the increase in prison populations (see above).

As a civil libertarian and member of Amnesty International I deplore all acts of violence. I see no value in corporal punishment, be it the institutionalised violence inflicted on children by such groups as religious zealots. The past practices of Catholicism in their Australian schools is a prime example of institutionalised violence masquerading as discipline, and incidentally giving self gratification to the perpetrators, could there be an element of self gratification in this argument? I also oppose state sanctioned violence in all its forms, including so called corporal punishment as a form of retribution against the criminal.
AJ Philips has put forward a strenuous argument against this state sanctioned violence of corporal punishment. Of course some of the 'Usual Suspects' on the forum, who are not adverse to all forms of state violence, the legalised murderous acts of militarism, and capital punishment, along with the lesser barbarism of corporal punishment will never agree. These people see these violent acts as a necessary punitive response to those they fear, have or will, violate their thinly veneered ordered society.. 'Get em' before they get us!". All I can say is violence perpetuates violence! I would have thought the "christian" on the forum would seek the solace of his bible on this subject, not so, he is as violent as the rest.

Dear Paul,

<<As a civil libertarian and member of Amnesty International I deplore all acts of violence.>>

That's admirable and if we were saintly, then we would turn the other cheek when attacked by crime.

The problem is, we are not saints so we don't turn the other cheek and there are no indications that we will as a group become saints in the near future.

Instead, we currently use imprisonment, which is extremely violent and horrific. If it were up to me, I would rather absorb the pain of the stick to retain my freedom and keep away from the horrors of prison.

<< I would rather absorb the pain of the stick to retain my freedom and keep away from the horrors of prison.>> totally understandable Yuyutsu. That does not justify any goodness in the stick. I would accept prison over Crucifixion. That is not to say prison is good, crucifixion is bad, just the relative horror of one against the other.

I'm confused by this statement AJ, it seems to be contradictory:

"Of the three key elements that describe the law's ability to control behaviour (the swiftness, severity, and the certainty of punishment), only the swiftness and severity of punishment have been found to be effective deterrents. The severity of punishment plays a statistically insignificant role in controlling behaviour, and that’s the only element that caning would satisfy by itself."

How can 'severity of punishment' be an effective deterrent and play an insignificant role in controlling behaviour?

Personally I think any form of public corporal punishment or public execution is totally barbaric. However I am not against the death penalty away from public view especially if it's carried out swiftly, as opposed to keeping them on death row for 10 years+. I would support the death penalty for murder, rape, paedophiles, violent home invasions of totally innocent people, and any premeditated violent acts that are inherently evil (e.g. those involving torture, prolonged sexual assaults, etc). Going one step further, where an offender (of one of the above crimes) is caught in the act... dispense with a trial and shoot them on the spot.

My proposal for deterrents may seem silly and will never happen but here it is - (1) take the TVs out of the prison cells; perhaps losing this privilege will be the biggest deterrent of all. (2) make the guilty serve the full sentence; (3) increase the lengths of the sentence exponentially in relation to the number of previous convictions; (4) after three felony convictions lock them away forever; (5) keep prisoners separated so they cannot abuse each other and so they can at least feel safe; (6) in each prison cell of the prisoners with 10+ years sentence, provide a small breakable glass window (like a fire alarm) and behind the window a straw for which the prisoner can suck up a cyanide tablet if they no longer want to be there.

Hip <<personally I think any form of public corporal punishment or public execution is totally barbaric. However I am not against the death penalty away from public view especially if it's carried out swiftly>> but if its not then that's okay too. Then there is the list of a couple of hundred exceptions from murder, rape, right down to jaywalking.

and this is a gem <<where an offender (of one of the above crimes) is caught in the act... dispense with a trial and shoot them on the spot.>>

"Our Fearless Leader has announced that last evening the opposition leader was found committing the most vile and contemptuous criminal act against a fellow citizen. Fearless Leader wishes to assure the community that immediate and appropriate action was taken, after the opposition leader was caught committing a barbarous act, details of which are being withheld to protect the sensibilities of women, children and the elderly. The heinous criminal was immediately executed, by firing squad as per the law. Societies security has one more been maintained, justice has been done, thanks to our Fearless Leader and the vigilance of the secret police."

Can anyone here who supports corporal punishment produce the scientific, empirical, and statistical "proof" that corporal punishment reduces crime?

If you think you can, please provide a link to the certified, peer reviewed, scientific study that proves it.

I'm waiting ........

Otherwise, all you have to offer is mere opinion and belief.

Hey Paul, as long as you are having a go at my opinion, I'd like to see your views on my deterrents for the fun of it.

Only a proportion of crimes are detected, only a
proportion of those detected are reported to the
police, only a proportion of those reported lead to an
arrest, only a proportion of arrests lead to
prosecution, only a proportion of prosecutions lead to
conviction, and only a proportion of convictions lead
to imprisonment. The chances of going from one stage to
the next depend largely on two factors: the
seriousness of the offense, and the social status of the
offender.

For most adults convicted of serious crimes, corrections
are likely to include imprisonment. This was not always
the case, for prisons are a relatively recent innovation.
Until two centuries ago, convicts were more likely to
be executed, tortured, deported, or exposed to public
ridicule in the stocks.

Originally, imprisonment was intended to provide the
convict with the opportunity for solitary reflection and
therefore penitence and rehabilitation, but this goal
has certainly not been achieved in practice.

In fact, the rate of repeated crime by those who have
been cinvicted before, seems alarmingly high.
Nearly three-quarters of all offenders released after
serving prison time are rearrested within four years -
sometimes for the same crimes. Since other released
prisoners presumably also return to crime but are not
arrested, the actual crime rate among released convicts
is even greater.

Clearly prisons fail to rehabilitate. Flogging won't help.

Decisions about capital punishment are not really
about deterrence. Thay are about retribution -
about society's revenge on a person who takes another's
life. Whether such retribution is justified is not a matter
of measureable facts; it is a moral judgement for each
individual to make. Soem people feel that those who kill
another human being should pay the supreme penalty and forfeit
their own lives, other feel that human life is so sacred that
society is demeaned when the state kills its citizens, however
grave their offense. However, Gallup polls in the past have
shown that an increasing majority of people - approx. some
75 percent favour the death penalty for heinous offenses.

Oh come off it AJ Philips, please don't quote those massaged academic figures to me, I'm an adult.

As a young bloke I could walk any street in Oz without fear of being attacked.

I could stand at a taxi rank, without fear of being king hit.

I would never be knifed, as no one carried knives around entertainment venues, but we could still carry them hunting.

I had never heard of anyone EVER being "glassed".

Your lower crime rates are a figment of your false statistics, thoroughly massaged to give the results that we want, but are never achieved.

If every thug that caused personal injury was given an automatic 5 years on a chain gang, clearing vermin from northern national parks, there would be a lot less crime. Most of the perpetrators would be off the street.

Of course that might lead to a lot less income for criminologists, which I'm sure is not academics objective at all.

@Lexi, Saturday, 9 July 2011 2:49:17 PM, "The chances of going from one stage to the next depend largely on two factors: the seriousness of the offense, and the social status of the offender"

Wrong then and wrong now.

Link for my above quote from Lexi,

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4570&page=5

Hasbeen, "As a young bloke I could walk any street in Oz without fear of being attacked"

That was before the unforeseen negative consequences of the leftist Progressives' social reengineering experiments including the 'endless diversity-we-have-to-have'.

otb,

Please explain what exactly do you find as being
"wrong then and wrong now?" On what evidence do
you base your assertions?

BTW: I suppose I should be
flattered at your going to all the trouble of
digging up my old posts under my old moniker -
from the past. What do you hope to achieve by it?

Hi there PESKY BOY...

I'm sorry if you've mistaken the thrust of this Topic ? The two propositions articulated herein, have nothing remotely to do with the reduction of crime; rather it's another process of PUNISHMENT ! Perhaps more precisely explained thus...

(i) Another method of the administration of punishment; or

(ii) An alternative for a convicted individual to avoid gaol !

Hi there CONSERVATIVE HIPPIE...

Your proposal (with the rider; 'that it may sound silly') to remove many of the amenities from prison cells might just cause a riot ! That said, much of what you suggest is absolutely meritorious ! A case of proffering the carrot, and being rewarded by additional concessions for good behaviour and productive industry whilst incarcerated. An excellent model, but fundamentally flawed so say many of the academics who study 'cause and effect' of penology.

In the Katingal 'experiment', it was thought by the 'experts', that notwithstanding that each inmate was classified as intractable and dangerous, if each were permitted certain allowable benefits in their single cells, their behaviour would be more acceptable, thus controllable ? Rather than earning those benefits.

Further CONS. HIPPIE, there's a certain ethic that's been loudly proclaimed and promoted ad nauseam, by those academics who're forever studying the prison system. Essentially, it says '...an individual is sent to prison 'as' a punishment, not 'for' punishment...? A reasonable proposition I would've thought.

When I first joined the job, I was quite surprised at the degree of respect police received from the average member of the public. Perhaps respect might not be quite the right term, maybe anxiety, unease, even nervousness ? Unease that you might be doing the wrong thing ? I'd not use fear, as it conjures up all manner of emotions, which might be significantly misleading ? Anyway, there was a saying in those days (late 1960's early '70's) we, the coppers 'owned' the streets, 'owned' the nights - a noble belief, nevertheless reasonable correct ! Meaning it was a fairly safe place to be in most parts of Sydney in those years, not quite everywhere, but most.

On retirement, I was so very surprised at my 'send-off' to hear from several blokes within my own peer group (detectives, sergeants, couple of inspectors), stories of 'fear' expressed by some M&F young police members ? Words like 'scared' too nervous to work 'one out', frightened to undertake traffic stops. The days of some reluctant respect of police, are long gone ? In reality, it's a complete reversal ?

If the coppers are demonstratively, too wary or suspicious to work the streets, and the nights, then how must ordinary members of the public feel ?

This unsustainable nonsense that certain parts of Bankstown as an example, being declared 'out of bounds' under threat of extreme violence, by certain radical Muslim cliques, purely because they've avowed 'sole' claim to the suburb and it's extensive environs, is preposterous ! An utter joke perpetuated by spineless, politically correct and morally corrupt politicians ! This is NOT the Australia, that I love and respect !

Therefore this 'manifesto' of mandated, corporal punishment (as a 'PUNISHMENT, NOT an ALTERNATIVE to imprisonment) sanctioned for certain categories of violent and/or aggravated crimes, occasioned against women, children and some instances males. I'd respectfully submit there would be overwhelming public endorsement, if clearly elucidated and strict boundaries were clearly established, for the introduction of judiciously approved, corporal punishment, of a kind I've described herein ?

'As a civil libertarian and member of Amnesty International I deplore all acts of violence'

except of course Paul the butcher of the unborn. We will just change terminology so as to fit my 'peaceful' nature.

Hi there SNAKE...

I too copped my share of the cane, the worst, or best if you like, was from the Headmaster - '...six of the best...' was the term, the class teacher described it as ? My indictable offence was being caught fighting behind the ablutions block, whereupon both of us were paraded before the HM ! There was a glimmer of respite in the whole sorry saga, it was as well the playground teacher had interceded when he did, it was I who was on the losing end of that particular bout, emmm ? The cane never left any unpleasant memories with me at least !

Hi there FOXY...

I must confess, I'm surprised at your response considering how careful you are with much of what you write ? I understand you're of the left, very much a pacifist, an academic, of which I have uttermost respect for, in your case.

I realise I don't state my case very well, for that I'm very sorry. The general thrust of my argument is 'adding' corporal punishment as an addition to the suite of correctional options ! As a PUNISHMENT. Notwithstanding how long they may receive in gaol, the caning is merely an addition (a Punishment) to be added to a term of imprisonment.

The average 'hard head' (heavy) who has no hope nor wish of rehabilitation, redemption or anything else, rarely would warrant the cane if introduced. Why, because they're quite comfortable with both their lifestyles and being perceived as professional 'recidivist' criminals. They preserve their criminal reputations very closely. It's important they're regarded, even by police, as durable and resilient characters, particularly amongst those of the underworld ! I could cite a dozen names without the need of ever thinking of any of their specifics, or multitude of crimes committed. Name their wives and kids even.

Generally speaking those in this group contain or restrain their violent activities to within themselves, rarely, unnecessarily involving members of the public. It's here that generally speaking, where the criminologists, the psychologists etc. go terribly wrong, still, that's another story altogether ?

Dear O Sung Wu,

Your understanding of me is not correct.

I am not "of the Left."
I am not an "academic."
I am not a "Pacifist."

So your "respect" for me may well be unfounded - if
it's based on those assumptions.

Fingers-crossed that it's not.

Anyway, my apologies, that I wanted to broaden this
discussion.I should have stuck to the subject.
With that in mind - the following link may be of
interest:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/mayjune_2011/features/bring_back_the_lash029136.php?page=all

You see Paul, when you make a stupid statement like "Then there is the list of a couple of hundred exceptions from murder, rape, right down to jaywalking" you blow your argument.

I offered five serious offences I feel warrant consideration for the death penalty, not a couple hundred including as you suggest jaywalking. Please have the courtesy to not misquote me and others (which seems to be a regular tactic from you), exaggerations are just another form of lies. No one trusts a proven liar.

What do you and your bros in Amnesty International suggest is an appropriate way to deal with recidivist murders, rapist, paedophiles, and violent sadistic criminals? Most likely a slap on the hand, free legal representation, $10,000 compensation for having a rough upbringing, followed by a group hug and blaming the victims, I suppose.

Hey o sung wu, I am surprised at you. I only ever got the cane once, & never again. I really am surprised you were such a slow learner.

Paul I read years ago that only fools & con men volunteer too much information about themselves.

There is absolutely no need for you to volunteer incriminating evidence that you are a member of a seditious organisation such as Amnesty International.

You are entitled to keep such dark secrets private. Of course we have all assumed your tendency to such extremes, but now we have proof at your own hand.

FOXY...

You have my apology for misunderstanding you, your politics and your stance on pacifism.

Indeed, I've read Mr MOSKOS'S book and I've heard him speak. He is a well regarded academic from John Jay in NYC. I summarised much of his opinions and views, already within this Topic.

Essentially his belief of flogging is a voluntary alternative to that of Gaol. Based mainly on economics, and a realistic option for a offender to avoid altogether, a period of incarceration by consenting to a Singapore/Malaysian style of caning ?

My original submission was altogether quite different. There exists certain crimes so heinous, and so violent, that as well as long periods of imprisonment, the offender should ALSO receive a set number of strokes with the cane. This is quite supplemental to his term of imprisonment.

I want you, and anyone else for that matter, to know that I've had to stand by ineffectually, and witness convicted criminals who've just been found guilty of a heinous and brutal series of crimes, occasioned against a young female, and who've just been sentenced to a lengthy period of imprisonment. All the while smirking and laughing in the direction of the bereaved relatives of the victim, as they're led back to the cellular area.

These people deserve no mercy, and should be subjected to a specified number of strokes with a cane. Am I some sort of monster ? Quite probably. However if any of you, have had to witness just a mere tenth of what I've seen, observing and feeling the almost palpable misery and the emotional devastation, felt by these bereaved parents, spouses, or family members, and then be prepared to bravely condemn any form of corporal punishment ?.....well I really don't know ?

It's not a case of revenge. Rather it's justic

O Sung Wu, as far as I am concerned, the state sanctioned flogging or killing of any criminal is just dragging our society as a whole down to the level of the criminals.

In one breath we would be saying that murder and assault are heinous crimes, but on the other we would be saying we could flog or kill someone under the right circumstances?

My family have been victims of a terrible crime, but at no stage did I want to agree to kill the perpetrator. A long, long time behind bars with several men who fancied him, sure, but not to kill him.
Our society is more civilized than that.

Talk about looking through rose coloured glasses, history's revisionists are at it again!
I live in the city of Sydney, now this from Hasbeen supported by Beach; <<I would never be knifed, as no one carried knives around entertainment venues, but we could still carry them hunting.>>
These blokes must have lived very sheltered lives down on the farm. In the 1920's and 30's Sydney was under the control of gangs, the most notorious being the 'Razor Gang' which controlled organised crime in inner Sydney. The slums of Darlinghurst, Surry Hills, Paddington and East Sydney. Ghastly murders committed by gang members with cut throat razors were common. These places were no go areas, to enter you had to be in fear of your life. In the 19th and early 20th century the slums of The Rocks were controlled by Irish criminals from the Rocks Push every bit as bad as any modern day gang.

A bit of light historical reading lads:

http://gallery.records.nsw.gov.au/index.php/galleries/people-of-interest/tilly-devine-the-razor-gang-wars-1927-31/

Fellas, if your going to talk nonsense, please pepper it with one or two facts, instead of 100% fantasy.

ConservativeHippie; At least Hitler and Stalin conducted "show trials". Which one do you favour, Hitler or Stalin. To say "Going one step further, where an offender (of one of the above crimes) is caught in the act... dispense with a trial and shoot them on the spot." A totally outrageous statement! it makes you no better than the for mentioned gentlemen, except they had the power and you don't.
Hip, note the << and >> in my post that is a direct quote of what you said, the couple of hundred and jaywalking was add by me to highlight the ridiculousness of your posting.
Now you go on speaking for me "Most likely a slap on the hand, free legal representation, $10,000 compensation for having a rough upbringing, followed by a group hug and blaming the victims, I suppose." The short answer is, NO! but my answer is not as you want summery execution.
cont

cont
And this from the Religious Intolerant One; "except of course Paul the butcher of the unborn. We will just change terminology so as to fit my 'peaceful' nature." Runner I do not support abortion on demand at all, it may put me at odds with many but that is my moral opinion. On that subject, How many church going, Liberal voting mums and dads have I come across over the years who are totally opposed to abortion. However, on finding their own sweet daughter of 15 is "up the duff" to some pimply faced boy, and immediately have the family GP arrange an illegal abortion to save both their daughters virtue, and the family honor, we don't want neighborhood gossip do we. Come on runner get real.

Foxy, another good post.

Suse, back in 1970's, my cousins daughter was murdered at the age of 19 by a co-worker, unwanted advances, on Xmas day of all days. Sure those closest to her, mum and dad wanted the bastard hung, totally understandable, and I think I would not have cared if they had. He eventually did a long prison term. But now with hindsight, hanging him would not have achieved anything. He was also 19 at the time, there is no winners in those situations.
My nephew was killed on his bike at 9 years of age, coming home from school on the footpath, in front of his grandmother, by a careless young girl in her car on her way home from work, not drunk, just a bad driving "P" plate'er. Should she have been hung, she took a life through stupidity, is stupidity an excuse? That girl has to live with that for the rest of her life.
How about the woman of some years back who committed premeditated murdered of an abusive husband. For the learned ones here she should have been hung, some may say, oh no, she had a good excuse.
Many of us formulate a "verdict" on a particular case based on a 30 second emotive grab on the 6 o'clock news. When the judge and jury have listened to hours, sometimes days and weeks of complex evidence. For all its faults I think we should stick with what we have got, and make progressive changes over time. There's that word Beach progressive!

When I suggested that a person who is caught in the act committing a heinous crime should be put down on the spot, my reasoning was the person is obviously guilty so why waste the time, expense and grief of a trial (and the risk he will be set free on a technicality).

Why shouldn't people who behave like wild animals, or actually worse than wild animals given their behaviour is premeditated, deserve the same treatment as a rabid dog?

I realise my suggestions are outrageous but it comes out of the frustration of seeing the Justice system totally failing us time after time.

It's annoying to read the comments from a person who is adamantly opposed to the death penalty that he cannot differentiate between a violent sadist murderer with evil intent and a bad driver accidentally causing a death. Perhaps making such statements is a convenient tactic to deflect the discussion away from the valid points.

If we had judges that would administer realistic sentences, a system where 10 years means 10 years, less sympathy for the criminals and more for the victims and witnesses, people like me would not be developing such radical ideas.

I still prefer the option of the death sentence in certain situations where there is no margin of doubt, and I do not see such a system dragging our whole society down to the level of the perpetrators.

To all those who say the death sentence doesn't deter criminals, well neither does not killing them; a dead rapist or paedophile won't get out of jail and reoffend, usually within four years.

Dear O Sung Wu and Paul,

Thank You both for your kind words.

There's been some very valid points raised in
this discussion.

Personally, my views are not set in concrete on
this or for that matter - any subject.
I usually tend to try to look
critically at things like motivation, circumstances,
context, and other such considerations.
Then again - if any of my family members were to
suffer from a heinous crime - I don't know what
my reaction would be in those circumstances and I
suspect that most people would also not be able to
guarantee rationality during those circumstances.
Normality would probably only return later on.

Thanks for raising this discussion. It will be
interesting to continue reading the reactions of the
contributors.

Hey Paul, now you are telling us that your not only seditious, but you can't handle math either. I wasn't round in the 20s & 30s, & a little math should have told you that, but you make a good point there.

It was the tough penalties imposed on thugs in those days that cleaned them mostly out of the community.

It is the feather duster approach you so like, that has led to the explosion of thugs & the king hit fraternity reaching the proportion it has today.

You may not have much sense, or math, but thanks for proving my point.

Dear Paul,

<<That does not justify any goodness in the stick. I would accept prison over Crucifixion. That is not to say prison is good, crucifixion is bad, just the relative horror of one against the other.>>

So what do you suggest instead?

Even if you are saintly as individual, you cannot realistically convince a whole society to turn the other cheek to crime. If nothing changes, society will continue to administer prison sentences with no other recourse, which is cruel and terrible - both for the offender and for the tax-payer.

Optional corporal punishment should be available as alternative, especially for those who are generally good people who are not dangerous to society and who do not belong in the prison system.

Hi there SUSEONLINE...

Some of us are off Topic at the moment. I must confess I'm one of the worst offenders generally !

Lets be very very clear on this corporal punishment thing ! My submission essentially rests on the word (noun) 'punishment'. Crimes of great violence and/or aggravation committed upon; women, children and some men, as well as attracting, appropriately long terms of imprisonment, should 'include' a mandated degree of corporal punishment as well !

In relation to capital punishment, forget it, we'll not see such punishment again, in our lifetimes. There's no political party in this country, with the nerve or gumption to introduce a bill to enable execution to be included within the suite of options available to the judiciary ? Personally, I'm totally against capital punishment for all offences, other than treason perhaps ?

Further, there are many of those within the judiciary who would decline to sit on capital matters. Such is the level of feeling of many Justices who are totally averse to any attempt to reintroduce such a measure. Also between you and I SUSEONLINE, neither will there be any meaningful attempt to introduce a Bill allowing corporal punishment as an alternative either I reckon ?

Finally, if government were to mandate corporal punishment, would society see it as a sorry decline in our level of civilised behaviour ? You mention in your previous thread SUSEONLINE, language to the effect, '...with several men fancied him...', meaning homosexual rape ? Do you really mean that ? Have you any idea how truly horrid gaol is, SUSEONLINE ?

Me thinks, it may prove quite interesting to allow certain members of the public, a warts 'n all tour, of Long Bay Gaol ?

O Sung Wu, my relative spent 7 years in jail, so I do know what goes on, and no, I don't feel sorry for what inevitably happens to some of the scum inhabiting our jails!
Mostly, there is not much the jail staff can do about what happens when they aren't watching.

I do draw the line at lining the inmates up and using state-paid officers to either flog them or kill them however, as that is just like the inmates behaviour....

Hi there SUSEONLINE...

You're are absolutely correct when you say it's hard for prison staff to watch inmates continually, for the purpose of stopping some of the violence happening to other inmates.

On the issue of the cane, I just can't see where you're coming from there ? So it's a case we'll have to disagree essentially. Thank you for your contributions, I always appreciate when the ladies add their often, very superior intellects to a conversation.

Dear O Sung Wu,

I've been re-thinking the case of punishment and
after reading Suse's latest post I have to admit
that I am leaning towards agreeing with her.
I've written in the past concerning discipline
and children and on re-reading my thoughts at
that time, find that the same can possibly apply
to adults.

Punishment does not deter misconduct in the case
of children and it probably would not deter criminal
acts in the case of adults either. Punishment merely
makes the offender more cautious in committing his/her
crime, more adroit in concealing their traces, more
skillful in escaping detention. When either a child
or an adult is punished they resolve to be more
careful, not more honest and responsible.

Punishment fails to achieve its goal. No one says to
themselves, while being punished, "I'm going to
improve. I am going to be a better person - more
responsible, generous, and loving." Criminals know
that punishment is rarely administered for their
benefit, that it serves the needs of the institution.
The fact is, those who rely on retribution invite
revenge. Those who resort to physical force teach
violence. Those who engender hate become a partner in
violence and an accessory to future crime.

What needs to be done - is attempt to find alternatives
to violent punishments. Ethical concepts like -
honesty, charity, mercy, respect, responsibility,
can't be taught directly. They can only be learned in concrete
life situations from people one respects. One grows into
virtue; one can't be forced by punishment.

Hi there FOXY...

I'd agree with your summation, there's no evidence to suggest, neither capital nor corporal punishments is a deterrent. Though the cane did stop me from talking in class ! Sorry that's a little disingenuous of me ?

My case for corporal punishment is 'punishment'. It's not meant as a deterrent, or as a threat to a potentially violent offender. Neither is it a fiscal alternative (as suggested in Mr MOSKOS'S proposal). It's merely a punishment, in addition to whatever term of imprisonment the offender may receive from the Courts.

I suspect FOXY, there are many of those who may perceive me as a very brutal and violent individual, full of hate and revenge ? Actually, I'm far from it. What I simply couldn't get over, is the amount of absolute misery, the broken lives, the total destruction of mind and/or body, of victims that I've been very close to over the years.

Trying to explain to victims, or their family and friends, why the Courts appear to have been so soft and lenient on offenders. And yes, I'll admit to occasionally 'tearing up' (privately) after seeing the dreadful carnage occasioned upon some children, unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. This is a component of policing, academics never get to see other than in photographs. They fail to see, or hear the sounds, or smell the dreadful odours of death (all of which you take home with you, at the conclusion of your shift)

When I was younger I could 'go the knuckle', I'm not blowing my own trumpet ! How difficult to restrain myself from literally ripping some of these offenders heads from their shoulders ! To receive a 'second' of satisfaction, to give victims some 'momentary' justice, I would've lost everything, career, my job, my super, my pension, and worse, my good fame and character !

You see, the justice system in Australia, 'fails' all victims badly, whether white collar, or a brutal homicide, it fails. At the hands of these awfully weak, 'jelly judges' !

Dear O Sung Wu,

Thank You for sharing your experiences.

Views differ based on our individual experiences.

I won't presume to be any kind of a pundit.
All I have to go by is what life has taught me
thus far, and I'm still on my own road to discovery.
I can fully understand your views and the reasons
for them. Our perceptions of things change and we look
at the world more clearly about the effect that
certain episodes have on us in our lives. How certain
encounters affect us. In the end all we really have to
go by are our own life experiences - and the obstacles
that we have to overcome in life.

Hi (again) FOXY...

Thanks again for your candid and circumspect view, I really appreciate it. On a final note on this specific issue; To be very honest with you, it's not entirely my desire to have introduced corporal punishment. I will admit quite publicly, in this year of 2014, the concept of regressing to an almost medieval practice of flogging another human being (and I'm being somewhat loose with the term 'human being') is entirely repugnant to me. But I can only see the judiciary taking a far more lenient line, without any realistic or positive payoff for the community ?

The judiciary peddle the line '...we're the only qualified persons who are in possession of 'ALL' the facts, therefore it's down to us who must carefully weigh and dispense justice, without deferring to the public will, nor public opinion...' !

Oh please, we're not all that dense to believe even a quarter of that legalized agitprop ! AND WHAT ABOUT THE POOR BLOODY VICTIMS ! Totally forgotten by this insulated group of arrogant Jurists ?

I have to say that this discussion has struck me as an intelligent and articulate one without the venom and sarcasm that so often appears in these columns. It is so pleasant to be able to read well formed opinions fluently and coherently expressed. I only wish parliamentary debate could be conducted thus with a courtesy that is missing on a daily basis.

Perhaps I should say "generally" without venom and sarcasm.... we all get carried away sometimes in our intention to get a point across !

From my reading it seems flogging was really only a wide spread practise in either England, its colonies, or in Islamic countries, and the vast majority of the nations where it is still practised former British colonisation is a major predictor.

The barbarity of flogging was recognised and debated well over a hundred years ago.

Here is an excerpt from a book written in 1916 titled “The Flogging Craze: A Statement of the Case Against Corporal Punishment”

Quote

In all civilized, or, to speak more correctly, semi-civilized races like our own, a question arises as to the continuance or discontinuance of certain ancient customs that have descended from a barbarous past and are repellent to the more refined modern feeling. Corporal punishment is one of those immemorial customs, once widely practised and accepted as a matter of course, now the subject of very acute controversy – advocated on one side with much heat and vehemence, and on the other regarded with detestation and abhorrence by an increasing number of social reformers. What is the origin of this strong revolt against a practise which is still lauded in some quarters as wholesome and irreproachable, and what can account for such a marked a diversity of public opinion?

Doubtless, the hatred of corporal punishment is, in its origin, instinctive. We feel there is something of a degradation in its infliction – degrading alike to those who inflict it and those who suffer it; and this feeling is confirmed, on further reflection, by the teachings of history and experience; for flogging, when we give careful thought to it, is see to be the very sum and substance of personal tyranny – the quintessence of all that is opposed to the growth of human freedom. It is an epitome of that love of dominion, mental and physical, which is the mortal foe of intellect; and we find accordingly that the protest against the lash, like the protest against slavery, has grown up, step by step, with the modern enfranchisement of thought.

End quote.

No first world countries employ it.

Dear SteeleRedux,

So flogging is barbaric alright, but what do you suggest in its place?

The fact is that imprisonment, including being thrown into the company of hardened criminals, is even more barbaric and more horrific than any physical pain or the temporary humiliation that goes with it, thus if I ever have the misfortune of being sentenced to jail (including for a crime I have not committed, or for acting according to my conscience against the law), I rather have that sentence converted into corporal punishment.

Hasbeen, as someone who grew up in an isolated hamlet, population 37, at the back of beyond, where the only crime was the occasional renegade cow wandering down main street. I can fully understand how you would have no comprehension of crime in the big city, back in your boyhood days. That is not to say. while you were contented in the serenity of country life serious crime was not afoot down there in the big smoke, which was not the place for a wide eyed naive country lad, such as yourself.
During the years of the corrupt Askin Liberal Government, organised crime operated with impunity in Sydney. Illegal gambling, prostitution, drugs, extortion were rife. in the 1960's, did you ever hear of the infamous 'Towcutter Gang', no! Such goings on might not have been the case in rural Sleepyville where you were residing, but in the big cities crime was alive and flourishing. Melbourne had its 'Painters and Dockers' Sydney its 'Colorful Racing Identities'.

A little snippet on the notorious bent copper Roger Rogerson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Rogerson

Quite right Paul, and spending 40 years in the city myself, before moving to the country, I can certainly see your point.

However, I always think back to our worst mass murder...committed by a country boy in a sleepy little place called Port Arthur.

So I guess one can never really tell who is going to be the next criminal!

Hi there SNAKE...

I'm pleased that you're finding debate of this Topic is proceeding reasonably cordially. As should all matters, chosen for debate in our parliament ? However I suspect your wish that our politicians conducted themselves in a more polite way, won't happen any time soon ?

Well I'll be ! Here he is, the great arbiter and guardian of our public consciousness, that sublime apologist for Muslim strategies, and OLO'S principal narcissist;...STEELEREDUX aka 'STEELIE' ! Now I've satisfied my daily need to taunt !

To those of you who oppose the concept of corporal punishment per se, I should think you'd not need to concern yourselves too much. I don't believe there's any government in the foreseeable future, who would need to visit upon any such suggestion. Similarly, that also applies to the issue of capital punishment.

This is despite what some of our more erudite 'shock jocks' might suggest (a referendum for the return of capital punishment). I believe there's not a snow ball's chance in hell, that such punishment would ever receive either public support, nor parliamentary assent ? In fact, even the concept of imprisonment will be slowly replaced some day (save for the most violent and dangerous of offenders), by more scientific measures ? If for no other reason but a fiscal imperative ?

Dear o sung wu,

You wrote;

“I'm pleased that you're finding debate of this Topic is proceeding reasonably cordially. As should all matters, chosen for debate in our parliament ? However I suspect your wish that our politicians conducted themselves in a more polite way, won't happen any time soon ?”

Then directly followed it with;

“Well I'll be ! Here he is, the great arbiter and guardian of our public consciousness, that sublime apologist for Muslim strategies, and OLO'S principal narcissist;...STEELEREDUX aka 'STEELIE' ! Now I've satisfied my daily need to taunt !”

Without even batting an eyelid.

Anyway thank you indeed for the good chuckle it elicited my friend. After a day cursing at rather troublesome motor vehicle it was welcome.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Indeed the prison system is barbaric and there are barbarians among us who wish it were more so. It is interesting that while corporeal punishment as part of a criminal sentence was discontinued in many western nations (albeit later than most in Australia and England) it was still employed within the prison system for crimes within the institution.

I suppose the argument of prison over flogging is two-fold. The first is that incarceration often is seen to offer protection for others within a society. Just as we quarantine those who are highly contagious such as 'Typhoid Mary' then those who are deemed a threat, because they have committed a crime, spend some time apart from society in an attempt to mitigate some of that risk.

Cont...

Cont...

The second is the impact on the person ordered to deliver the corporeal punishment. The following is from Wikipedia on the history of the Fremantle Prison;

“Staff disliked giving the lashings – in 1851, out of a total of 400 lashings ordered, 150 were remitted as the superintendent could not find anyone to undertake the task. The role was so disliked that inducements were offered, including extra pay or improved lodgings.”

In fact the history of flogging within the military of various countries is really interesting.

Britain was of course the prime proponent of this brutal practice taking it to insane lengths. Sentences of 1200 lashes 'around the fleet' were routinely given when 100 was the maximum allowed in other European armies, even this was still enough to kill a man.

“during the French Revolutionary Wars the French Army stopped floggings altogether. The King's German Legion (KGL), which were German units in British pay, did not flog. In one case, a British soldier on detached duty with the KGL was sentenced to be flogged, but the German commander refused to carry out the punishment. When the British 73rd Foot flogged a man in occupied France in 1814, disgusted French citizens protested against it.”
Wikipedia

It took nearly eighty years before the English navy would follow the French and ban the practice.

As an aside I do not think it is entirely coincidental that flogging found favour and longevity in nation whose societies are sexually repressed such as Victorian England and certain Islamic countries. The act of domination and causing pain through flogging on those who are rendered helpless has deep roots in sexual sadism. I suspect this is certainly at play to some degree within the modern proponents of this practice.

ConservativeHippy,

Obviously I meant to say that only swiftness and certainty have an effect.

That being said, there’s a lot that could be said in response to your suggestions for deterrence, but I’d like to address 2 because that’s a common suggestion, and the problem with it is that giving an offender no chance of an early parole provides them with no incentive to correct their ways or behave themselves during their incarceration.

Hasbeen,

I did say the “overall” crime rate. The crimes you’ve listed are assaults and as I’ve mentioned several times before on OLO, assaults are up; all other crimes are on the decline, causing a continual downward trend in the overall crime rate since the ‘70s. Some of the stats I’ve mentioned can be found at http://abs.gov.au.

But if you think that your own personal experience trumps decades of research and statistics to the point where you can invent conspiracy theories about academics, then you can convince yourself of anything and discussion with you is probably a waste of time. I’m sure your experiences with, or observations of, mandatory sentencing and chain gangs trumps 150 years of research on sentencing and the psychology of recidivism too.

o sung wu,

You keep mentioning “jelly judges”, but I had already addressed this here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6557#196763.

A recent example was the relatively small sentences that Robert Hughes and Rolf Harris received because their crimes were committed when sentences for their offences were lighter.

As for the victims you keep mentioning, their needs are important, but so is our right not to become victims of re-offenders. No-one, in their rage, ever thinks of this - unless they’re arguing for the death penalty, of course. People tend to have very selective reasoning (as others have demonstrated here). Like I said before, we could lock them up forever, but that’s not without its problems either.

A J PHILIPPS...

I do tend to agree, the media do have a case to answer apropos their poor adherence to accuracy and dispassionate reporting. It does them no credit at all, nor does it reflect well on the efficacy of anything that's been stated within their commentary.

As a former case officer, it's not been my experience, where a victim or relatives of a victim consider any penalty imposed by the Court, has been excessive ? Rather, most are angered even bitterly dismayed, at the relatively lenient sentences that have been imposed ? Particularly for those crimes occasioned 'against the person' ? Still there's always been a substantially wide gulf, between that of academia and reality.

Your last paragraph, doesn't make a lot of sense to me at least ? Other than your last sentence with it's enlightened posit; '...we could lock them up forever, but that's not without problems...' or similar language ? Indeed, there would be significant problems, not the least of which, fiscal considerations.

Someone herein has made a profound statement, in part something about; '... with deep roots in sexual sadism...' and '...with modern proponents of this practice...' ? There lies a sharp intellect ?

I wonder if this vacuous individual who made this truly amazing affirmation, ever had to hold a weeping, utterly distraught 'tough' man ? After having just witnessed the offender grinning towards the stony faces of his ashamed relatives, after having received just 11years on top with a 6 NPP. Convicted for sexually brutalising, this distraught man's young son. Repeatedly imploring me, bring back the lash and similar language ! I suppose he's just another individual with those 'deep rooted issues of sexual sadism' ?

A J Phillips you are quite right, I have no faith in your reported research into crime statistics. I see far to much breaking & entering to believe it is reducing.

When I see 68 actual break & enter crimes by one criminal treated as a first offence, I have to wonder just how such garbage goes into the statistics. I also have to wonder just who is paying our magistrates, when such a crime spree attracts only a good behaviour bond.

When you can dismiss a large increase in assaults, the main crime injuring innocent people, you are obviously way out of touch with what is important to those who pay academic salaries.

If we the wage paying public no longer treat academic pronouncements with the respect they crave, they have no one but themselves to blame. If they had been a bit more public spirited & stopped the rorts by many of their colleges with the global warming scam, they may still have some respect. Having let so many obviously false claims through to the goal posts, academia will have to do much better for many years to regain our respect, & then more to regain out trust & belief.

Take the TVs out of the prison cells.

I made this suggestion earlier in this thread not intending to be flippant or simplistic; I'd be interested to see some comment on the idea.

What I am really suggesting is to control the entertainment available in prisons; prisoners don't need to see violence or gain ideas from glorified crime movies; why not just show programs that are light hearted, uplifting, inspirational, educational, and generally positive. Offer viewing TV as a privilege and remove that privilege if there is bad behaviour.

I wonder if those re-offenders who 'can serve the time standing on their head' would reconsider another term in the slammer if they thought they may not be able watch TV for 12 months. Limiting or discontinuing one's TV privileges is not corporal or cruel punishment but I suspect it would be viewed as extremely harsh by the civil libertarians.

As far as the concept of punishment goes, in my view it may not be an effective deterrent but in whatever form it is administered, it at least serves as a reminder there are consequences and hopefully some offenders recognise their punishment is deserved and accept the consequences of their actions.

HASBEEN my friend, you've no doubt heard the oft' used phrase...? Lies, damn lies and statistics ? It is this particular reasoning that many of our academics run into so much trouble ?

There's always a place for sound academic thought, absolutely. It's these individuals who answer the call of those at the coal face, who seek methods, procedures, and other specific advice to (a) ensure the task is better performed; (b) assist in solving some intractable problem; (c) assist in designing practices to reduce accidents, or to identify methods of doing dangerous work much more safely. Of course there are many other situations where academics perform outstanding duties.

Always, in my 32 years in the job, these people are first introduced to the task. Secondly, they assist in identifying the problem; And thirdly they furnish ideas, proposals, and/or restrictions in order to perform that task more safely and/or more efficiently. Always, they must confine their recommendations strictly within the parameters and criterion that they are given.

Those who fail, generally are found to be arrogant enough to start telling others who've being doing the job 'perpetually' where they're going wrong ? Instead of first, gaining a thorough understanding of the task. Thus the term so often employed, that creates much mockery and ridicule 'academic idiot'. I could relay a very very funny incident that happened, to this young bloke, sent to examine tri-tiered police rostering protocol ? General patrol (uniform); District CIB (detectives) & Task force (detectives) I might just keep my powder dry for the moment, it's not my wish to create any embarrassment ?

You see HASBEEN, that why we're all provided with one mouth, and two ears ! Listen more and talk least ? Particularly applies to some of those, with an undergraduate degree !

Hasbeen,

What crimes are important to the general public is another issue and something you've simply introduced to divert attention from your obvious ignorance. As for these 68 first counts, I'd love to know what you're talking about there (with links). I'd also be curious as to how you have been able to consistently (over many decades) reliably gauge the level of break and enters without relying on the distortion of the media.

Your suggestions of grand conspiracies amongst academics are pretty far-fetched. Apparently a young tech guy can embarrass many countries by revealing their intelligence to the world; an American president can be exposed as a philanderer by his intern, and yet millions of academics all manage to all keep a big secret for their New World Order without anyone blowing the whistle. Out of 10,000 emails, not even climategate could reveal anything but a small handful of lines taken out of context. I had one lecturer who was the most Republican, gun totin' American I've ever come across. Surely those like him would want to earn themselves a name and expose the secret order.

o sung wu,

You have no right to paint me as some inexperienced know-it-all. I have invited you to share your experience and opinions several times over a couple of threads and you have declined, only to sit back and throw stones as if you had nothing to say that contradicted what I've said and felt uncomfortable with the fact. I have made an effort to remain particularly polite to you because I was interested in what you might have to share but you seem incapable of any sort of polite discussion with anyone who might disagree with you.

I'm sorry A J PHILIPS that you feel I've been unfair to you in some way ? That's the second time that you've accused me of not treating what you say seriously ? Probably because I simply don't agree with you ? There's nothing sinister or dishonest in that.

You're enveloped in a course of study that has a clear academic flavour ? That's fine. I've told you in one of my first threads, there's little relationship between the academic explanation of practical policing, and how the job actually functions in the field ?

Working detectives have little truck with theoreticians. You asked and, I'm telling you. You then cited your relative who's a detective, criminologist and a lawyer in Redcliff or somewhere, clearly an individual who's leaps and bounds ahead of me ! What more can I say, other than why bother attempting to adduce any further response from me, when you have such a clever relative ?

If I do make a statement you quote statistics. Earlier in another Topic you made some very derogative remarks about quote 'old time police, being uneducated', and basically dense ? My response, you've much to learn ? And so on it went ? My retort to you could've been far less benevolent, believe me ?

A J PHILIPS, there's a world of difference between your criminology studies, and active criminal investigation, believe this as you wish ? I'd be very grateful indeed, if you'd stop accusing me of being rude to you, clearly I'm not. And after a while it does wear a little thin.

Hi there CONSERVATIVE HIPPIE...

If you were to attempt to remove all the TV'S from prisoners cells in Prison, you'd probably end up starting a major riot on your hands ? And as far as permitting them to view programmes depicting violence, well it would be very tough indeed to fully sanitize all TV programmes I would've thought ?

Your comments about making gaol tougher - that's a complex issue in itself ? Officially, gaols over the last thirty five, forty years have been allowed to slowly relax the more formal institutional discipline, that had previously been the official policy for the preceding fifty or sixty years. For this reason, the government's position on prison discipline, is more or less thought, that's it's appropriate for the modern correctional setting ? To me at least, it's all a matter of official 'gobbledegook' ? The government's line is thus, 'while our gaols are not meant to be a pleasant experience, they're relatively tolerable ? Suggesting if you were to do your time, remain compliant with both staff and the rules, all's OK ?

The reality however, for a new bloke doing his 'boob' for the first time, unless he has some meaningful protection inside - he'll find gaol a bastard of a place with buckets of fear and loneliness, and never been able to sleep soundly, in his two or three out,'peter' ! It's this unofficial impost that makes going to prison so frightening for most new blokes ! It's a real disgrace, and a blight on our allegedly enlightened community, as we rapidly approach 2015 ! So terrified was this one young 24 years old bloke, he necked himself in Parramatta Gaol on one sticking hot, January night. It was my first suicide (in gaol) as case officer and a detective. His parents were totally devastated, he only had 9 months to cut out, and they'd put him in a one out slot, bad mistake I told the Coroner, but who'd be able to predict this poor buggers fear eh ?

o sung wu,

There was no derision, remember? That was your own misinterpretation. We already cleared this up (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6635#20037) and now you make the same claim as if your original charge still stood. That's dishonest.

I have not just quoted statistics with you either. I have provided reasoned argument based on evidence and instead of explaining why I'm wrong, you either misread what I say and then make false accusations; ignore me (which is fine) only to timidly snipe at me in your posts to others; or you respond with some half-baked response that amounts to little more than, "Look son, you just don't know what you're talking about!"

Your evasion, sniping and dishonesty only suggest to me that I'm right and that you really don't have much to contradict what I say, but are upset with it anyway because it contradicts your politics or makes you question just how much you really knew beyond your day to day experiences.

A J PHILIPS...

You are right, I am clearly wrong, my over 32 hard years in the police amount to nothing, neither my rank of Detective Sergeant of 17 1/2 years nor in country training with the Federal Bureau of Investigations, Quantico VA nor the RUC 'Hadrian' Project, Belfast Northern Ireland, nothing, zip, squat ?

Dear o sung wu,

Come on you silly old thing, no need to go all third person on me.

While the claim that a victim's father would be repeatedly imploring you to bring back the lash sounds a little too manufactured, for the sake of the argument I will take it as stated.

If this person had wanted with every fibre of his being to see the perpetrator dead we do not see him as a murderer thus it is a quite disingenuous of you to try and claim my statement is painting him as a sexual sadist.

The biggest impediment to having this barbarity banned in England was the House of Lords. Then almost exclusively filled with old men, many afflicted with various stages of impotence, many who secretly frequented places where sadomasochism offered some hope for stirring some spark of sexual excitement.

That impotence was not only of a physical nature but also one of a diminution of power over others. Those who spend part of their lives with authority over the lives of others can experience deep frustration when that power is taken away. That frustration and anger can boil over with cries for the infliction of physical pain on those who transgress them.

I'm not sure old coppers are immune from either.

Cont...

Cont...

This from De Quincey back when the banning of corporeal punishment was progressed over a hundred years ago;

“All corporal punishments whatsoever, and upon whom-soever inflicted, are hateful and an indignity to our common nature, which (with or without our consent) is enshrined in the person of the sufferer. Degrading him, they degrade us . . . Thanks be to God – in this point, at least, for the dignity of human nature – that, amongst the many many cases of reform destined eventually to turn out chimerical, this one, at least, never can be defeated, injured, or eclipsed. As a man grows more intellectual, the power of managing by his intellect and his moral nature, in utter contempt of all appeals to his mere animal instinct of pain, must go on pari passu.”

The reverse would seem to be true thus amply illustrated by your diatribe against intellectualism, since it does indeed seem to go pari passu with your calls for flogging to be reinstated.

Perhaps we should leave the last word to Herman Melville;

“ We plant the question, then, on the topmost argument of all. Irrespective of incidental considerations, we assert that flogging is opposed to the essential dignity of man, which no legislator has the right to violate; that it is oppressive, and glaringly unequal in its operations; that it is utterly repugnant to the spirit of our democratic institutions; indeed, that it involves a lingering trait of the worst times of a barbarous feudal aristocracy; in a word, we denounce it as religiously, morally, and immutably wrong.”

Dear AJ Phillips,

I don't think it is your fault, o sung tends to get a little irascible when challenged. I'm sure by the next topic all will be fine.

AJ Philips, if you wish to be taken seriously by real people, you will have to learn how to control your arrogance.

You don't have to tell us every post that you are blinded by the glitter of your own brilliance. It is so obvious it is painful.

STEELIE...thank you so much, I've won the bet ! You see my peculiar friend, one of the diagnostic features of protracted symptomatic narcissism, is the urge and need to be heard ! I can't begin to enumerate how often you seem to find it necessary to jibber-jabber on with your ego soporific chatter by using more of your allotted 350 words ? By the way, did you manage to fix your car ? Has one or both of it's pedals, come adrift ?

At the risk of becoming absolutely exasperated with you ad nauseam - Not once did I advocate; the lash, cat 'o nine tails or any other instrument hitherto used as a punishment medium, several centuries past ? The model I would offer, was that which is currently employed by Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei. It's my understanding there are several nations in the Middle East, who use corporal punishment, by what method, I've no idea ?

You know, it's pretty easy for one to quietly sit back while in a state of repose and contemplation, and consider the terrible physical and psychological harm that might occur, should an offender confront corporal punishment ? I wonder whether there's any similar thought apportioned to the victim, with the same level of concern, I've certainly not heard it, other from police members ?

Having followed this debate with great interest I am now prompted to take back my remark about it being conducted without sarcasm and venom. A bit or arrogance? yes, but as long as it's uttered with some logical conviction I don't mind. At least on this occasions some depth of thought has been applied and a measure of erudition, which I find pleasing enough to read with some amusement !

Hi there SNAKE...

Indeed, there're occasional spurts of acrimony and some fundamental 'toing 'n throwing' but that's merely part of the great tapestry of debate ? Without it, wherever would we be, just another boring mash of words, without too much meaning or reasoning ?

See in reality SNAKE, I'm just a humble cook, not the proprietor of a suburban Chinese restaurant, as another contributor once wisely opined, in a moment of illumination (he was close, but no cigar), rather just a cook. Who's job it is, to prepare the daily luncheon menu and assemble the ingredients for our evening session, being our most important money earner ! Being relatively close to the Parramatta police station, we get a large number of police officers in for lunch (takeaways), and one (despite my ethnicity) does manage to pick-up a lot of their jargon and terminology ! So there you go eh ?

Anyway SNAKE for my part I hope I may continue to amuse you with some of the nonsense that I generally write. Because, as I once said to another contributor, the whole purpose of OLO and the Forum, is to extract some fun from it, as true life is so boring without a laugh or two, wouldn't you agree ?

Hi O Sung Wu,

(Is that your real name or a nom de plume?)

Yes I have to agree with you. It's just that I was brought up in a time of more courtesy and It tends to go against the grain when name calling becomes the lowest common denominator and a poor substitute for intelligent debate in most instances. In Australia I find that even on the road where there tends to be a lot of rage, I always smile and deplore the one finger salute. If someone cuts me off or does the wrong thing, I just move over and give him room. They usually know what they have done. It doesn't do any good to blow a horn and If I inadvertently do the wrong thing I always raise a hand in apology. More than anything else it defuses the situation.

As I said - different time, different age.

Dear o sung wu,

You wrote;

“one of the diagnostic features of protracted symptomatic narcissism, is the urge and need to be heard”

This is certainly an interesting way of measuring narcissism but since you seem to put so much store in it I am not really inclined to challenge the premise.

Being fond of empirical evidence I have review my posts for the last quarter and rather disturbingly have found I have posted 47 times. That is nearly once a day, certainly worthy of consideration of narcissism.

It is something I undertake to monitor because such behaviour can be unbecoming.

As a favour to you I have reviewed your posts for the same period. They total 197. Using your metric this unfortunately makes you 4 times the narcissist. Even if we take the generous position of saying I write twice as many words as you do per post this still delivers the unflattering conclusion you are twice the narcissist I am.

I know that someone thus afflicted will take great delight in this knowledge but I implore you to face the fact that such behaviour is bordering on a pathology and it needs attention. I would happily be your sponsor if you chose to attend the local branch of Narcissists Anonymous Retraining Collective otherwise known as the NARCs.

Leaving that aside and at the risk of further abusing a deceased equine I would ask that you note that neither the quote from Quincey or Melville talked about flogging directly, rather they referred to corporeal punishment which includes the one you have proscribed.

But it is undeniable that self flagellation is a feature of those religious orders who are determined to repress their sexuality. Opus Dei are the modern Catholic manifestation of the practice as is some sections of the Shiite community.

What would be intensely interesting is to wire the genitals of modern proponents of flogging to see if there was a sexual response when they discuss it. I would wager most would register something even if sex was a distant memory.

It might even prove to be therapeutic.

Dear Snake,

As a person who has enjoyed OLO in one guise or another for over 10 years you should know that courteous debate was once the norm rather than the exception on this site. In fact the rot really only set in over the last 4 years and I am not sure what exactly to put it down to.

Perhaps it was the particular breed of Rudd/Gillard haters, or supporters of a pugilistic opposition leader called Tony, but all of a sudden the gloves came off and aggression and bullying seemed to become the norm. Not all but many of the more erudite contributors have drifted away and now we have a clique of those who consider the site a 'bit of sport', a place from which to 'extract a bit of fun'.

I do pine a little for more considered debate on OLO but as you say 'a different time, a different age'.

It has been instructive looking back over the history of the banning of flogging. The well constructed but passionately put arguments illustrate just how terribly bereft we are today of decent discussion around the issues facing us. Whenever someone attempts to raise the tone they are pilloried for being 'intellectual'.

It is virtually impossible to step back and look at the big picture when one's head is down furiously drawing battle lines. Perhaps it will take the country adopting a different, less selfish mood for things to permeate to discussion forums like this. That of course will mean seeing off the current leadership.

STEELIE...

While it's true, I do tend to publish material more frequently, daily in fact. Perhaps it may be a desire to answer some of the responses when I've been the originator of a Topic do you think ?

That said I don't believe I have a need to exceed the mandatory 350 words, quite unlike your usual verbose, interminable and desperate desire to be heard ? Further STEELIE you exhibit an unnaturally potent interest in 'wiring up' an individual's genitalia ?

Apparently in some bizarre attempt to measure a person's response to flogging ? I should say, you've a very unhealthy interest in the whole aspect of human reproductive physiology ? Why ? Is that the root origin of your massive hubris ! Or is it the painful reality, of your inability to relate well to women ? You 'DO' know why, don't you ?

I do appreciate your generous offer of sponsorship for 'NARC's'. Your long alliance with this consortium, sadly hasn't been a happy one for you eh, STEELIE ? And clinically, unsuccessful too ? That said, your offer of sponsorship, however painful for you, is nevertheless laudable;

But it really comes down to this, your need to be 'respected', to be 'admired', even 'feared'. All of which must be addressed, if you ever hope to be relieved of this 'behavioural curse' that burdens you ?

As should your feeble attempts to manipulate others, by employing fear and exerting this image of 'intellectual superiority', the traits of a bully ! We both know, your inferior physicality would be a problem for you, but on the Forum who'd know, least of all a potential target group ?

All of which is further evidence that much more work needs to be done, for you to overcome this syndrome of 'superiority' ! All of which falls squarely within the broad suite of narcissistic pathology !

Hi again SNAKE...

Sorry mate, watching a show on TV. Absolutely true. Name calling, badgering, sarcasm, and mockery etc., all of which are a poor substitute for a quality debate.

Still I thoroughly enjoy pushing the buttons of individuals who set themselves above everyone else, both as 'know all's, and with this superiority (faux) intellect they attempt to project.

By now, it's quite evident to you, that I'm a poorly educated individual. Far too easy for most people to exude some form of superior intellect over me. But I'll not sit quietly by, while some ego driven pretender attempts to 'carve me up' for the their personal enjoyment.

Anyway, as long as you're deriving a laugh or two SNAKE, that's great. It's all that matters.

Dear o sung wu,

I see, so your verboseness at quadruple my levels is your attention to respondents on your threads but mine is all about narcissism? Lol. Okay mate, whatever.

But I do want you to discuss your toxic inferiority complex which seems to drive much of your anger. You tear strips off AJ Phillips for daring to talk about old time coppers as being uneducated but then lament to Snake; “By now, it's quite evident to you, that I'm a poorly educated individual. Far too easy for most people to exude some form of superior intellect over me.”

What tosh. My highest education bit of paper was a very ordinary VCE only obtained on the second attempt. I have a fondness for writers like Patterson, Twain and Conrad which may give me the odd turn of phrase but I don't think I have a superior intellect over you but probably a mind more open to other ideas and empathies.

So if you are determined to sook up try and at least do it for the right reasons. If you think I may have hit below the belt so to speak on this occasion then I am more than happy to have a conversation about us moderating our language otherwise let's just get on with it.

STEELIE, I see you're again carefully examining and quantifying the number of posts, even the number of words I've written ? Why ? Does my brief moment of enjoyment teasing you on anything and everything annoy you ? Again, why ? Why do you take yourself, and the Forum, so seriously, it's got me buggered ? There's nothing anyone can say, infer, or aver about me 'personally' that would ever have any emotional impact whatsoever !

Personally, there's nothing now or in my immediate past, worthy of being taken, either soberly or pensively, save for my remaining longevity perhaps, even that's entirely out of my control ! Being retired from the police, I can only say, potential (new) coppers, must quickly learn to absorb the many barbs, accusations, threats, and downright lies, otherwise the job's not for them.

You claim I 'tore strips' off A J PHILIPS ? Normally I'd never furnish you with ANY reason for my actions or omission to act. However... You don't think for a moment his derisive statements about the old style coppers in the job, was both rude and quite arrogant, particularly as he'd never served ? I'll admit to being one of the most frequent offenders for being somewhat 'prickly' even acerbic, when dealing with individuals 'slagging' both police per se, and ADF members, and the Vietnam War.

I would also remind you, of one contributor who continually attacked police. Alleging corruption and other matters of alleged gross lack of professionalism ? I supported him always, as I could understand his frustration(s). Even now. I think he could be residing somewhere, at Her Majesty's Pleasure ? It was < ONE UNDER GOD.

But - back to the point; at least I know something about both. I've lost too many friends, both coppers and other Vets, to allow a mere theoretician, who's never experienced either, to wilfully degrade either their service or reputation ? Or is this another 'manufactured' event perhaps ? It takes two hands to clap my friend.

This is all the Internet I'll have for a week or two, so it'll be a while before I respond again after this.

o sung wu,

I never said you wouldn't know anything. It is this sort of bluff and bluster, or dishonesty, that suggests you have nothing to back your claim that I wouldn’t know anything. I see that you’re back to your dishonest claims of derision. What I said was relevant to what both you and Hasbeen had said (combined).

You have made no attempts to enlighten me with your experience. The closest you’ve come to doing this was to mention the smirking crook, but you never elaborated on how a rational justification for flogging followed from this. In the other thread, you did explain to me just how poor the uni graduates’ spelling and grammar was when applying to join the force - in an attempt to contradict my claims (backed by hundreds of studies) that cops with higher education perform better overall - but it didn’t seem to occur to you that, by extension of your logic, the applicants who did not have any higher education would generally have been even worse. When I pointed this out, you just got cranky.

I have invited you to explain why I’m wrong. You’ve had plenty of chances to do this too. But you decline most of the time, and even when you try, it doesn’t negate my point. All you do is hide behind the suggestion that criminologists are clueless pontificators who tell people what to do when they haven’t got a clue. In reality, however, many of them are ex-cops, and those who aren’t work very closely with them.

All this experience as a cop and my first question on this thread baffled you. You hadn’t even thought about what I had asked, and when prompted a second time for a response, you made the excuse that my shooting down of an ignorant claim from runner (using his own nasty tone, mind you - he was not some innocent victim) was the reason you didn’t answer.

Bollocks.

A J PHILIPS...

My problem is, I just don't respect you, nor like you, it's as simple as that ! HASBEEN has summed you up quite succinctly I thought, and he's a layman, never served a day as a copper. Your academic arrogance is breathtaking. If of course you were an academic, which by your own admission you're not. You've stated you've yet to complete your degree.

How old are you, I'm 75. Yet you have the temerity to say I'm wrong, after 32 years as a policeman - I again, refer you to my first sentence above. Perhaps the answer to why I don't bother to answer you, may well be found therein ?

You've alleged I duck and weave from answering any of your questions ?And in your mind, it proves everything you've stated is right ? Ok, As I said earlier on, I'll defer to your greater knowledge ? Yet you still get your 'knickers in a knot', why ? Ok may I ask you a police type question, so basic in fact it's dealt with in the first couple of weeks in the academy, OK ?

What are the criminal proofs, in common law Larceny ? This is so basic, the average recruit 'drop-out' can tell you ! Or is it the type and quality of the question, below that of an academic ?

Dear o sung wu,

It took me only a couple of minutes to ascertain your posting frequency, simple cut and paste into a spreadsheet and Bob's your uncle.

But I did do a quick scan of our earlier exchanges to see where we initially parted company and it seems I jokingly implied that one of your slightly less than clear posts may have been the product of a 'Sherry hour'. You have had your nose out of joint for a very long time.

So I'm afraid your claim of treating the forum as a bit of a laugh and being impervious to slights doesn't really stack up.

And it is not the first time you have been accused of using the fact you were a policeman to denigrate others;

“So you were once a cop o sung, bully for you. I suppose you think that gives you some right to insult those who weren't so anointed, or some insight to the thinking of others.” Hasbeen

Look mate I will be rapt if at 75 I'm still kicking around forums like this, how about counting your blessings rather than counting imaginary scalps.

STEELEREDUX...

I'm occasionally confounded by some of the things you raise ? Why on earth, would you even bother to waste your time trawling back though some of the threads I've written, in order to establish a fact not in issue ? What do you mean by the words 'Sherry Hour' unless it's another description of 'happy hour'?

You've also asserted, that I have a 'glass jaw', so 'thin skinned' that cannot accept censure of any type ? Do you honestly believe that ? After all the 'crap' and abuse the average copper with my length of exposure has had to 'cop', both from crooks and the general public, usually at all levels of inebriation ?

What will make this cranky bloke of 75 'arc up', is unfounded attacks on police or members of the ADF (specifically Vietnam) ?

Apropos A J PHILIPS, I'd not bother to answer him for the reason I've very clearly enunciated, to both of you !

Interestingly, when I first joined the job, an old sergeant said to us 'newies' '...look lads, remember never argue with a mug...' or similar words. A valuable lesson I thought ? It was my initial mistake, after reading the first couple of A J PHILIPS'S 'threads'. Though I deferred to much of what he was saying.

Speaking of A J PHILIPS, reminds me of something quite disconcerting ?The number of individuals on this Forum, who regularly rely on citing opinions, studies and views of others ? Usually by supplying and adding numerous references to fortify or strengthen their claims ?

I don't think this Forum's a Site to provide an academic dissertation for an undergraduate degree ? Because a person has had a paper published, it doesn't mean it's correct ? It's just that individual's opinion(s). By constantly reproducing another's arguments or views, it indicates to me, the contributor hasn't the confidence to articulate their own point of view ? Many occasions I could've furnished reams of 'case law', but what's the point of that ?

o sung wu,

The fact that you have so few answers to my claims and questions is no indication that what I say is right and I have done nothing to suggest that this is what I think. Such reasoning would be fallacious. The evidence that I base my opinions on is the reason why I think I'm right. Speaking of evidence, this gave me a bit of a laugh...

<<Because a person has had a paper published, it doesn't mean it's correct ? It's just that individual's opinion(s).>>

This is precisely why evidence and a peer review process is required for papers to be published. Apparently you didn't know that but presume to know that what criminologists claim is wrong. Go figure.

One of your problems is that you rely heavily on the Argument from Authority fallacy, with yourself as the authority. You seem to think that anything I say (but only what you disagree with, naturally) is automatically negated by your 32 experience years as a police. Your heavy reliance on this, and your insecurities, have led you to believe that there is some sort of a competition here over who, between the two of us, knows the most. In reality, however, we argue ideas and our claims stand or fall on their own merit. I suspect, however, that you understand that your 'What would criminologists know?' bit is wearing thin and you are now asking my age to approach your Argument from Authority fallacy from a different angle. Well, like I said, our claims stand or fall on their own merit, so suffice to say that I'm young enough to be your child, but too old to be your grandchild.

Continued...

...Continued

As for your question, no, I don't know the answer to that. It would probably be different for each state. A criminologist who specialised in policing would surely know, but when an undergrad has three years to gain an understanding of the causes of crime from both a psychological perspective and a sociological perspective; an understanding of victimology; an understanding of ethics and corruption; and a thorough knowledge of the three arms of the criminal justice system and how they interact, why on earth would universities waste time by having students learn such details when there would be literally thousands like that?

The fact that you have asked this question indicates that either you don't understand what criminology is (well, you did wonder what a policing scholar was on the other thread, I suppose), or you are asking a question trivial enough for me to not know the answer, while still being basic enough to make it appear as though I should know and am a phoney if I don't.

However, had you actually understood policing like you presumably should (or criminology), and wanted to test my understanding of the challenges and the ins and outs of policing, then you would have done something like given me a scenario and asked me to identify the various responses that an officer's discretion affords them, along with the various ethical issues surrounding each possible course of action. Or you could have asked me to list the pros and cons of the different policing practices. Instead, you chose to ask something that would fallaciously make me appear clueless despite the fact that knowing the answer to your question would not have demonstrated a very thorough understanding of policing and, ironically, makes you appear to be the less knowledgeable one for not having known what kind of questions would be the most effective at gaging the scope of my knowledge.

Continued...

...Continued

I'll also point out, too, that your question is unrelated to any topic that we've discussed; further highlighting the fact that you feel like this has become some sort of a competition despite myself not having done anything to provoke any such competition. I am simply using acquired knowledge to argue my opinions. You are the one who (in the last thread) asked what sort of authority I am on the matter, if any.

As for you not wanting to argue with me because I am apparently a "mug", that's just an excuse in the form of a very random insult. You have not demonstrated in any way that I am a "mug", and I have said nothing to suggest this. You claim to SteeleRedux that you have made it clear as to why you won't discuss anything with me, however, none of your vague reasoning has had any substance to it. Until recently, I have remained almost uncharacteristically polite to you (I started my first post to you in the other thread with a "Dear" and I never do that unless it's done first by others; I even complimented you on your vocabulary earlier in this thread) and despite this, you take my tone when addressing the blatantly ignorant arguments of others around you as a personal attack on yourself, then use that as an excuse to pretend that you could respond to my posts but won't because of an alleged derision, pontification or rudeness.

Apparently it doesn't always take two hands to clap, because the only rudeness that has transpired from our discussions is from you. You are a thoroughly offensive person.