Corporal punishment... your opinion?

Question

Would you agree with corporal punishment as a mean of lawful punishment?

For example, in 1994, an American named Michael Fay pleaded guilty after being arrested in Singapore for vandalism. They sentenced him to four months in prison, and four to six lashes with a cane.

What is your opinion on corporal punishment? Do you think America should/shouldn't adopt corporal punishment as a means of discipling criminals?

In advance, I would like to thank everyone for their answers.

Answer 1

Vlad the Impaler (the inspiration for Dracula) once put a gold cup in the middle of the town square to prove the lawlessness of his citizens. It stayed in place for six years. Everyone feared the consequences! Now that may seem an extreme example, being that Vlad was a maniac, but it serves to prove a point. When citizens fear punishment, they often times will choose to avoid committing crimes. This isn't foolproof, but crime is less end where there are more severer punishments. Some say that it would be inhumane to punish criminals in such ways, but lets face it, crime is inhumane. So yes, I do believe in corporal punishment.

Answer 2

Adopt this practice. I'll take it one step further. Over the last 10 years or so, I have noticed an alarming trend in certain people that is basically nothing more than a sense of entitlement.

To be a citizen (own land, a business or to vote) one must serve a term of military service of no less than 2 years. Furthermore, a juvenile who is tried and convicted of a crime where property damage is the result the second time will serve his/her sentence along with his/her parents. A third conviction would bind the juvenile over to the state for the term of the sentence where they would perform community service under heavily supervised conditions.

I will bet that I am not the only one over the age of 30 to see this sense of entitlement. And I will bet that there are many who will complain and whine about my comments. But I bet Michael Fay will never...EVER damage someone else's property again.

Answer 3

I think corporal punishment would be good in the beginning, but in the long run it would lead to more violence. If the criminals know that they could be whipped or caned they will become very hostile when being arrested, which could lead to a sort of violent uprising for the people against the authorities. Violence only begets more violence.
Then again in certain countries they have rules where if you committ a crime your hands are chopped off or you are hung or comething like that. I am willing to bet if you did something that extreme in America there would be a major decrease in crime.
So I guess you can say that I am in between when it comes to the topic of corporal punishment.

Answer 4

Corporal punish, whether of criminals or children, is brutality masquerading as discipline. All it can possibly teach is that it is right to hit those who displease you in some way.

Like torture, corporal punishment has no place in a civilized nation. Criminals need to have their antisocial behaviors corrected and redirected, using rehabilitation whenever possible and separation from society when it is not.

And by the way, Fay was sentenced to six lashes and the sentence was later reduced to four instead. It was not some kind of discretionary sentence but one that was moderated by lobbying and probably some governmental pressure. I don't feel terribly sorry for him because he knew what the law was where he was living and committed acts of vandalism and his only regret was over his punishment, not his actions.

Clearly, this archaic brutalism did little to change his attitude, because in interviews back in the US, he expressed no regret over what he wrote off as "boyish pranks" instead of being contrite about destroying the property of others. Anyone who claims this sort of punishment is so marvelously effective that we shoould resort to savagery might well not the lack of contrition in this young punk. I suspect that in addition to bodily scars, the remnant of such "justice" is anger, bitterness, and resentment, not a change of character.

Answer 5

i trust spanking is purely necessary contained in the most severe circumstances the position a baby places himself or others in probability. Like fiddling with matches or darting into the line the position they could get hit by a automobile. yet once you're purely smacking your youngster for all time because you're aggravated with them, it really is abuse. and clearly no marks could EVER be left and also you should purely use an open hand, not any type of merchandise that would want to extremely damage the youngster. I also imagine that is purely helpful at a particular age. formerly about 2 years previous they don't extremely understand good from incorrect or connect consequences to their movements, so that you mustn't spank formerly then. And even as they get to be about 7 or 8, i imagine you should likely give up spanking because that is purely embarrassing by then. and they could also understand different consequences like having privileges taken away, having time with friends restricted, etc.

Answer 6

I totally disapprove of punitive violence! I disapprove without exception!

In order for the citizens of a democracy to respect their government, it is imperative that the government be viewed as well-intentioned. For example, the government does not imprision us after conviction for the crime of burglary because the government hates us, but because the people need to be protected from these kind of crimes.

The government is (and must be) good! Its actions are not evil (and must not be), but good! This becomes a very dubious proposition when the government tortures or kills people. We can then view the government as something intending our destruction and deliberate suffering. The dangerous may have to be separated from the rest of us for the protection of society, but this does not necessitate their abuse.

This isn't Iran. This isn't China. This isn't North Korea. This isn't Malasia. And it isn't Saudi Arabia.

Like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., I look forward to a day when this country "lives out the true meaning of its creed." God Bless America.

And...

God Bless Humankind!

Answer 7

Corporal punishment is not lawful because it subjects a prisoner to physical harm instead of just imprisonment. It is a violation of the human rights of a person.

Answer 8

corporal punishment is a quick and effective method and less cruel than long-term incarceration, easier reintegration in society , the country wud be safer if this method is used for punishment of heavy crimes , terrorizing etc. but corporal punishment against children and other uses is definitely wrong

Answer 9

Of course

Answer 10

Only for politicians and business leaders who get caught doing dirty deeds.