Firstly, a lot of studies (esp. in the USA) shows that corporal punishment have negative outcomes. This is because they do not control for other variables (such as socio-economic circumstances). Poorer parents often hit their kids more (and many studies do make a distinction between parental abuse and responsible punishment).
This is the same as the “powerlines causes cancer” research (people living near powerlines tend to be poorer and more prone to cancer). And powerlines is not even an ideological viewpoint!
The problem is that I can give you a slew of papers saying that “corporal punishment has no detrimental effects” and you can give me another slew saying it has detrimental effects. Such internet discussions will not go anywhere (the same as with the death penalty or gun rights). Perhaps I was wrong to bring this up in YCNews (since this is not the forum for such debates).
In any case, in the country of Singapore they have less crime and fewer problems that 99% of Western countries. Yet they have very strict laws (including corporal and capital punishment for drug offences).
EDIT: The original point I wanted to make was this:
In the USA, tough punishment only comes after the criminal has firmly established his bad behaviour. Any pet owner knows that at that stage it is the most difficult to change set behaviour.
You have silly things such as three strikes laws. Why? The third time that behaviour is fixed.
If that same person were punished severely for his first crime (however minor) he would think twice about breaking the law.
That is how it works in Singapore - the first crime is punished hard, and the behaviour doesn't re-occur.