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'.