Welcome to Inkbunny...
Allowed ratings
To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )
KichigaiKitsune

Caning? Corporal punishment? My position might surprise you.

I know I'm a pretty vocal youth rights supporter. I'm also a libertarian. I'm many things, many shallow labels, that are often too easily misunderstood and shrouded in idiotic stereotypes. This is a bit of rant, by the way, so strap the fuck in.

One moment that really stuck in my head was about seven years ago, when people were stunned at how vehemently I defended a relationship between a young man and a geriatric lady - I insisted it wasn't our business, it's nothing for us to judge. If we find it disturbing, then look away. I find it disturbing that people buy celebrity magazines, I don't accost them in the street or criticize them by name on the television. For some reason, people were really shocked by my "tolerance."

After all, let's get this clear: many people hold social or political beliefs without actually comprehending the logic behind them. They don't passionately believe in a set of principles and tenets; they just go along with the crowd and are "tolerant" because that shit is what's cool. Most people are idiot cult members, not free-thinking philosophers. Furries are especially guilty of this shit, by the way.

Not many people accept homosexual relationships because they understand it's not your business, and that we shouldn't judge or harm others just because we find something gross, and that how other people have sex and live their lives is no concern of ours. Not many people actually hold the "live and let live" philosophy, that libertarian code. No.
It's just that it isn't cool to be homophobic anymore - outside of school anyway.

Which is why these people don't react the same way to, say, a relationship between an 18 and 55 year old. No, that's grounds for televised shaming and disgust.

Which is why it's cool on TV for Detective Dipshit from your favorite cookie cutter police drama to be all pro gay rights (heaven forbid a negative review from The New York Times), pontificating that gays never chose to be that way; but they find it less cool to point out that minor-attracted persons didn't choose shit either, discover their sexuality in their early teens/tweens and often feel suicidal throughout their life despite never hurting anyone. So yeah, every time Sergeant Inspector Detective McCoolname spews out lines about how pedos need to wiped off the planet, after episode #328 portraying one as a slobbering molester-beast, that's another few emotionally fragile 14 year olds getting closer to the noose, but we don't actually hold values - we just say what's cool. It's not cool to point out that it's hypocrisy.

So apparently it's wrong for me to insist that the government and even the people should never have any say in a consensual relationship between two adults just because we find it squicky because... I'm "right wing"? Am I?! When did that happen?!

Yeah, I support firearm ownership, small government with limited power over the market and corporations, and that clearly means I need to adhere to a bunch of other unrelated beliefs like tax breaks for the rich and no sex-ed in schools... Eh?!

Note that this is distinct from just being morons: the NYRA (and myself) have supported the lowering of the drinking age in the USA, and encourage parents to promote healthy drinking habits and demystify alcohol in a safe setting for their teenagers. As it stands now, they cannot do that for fear of being arrested and possibly even jailed, so teenagers binge drink because they don't know how to drink safely, nobody's shown them, and in secret away from adult supervision. Nice going, MADD!
But I've seen people claim the NYRA wants to abolish the drinking age so toddlers can get gin and tonics.

Anyway, back on topic. It always seems to be a shock to people when you explain you have a nuanced position on something - certain factors can change your stance on an issue, and if you can explain and defend them, then it's very different from merely clinging to the nearest political barge like a sign-waving barnacle. Sometimes it seems like you're flip-flopping, even when you're not.

For instance. I've been vocal in the past about corporal punishment in schools and at home (or at other facilities) - I'm 100% against it. It doesn't work.
But judicial caning, even for minors, for certain crimes? Absolutely. I believe we should.

There's a massive difference between the two, and I actually think that in some cases it's warranted.

I was just looking at Singapore's regulations concerning judicial caning. As expected, it's not perfect, but it's not as brutal and cruel as many people seem to think. It's certainly not a walk in the park, either. There are rules regarding which offenses can warrant them, to whom they can be administered, how many can be given and so on, so forth.

Many people support the idea of judicial corporal punishment, but hey: test them. How many of them are actually just slobbering at the mouth hoping to see a vicious beating delivered to every teenager they see, but don't even consider that their arse could be on the line too? How many would support it if it meant someone their age being caned? Would they be as rabid about supporting it if it wasn't a teenager about to cop the stick? Trust me, I've tested; the response is much less rabid.
Too bad, because the reality here and in the USA is that adults still commit more and more serious crime. How can we curb it? Clearly we're being too soft on adults these days. Yes, adults these day.

Six of the best should make road-ragers, pub brawlers and general ne'er-do-wells think twice. Aww, what's that, you're an "adult" so it's demeaning and degrading? Well, newsflash, it's no better for a 13 year old. You break the law, you get caned, you get humiliated and degraded just like them. You're a little bitch, so you get caned like one. Ageism cannot have any place here - it's already absurd enough that you cannot strike a dog, and yet people are trying to legally protect striking their children. And that's what makes this such an effective idea for a punishment.

Regarding minors, if a minor over ten or so commits a violent crime, they shouldn't be exempt from punishment. That's the problem: it isn't that we need longer, stricter punishments, or more of them, or that we need tougher laws, or that "kids these days" or... no, the problem is that the government tends to either be horribly useless and does nothing to genuine delinquents, or they try and royally fuck over kids who need help and support, not incarceration.

Six strokes with a light cane, for offenses such as thefts of over a certain value, deliberate property damage and violent crime, and only for serious legal offenses, by the way, will see many of these delinquents change their mind fucking fast.

See, all throughout my life, I've actually had to deal with juvenile delinquents. I know a few and I know what the deal is. The fact is, very short stays in juvenile detention are inadequate. The offenders get no support, no help with the circumstances that led them to be offenders, no mentoring, no continuing support when they leave, etc. Most importantly, while detention centers vary from place to place, some are awful some are actually quite pleasant, they generally do little to deter young offenders.

Hell, they're used to prison. There's less homework in detention centers though.

Intensive support and therapy has been shown to be just as effective if not far moreso than "harsh penalties" - the cost is offset by changing offenders to contributing members of society. But governments tend to care little, and do little, outside of a few notable cases. It's more politically desirable to be "harsh" and vengeful, as the voters prefer to indulge in spite instead of rehabilitation.

The key thing is, while the study of juvenile delinquency and crime is a study unto its own, many of the same factors also affect adult criminals too. Drunken aggressive dickheads are unacceptable and yet let off lightly, whether they're 35 or 11 - something I see personally all the time in my area. So, as far as I can tell (and as far as Singapore can tell), select, justified use of cane has a great effect on offenders, whether they're teenagers or middle aged.

Now, I'm not someone who gets off on the idea of corporal punishment. But, if we were to consider caning for certain violent and anti-social behaviors, for adults and minors, there's another layer of deterrence. Along with continuing support and rehab efforts, a very brief moment of (extreme) unpleasantness could be the deterrent we need to remind these assholes that their behavior is, in the immediate term, unacceptable, intolerable, and there are consequences for it. While in the long term, we're guiding and encouraging better behavior. If nothing else, the threat of an extra 3 strokes the second time is going to cut down on recidivism.

It is not the same as parental or scholastic corporal punishment. There are key differences between them, not the least of which is transparency and fairness. A judicial caning for specific antisocial actions would be a decision made by a court, judge, jury, social workers and experts, having taken into account specific circumstances viewed through a lens of consistency, with clear paths for recompense if it's administered unjustly.

The differences are huge, but since the majority of people presume that a parental beating is never delivered for unfair reasons, I won't go any further into it than that. If you've ever been hit for being in your dad's way, or being "caught" on the phone to your mum because you were worried where he'd disappeared to at night, then you'll know where I'm coming from. Otherwise, you're in a dream world. Parents abuse their power to hit all the time, and there's no transparency. There are also downsides to personally beating your kids in terms of your relationship. There is just no need for it. Don't, please.

Now, you might think that I'm crazy or hypocritical for saying caning is acceptable for young minors. I'm not. I make a big deal out of keeping my understanding of children & teenagers realistic, not necessarily positive (that's just a coincidence, because the reality is positive), and I have actual experience with the exact kind of people we're talking here. Talked to the police recently about one, in fact.

In short: yeah, no, some of them need an ass-whooping. We're not talking about a hospitalizing beating here. They're still kids, there's a better chance at setting them straight than most adults. But they know what they're doing, they know it is wrong, they know there's no consequences for their actions that they care about. Often, they're more dedicated and deliberate in their offending than adults; lashing out. Just as I argue that most children do nothing wrong, I'll have to remind you that they're not all angels either. And an eleven year old is not some ditzy toddler. Yes. They deserve a caning, and their victims - often other children or teenagers - deserve to know that society is looking out for them.

Don't even get me started on why you can't just punish parents, by the way. No. As my friend says, "we need to reinforce the concept of consequences" for anti-social behavior, and we need to do so to the people who indulge in it. Parents are not 100% of their child's world; they cannot be held responsible, especially not without significant community support if their kid is truly off the rails.

I got into youth rights at age fifteen because of various reasons. People refusing to hold dipshit kids responsible for their own actions and stopping them was one of them. People claiming it was a parents' "right" to hit their kids was another.

But put them together? Little R_____ a few streets down needs an appointment with a rattan cane... and a social worker. He really fucking does...
That is all.

Go back to fapping to furry porn.
Viewed: 76 times
Added: 5 years, 3 months ago
 
RokukeShiba
5 years, 3 months ago
so.... whens the next Astray :P?
KichigaiKitsune
5 years, 3 months ago
Depends. Are you back to fapping to furry porn?
RokukeShiba
5 years, 3 months ago
Nope. :o
KichigaiKitsune
5 years, 3 months ago
THEN NEVER. >:C
RokukeShiba
5 years, 3 months ago
who faps to cheetah abuse? :c
imer
5 years, 3 months ago
there are people :p
KichigaiKitsune
5 years, 3 months ago
There are indeed. *falls over*
KichigaiKitsune
5 years, 3 months ago
Nonono, fap to cheetah happiness! :D
indorri
5 years, 3 months ago
Nope. I'm glad judicial corporal punishment was abolished, both for adults and minors. You were on the right track about parents, I'm surprised you're not extending the same logic to governments. I'm also mad you euphemise inflicting acute pain as "discomfort". Frankly, Singapore, Malaysia et al can jump into a volcano.

Not that you're incorrect about anti-social behavior needing to be addressed. The issue is that incarceration is just a way to get people off the street for a while and serve as the "punishment" to satiate people, when what anti-social nits need is a way have access blocked to means to express their behaviour, structured oversight, etc. Ironically, this means the residential-style centers are, I would consider, a better idea (subject to all the yada yada oversight). I'm with Sweden on this one, the only addendum being the need to keep tabs on those with sociopathic tendencies or who maintain low impulse control.
KichigaiKitsune
5 years, 3 months ago
I can continue this discussion in instant messaging, but let me just clarify here that I'm not saying this should replace proper rehabilitation, or be the go-to punishment for every offense.

I only support this measure because, while I believe in long-term help, the lack of an immediate deterrent is a problem. While this is fucking painful, it's not intended to be disfiguring and is only meant to return the pain and distress offenders inflict on others back on themselves, to serve as a quick, immediate deterrent.

The problem with stopping criminal activity is that, while thinking about the wellbeing of the criminal is good (eg, focus on rehab), it's also imperative to stop them harming others. This measure WILL work to that purpose. Also, there's the fact that sometimes the "compassionate method" doesn't always work - you might be able to "game" your social worker, ignore your therapy, etc, but if you're also faced with immediate punishment, you'll cease your behavior regardless.

I'd only even considering this for extreme cases, where people are hurting others repeatedly without remorse or respite. I understand exactly where you're coming from, but the shit I've seen in the last few months has made me want to see tools and protocols in place to HALT anti-social behavior when it's harming others, and allow focused rehabilitation to do its thing.
tamino
5 years, 3 months ago
I... hm. I think what I run into when I read that is that I don't trust the courts, with *anything*, pretty much. I'm not sure how different it is in Australia, but in the US, a lot of things that really shouldn't be crimes, *are* crimes, and the whole court system is just this huge, intolerant mess where if you screw up even once, even in a very minor way, and you get caught, your life turns into absolute hell that is completely out of proportion to the crime you actually committed.

Even after you've paid your debt to society, you're still screwed; whether it's a big kind of screwed (sex offender list) or a smaller kind (never again being able to check the box on employment forms that says you've never been convicted of anything).

At least with the court system the way it is in the US, I could never, ever, ever support expanding its authority to mete out punishment even by one iota.

If I imagine a country in which the justice system actually is compassionate, fair, and actually tries to *help you be a good person* rather than just raging into your life swinging for blood just because you made one small mistake...

... Then yes, maybe. Maybe.

But I'd have to *see* that country first.
indorri
5 years, 3 months ago
I did make the argument above, but I'd have to reject judicial corporal punishment even in an ideal fair environment out of hand until I saw very, very strong evidence it a) significantly reduced crime and recidivism and b) it increased overall wellbeing in society, preference given to non-criminals but not excluding criminals.
KichigaiKitsune
5 years, 3 months ago
The thing is, I agree with everything you've said, but the problem is: just what CAN you trust then? While flawed in other ways (to say the least) at least the court system is transparent, not in the power of just a single person, and recompense for wrongful punishment can be sought.

The complete opposite of a parent-child relationship, really.

And you're right, but to me, there would have to be a trade off for corporal punishment to be fitted fairly into the justice system. Meaning, wouldn't you prefer the idea of 6 strokes of the cane over everything you listed there? No sex offender list, no employability problems...? An immediate deterrent instead of long term life ruining bullshit. And a wrongful caning followed by recompense is very different from years of your life, that you can never regain.

This entire journal is just "food for thought." I'm NOT saying Singapore has it right, for instance. As I said to Indorri, I'm only considering this because of crap I've dealt with recently, where an immediate deterrent followed by focused intervention/support is what's needed, but NOTHING came from the government at all.

... As for "that country?" Well, Sweden is pretty damn good. Most of Northern Europe does things really well. San Francisco has an excellent track record too. There are some really neat and fair judiciaries and penalty systems out there!
indorri
5 years, 3 months ago
I know Scandinavia is pretty famous, but San Francisco? Similar to Sweden et al or something else?
AvaBun
5 years, 3 months ago
Hum, hum...!~ So, am I understanding it straight if I were to say that your stance is that Parents should not cane their children, public authorities should? |3

I remember watching one of George Carlin's sets where he mentioned that bringing back public executions as major televised events would probably diminish the amount of crime in the nation. I know it was a joke primarily, as he is a comedian, but it does make me curious if the idea of public displays of consequences might actually get things through to people in general, let alone our youth. Granted, canings probably ... shouldn't be televised at all, but do you think that being able to see the consequences for their actions directly would deter people from committing those actions a lot better?
KichigaiKitsune
5 years, 3 months ago
Yes. There was no intent to obfuscate that. No, parents should not use corporal punishment on their children as a matter of course; judicial corporal punishments through the court for specific, serious anti-social crimes are very different. This is no different from saying that parents can't just incarcerate their children on a whim, but the courts can through open legal procedure - it is not power we extend to parents, because it's not power they should have, but we do to transparent courts. That's all.

Normally, I'm not for giving the government any sort of power over the individual or family, but this is a different case. Sometimes the government DOES need power over the family, especially when this discussion turns to "rights of the parent" instead of "rights of the child." We can discuss that later though!

RE: Televised beatin's. I don't know! One of the things for me is, I think 4 strokes of the cane might be friggin' awful, but not as bad as 12 months in jail, and it'll be a better deterrent overall.

But funny you asked about televised punishments, since "naming and shaming" and all that has come up a lot with this. Overall I don't think it's a good or ethical idea to do anything like that. Even in Malaysia and Singapore judicial canings occur in private. It might definitely add another layer to the whole "deterrence" factor, knowing you're going to be broadcast on TV to the entire country, blubbering and crying for mercy while your butt gets caned, but I think that's a little bit over the top, especially for minors. After all, we don't name them in publicized cases for a reason.

Buuut then my brain goes: "Actually, hey, it's not an awful idea." Maybe they could offer a sort of leniency if people allowed themselves to be recorded through the procedure. Maybe with no name and the face blocked out. Not necessarily televised, but it'd be a heck of a weapon to show someone as a parole officer. Just to show what will happen if someone keeps pushing their luck.

Mind you, pretty sure you can find the same stuff on porn websites.
AvaBun
5 years, 3 months ago
Yeaaah, quite true. Pants off and it's always going to be someone's fetish. \3
KichigaiKitsune
5 years, 3 months ago
You know, that's a consideration that crops up a lot in my stories. "Uh, how many people are about to fap to this scene? ... Awww, whatever."

At the end of the day, I guess it's an added bonus. xD
AvaBun
5 years, 3 months ago
Hah! xD

The same thought pops in when i'm doodling paws on a character. I know at least two people will thank me if I make them juuust right~
KichigaiKitsune
5 years, 3 months ago
*COUGH* Yeah. Man, who'd be into those? Stupid paws. Nothing nice about them at all. Yeah. Ahem.

... Yeah.
Sairento
5 years, 3 months ago
*paws at quietly*
One thing I've been learning in my course is the punishment isn't exactly... a thing that works. Understand that I've been learning about kids aged 0 to 12-ish, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but - there's no connection linking caning to say, theft. I've learned that as adults and educators, we should provide guidance rather than mete out punishment, and what punishment there is should be consequences. Say... you throw sand, you get removed from the sand pit.
Punishment doesn't work because there's no connection. If you don't do you homework you don't get desert, well that doesn't make sense. I certainly know that if I nick something and get caned, all I'd be is pissed off - ergo, I'd have learned exactly nothing. I guess it'd be good for assault charges or something, but...
KichigaiKitsune
5 years, 3 months ago
You're not exactly wrong, not at all. You're almost always better off explaining, guiding, correcting behavior, mentoring/role-modeling, and allowing natural consequences than punishing. But here's the thing:

I'm not talking about educators or even parents. I'm talking about courts, for criminal activity, and I wouldn't ever recommend corporal punishment to TAKE THE PLACE of everything else. God no, but it could work as a deterrent, and sometimes that's what's needed.

Want a natural consequence? Well, in this case, it's "hurt others, and you get hurt back." It's perfectly natural and connected.

Remember, what I'm talking about isn't Little Timmy punching Johnny too hard in the arm at recess. I'm talking about cases were they repeatedly assault others, full on "grown up" assault, theft, stalking and harassment, and when authorities intervene, they do bugger all, and before you know it, the kid is back to terrorizing others. This is happening right here and now for me, btw.
I'm talking about repeated burglaries and property damage that is beyond control, and the police and social services are doing _nothing_ to help.

So my recommendation here is summed up as we need to have both of these:

1) Immediate deterrent to HALT THE BEHAVIOR. We can worry about helping and rehabilitating the criminal AFTER we've stopped them hurting others. They DON'T get preference over the people THEY'RE hurting; this is crazy but it happens all the time. If you assault someone, you get caned, you'll seriously think twice before you do it again. That's all this is there for. It's not permanent damage, it's not as disruptive overall as months in jail, and it will provide a quick and simple deterrent to hurting others.

2) Intensive and proactive support to resolve the factors that caused the offender to offend in the first place. Here is where you worry about them "learning" something. Worry about that when we know Timmy isn't going to punch Johnny in the face six times after school/smash into a liquor store/vandalize cars again, because he knows he'll get his ass caned for it.

In criminology/penology, there are three parts to a working penalty system. Deterrence is one; rehabilitation is the second; restitution is the final part. At the moment, Australia's juvenile justice system does a half-assed effort of basically none of those things. I'm saying we should be doing all three, efficiently and fairly.

Overall, I don't hold much faith in punishment. I've achieved more with a single sentence than most parents will with twelve spankings or a two-hour detention. But I'm not talking about this as a sole method of "punishment." It's just one part of the deterrence factor, and it will work a shitload better than locking them up in a detention facility by itself.

Consider, for a second offense, of a 12 year old conducting violent assault on another child: 4 strokes with a cane, 3 weeks or months (not 3 fucking days, which is what happened around here recently) in a detention facility with therapy, and continued support and therapy for 9 more months. It's not that bad, and I certainly wouldn't say it's undeserved.

(Adults get double the punishment. >_>)
zarfytezz1
5 years, 2 months ago
Right when I thought I knew where I stood on all political issues, I find something new to think about from you! Too bad I was away from this site for so long...

Well, I'm not sure about this. I agree with you that corporal punishments from parents to children should not be allowed, and schools should not be able to do such things, either. And I agree that children should be responsible for their actions, to a reasonable extent, the same way adults are.

That said, I'm not entirely opposed to the thought of judicial caning, but I feel like there would be issues...I'll certainly keep thinking about it, but what do you think of the issues involved, such as...

-Isn't this sort of an "eye for an eye" punishment? I thought such things were for the most part rejected in civilized societies.

-You argue that it's an effective deterrent because it is "extremely painful" but doesn't cause permanent harm. But couldn't this be applied to a multitude of things? I could make the same argument that people who commit assault should be strapped to a chair and pepper-sprayed in the face, or that they should be have their hands held in acid for a set amount of time, as long as no permanent harm was done. Where do you draw the line? I believe the UN defines caning as a form of torture.

-What if the person sentenced to be caned refuses to be caned? Would you  have police/guards hold him or her down and cane them while the person screams and cries and begs for mercy? And are you sure it's harmless? Being so helpless to stop your body from taking such abuse may leave emotional scars similar to rape, right? It seems a bit barbaric...although I understand your point that prison system can be barbaric as well... :/

-I'm not sure how the system works in Australia, but here in the US, the courts are generally far too harsh on defendants. We charge people for victim-less crimes, and the sentences are too long. Maybe you have the opposite problem in Australia, not sure, but like one of the comments above said, I'm very skeptical of increasing the power of the courts.

It's a tricky question, how to punish people...ideally I don't want to see anyone get punished, but obviously it's the only way some people learn. (I'm assuming you're only talking about violent crime here? One of my biggest qualms with he American system is that we have people locked up in prison who are clearly no threat to others in society). There are other alternatives I've heard to judicial corporal punishment and incarceration, too. A friend of mine told me something about the idea of forcing a criminal to smell an extremely foul-smelling but harmless gas as part of his or her punishment.

I look forward to your thoughts! I like considering new ideas. Thanks.


New Comment:
Move reply box to top
Log in or create an account to comment.