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 !