Prison is worse and is a more effective deterrent than caning
greyenlightenment.com
greyenlightenment.com
Ahh, an opinion not remotely worth listening to or having on the Internet.
Shocking.
As for why, millennia of much-harsher-than-caning attempts to deter crime have long-term failed to do so while there is still a strong incentive to that crime, and the only (brief) moments in which any of them have apparently worked was, coincidentally, one in which said crime was dis-incentivized.
But, you know, go ahead and keep trying the same stupid thing over and over and expecting different results.
This article reads like it was haphazardly written.
> Regarding the pro-caning argument that prisons create hardened criminals, this is mitigated by longer sentences, such as harsh recidivism laws as seen in the U.S.
It is absolutely not, if it were, you wouldn't see the incarceration rates you see in the US. Have you met some of these criminals? I have. The 40 year olds who've been in the system since adolescence wear it as a badge of honor. It's all they know.
> El Salvador, despite obviously being a much poorer country than the U.S., has an incarceration rate of 3x that of the U.S. after embarking on a mass incarceration program, ending its otherwise intractable gang problem seemingly overnight when other measures failed.
That's because all the organized criminals are currently in prison. They haven't been rehrehabilitated, and if they ever get out that country is back to square 1.
Prison being effective because it's inhumane is not much of an argument here. The discussion is "cruel and unusual." You can't say corporal punishment is any more so than prison, both were commonplace at the time that clause was written in the constitution.
So which is less humane, or, say, has a higher humane-to-effectiveness ratio? I'd say corporal punishment.
Yes I'd rather be caned than go to prison. Prison is terribly cruel. But I'd also say, the prospect of experiencing severe pain would definitely be enough deterrent to me. I think so for most people. And for those it wouldn't, they're gonna be career criminals regardless, at least you're not turning one offs into that also by sticking them in an environment dominated by gangs and forcing them to associate with gangs to keep from being stabbed. Being beaten is such a deterrent that a person would rather become a career criminal. Criminals would rather go to prison again than get beaten in prison. Which is more effective, corporal punishment or prison?
I have a model in my mind for an optimal justice system, which would be minimally cruel and maximally effective.
First, as a prerequisite, there can be no such thing as a victimless crime. Nothing can be against the law which involves no unwilling participant. Also, no punishments involving maiming. No cutting off hands and gouging eyes and things like that. Finally, for the ultimate penalty, pain cannot be deliberately inflicted in the process, no breaking at the wheel or anything like that.
For petty and financial crimes, theft, fraud and the like, fines suffice. The fine is to be 2 * average theft value * (total occurrences/total successful prosecutions). No money is to be given to the victim unless the stolen item is not recovered. This ensures that, on average, a thief paysore over their thieving career than they gain, and that there's no perverse incentive to get people charged with theft. Repeat offenders can be caned a little if it can be shown to have an impact on rate of recidivism.
For low level violent crimes, simple assault, breaking and entering, vandalism and the like, corporal punishment. Lashing, caning, anything that doesn't do more than superficial permanent injury. The sentence should be at the discretion of the judge, but the type of corporal punishment for each type of crime should be in statute.
And for serious violent crimes, such as robbery, attempted murder or deliberate injury, rape, murder, etc the punishment should be first offense severe corporal punishment, could be caning or lashing or anything, second offense death. The first offense more lenient punishment serves two purposes: rehabilitate a first time offenders, and reduce occurrence of accidental execution of an innocent party. The only people that get killed here are repeat offenders, or career criminals as one might call them.
Crimes of negligence, like manslaughter, accidental injury and the like, corporal punishment and civil restitution. Non violent crimes of negligence like accidental property destruction can be handled civilly, with the same formula as the financial crimes one outlined above.
Same as above for corruption of an office of public trust.
There should be no registry of any kind once punishment has been served. It serves no purpose; either the person is no longer a threat to those around them, or they're dead, or will soon be dead. One should not wear a black mark if they're truly rehabilitated, and if they aren't able to be, should be removed from society.
Exile, I think there may be a place for it, I don't know. But I don't think exile is good in leu of execution, it is far less humane to put a bunch of repeat violent offenders in with each other to abuse one another than to just execute them.
As far as imprisonment and forced bondage, this should only be an option if one is unable to pay their debt for theft and negligence, and ideally in the form of wage garnishment or seizure of assets and not direct enslavement, although as a last resort if this must be undertaken, but the subject must be compensated fairly for their work before having it taken to pay down those debts.
That would be in my mind the closest thing to a perfect criminal justice system as you can get. If the idea is deterrent, rehabilitation, reduction of organized crime and removal of those who cannot help but hurt others, it is the most effective paradigm I can come up with to achieve those goals, while significantly reducing the amount of suffering members of our society have to endure.