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.