Bring Back Corperal punishment

RampagingBadger

I've been reading a number of thread on boards over the last few day that are roughly similar to this on

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=134104&perpage=20&highlight=husband%20terrorised&pagenumber=1

It seemed to me that the overwhelming majority of posters seemed to suggest dishing out a beating to the little b@stards in question. This raised an interesting point. Has the banning of corperal punishment somehow made the police impotent in their dealings with such groups? Would the administering of no scarring (in the physical sense) physical violance act as a suitable deterrant in these cases. Lets say you spray them with Mace for 20 mins or give them some electo-shock treatment. Also should the police be given more powers to deal adequately with these miscrients?

Kappar

Lets say you spray them with Mace for 20 mins or give them some electo-shock treatment.

JESUS GOD NO!!!! that would, imo, be absolutely sick and wrong.

Corporal punishment as far as I am concerned has no place in a society. Nothing gives anyone the right to inflict pain on someone else. I am aware of the irony that those that would be at the end of the corporal punishment would have mostly inflicted pain on someone else but if society was to respond equally it is then legitimising it which is not what i would like to see. I am a strong advocate of human rights and would see this as not the way to go.

ixoy

I have to say that the idea has merits. I've heard stories of groups of youths that were running havoc upon estates, with the Gardai powerless to stop them. Then a van would pull up one day, they would have the crap beaten out of them, and the troubles suddenly lessen....

It's a tough way of dealing out punishment but it could be a nastily effective one. I know there's been studies done on this - must try and have a look around for them because there's the basis of an interesting discussion here...

Kappar

What I would fear as well is what would have happened to miscarriages of Justice, we would beat and torture people that have committed no crime.

Would anyone advocate continued punishment like an electrocution a week or only a once off beating?

I have to say I am intransigently opposed to violence being used as a punishment.

Stark

For the little bastards in question on that thread yes. Sure parents were slapping their kids for years and parents aren't subject to legal issues such as fair trial/proportionate punishment etc. A good knocking around might be what half of them need.

Kappar

Originally posted by k.oriordan
Sure parents were slapping their kids for years and parents aren't subject to legal issues such as fair trial/proportionate punishment etc

I don't think that parents have the right to "knock their kids about"

A good knocking around might be what half of them need.

Or it might trigger a response of anger and lead to a state that could be worse off than they are now. Don't get me wrong I am not for giving them a cosy little time or I am not saying that if I was a victim of these criminals I would not feel like kicking the **** out of them but I know that it is wrong and would only actually do so in defence or e;se I would be one of them.

Syth

Nothing gives anyone the right to inflict pain on someone else

Well you have to remember that the people give the state extra rights. Nothing gives anyone the right to lock someone up for a few years, yet we give the state the power to do it. Also we the state has the responsibility to protect the citizens from crime. However the ends don't justify the means, so the state doesn't have a carte blance.

But we must look at corporal punishment. I think if it reduces crime then we should introduce it. I don't think corporal punsihment crosses the line of unacceptable mesaures, so whe should weigh up it's pros and cons.

miscarriages of Justice, we would beat and torture people that have committed no crime.

What about miscarriages of justice when we have prisons. Someone wrongly convicted will spend time in prison. By your argument one could argue that we shouldn't have prisons!

Kappar

Well you have to remember that the people give the state extra rights

I assume you are talking about social contract. It is true that we do transfer our rights to the sovereign i.e. Government under social contact but the best philosopher on this, Locke, says that we do not transfer our right to life and personal protection to the state because then we would be living in a state worse that the state of nature.

What about miscarriages of justice when we have prisons. Someone wrongly convicted will spend time in prison. By your argument one could argue that we shouldn't have prisons!

No, for the most part the physical pain is not the same as the deprivation of liberty which would concur with your social contract argument.

Also how do we define the corporal punishment? Is it 50 lashes? An electrocution? What if others respond differently like a big body builder was to get 50 lashes while a small computer programmer :cool: got the same it is worse for the CP than the BB and maybe the CP was to get an infection and die is that fair?

Imposter

Originally posted by Kappar
Also how do we define the corporal punishment? Is it 50 lashes? An electrocution? What if others respond differently like a big body builder was to get 50 lashes while a small computer programmer :cool: got the same it is worse for the CP than the BB and maybe the CP was to get an infection and die is that fair? [/B]

Cut a finger off. It'll work the same for both cases you mention and shouldn't cause an infection if it's done hygenically. Could also keep it on ice in case it was a miscarraige of justice.

If all fingers are gone start on the toes.:)

df001i6876

as kid growning up with corperal punishment in the 1959 to 1969 ?
if i did wrong i new i had to face my dad , who would smack my bottom? he new how far to go, theres limit and all way was/? never done me any harm. i learned
right + wrong /? at school i was given the cane for doing wrong good learning ./ to day there is none/? my dads = dads smack him if he done, wrong?
i have respect for the old people who are old than me . some think needs to be done today /? i agree

martarg

as kid growning up with corperal punishment in the 1959 to 1969 ?
if i did wrong i new i had to face my dad , who would smack my bottom? he new how far to go, theres limit and all way was/? never done me any harm. i learned
right + wrong /? at school i was given the cane for doing wrong good learning ./ to day there is none/? my dads = dads smack him if he done, wrong?
i have respect for the old people who are old than me . some think needs to be done today /? i agree

Well, it seems people who grew up being given the belt at home are willing to use the system on their own kids, people who were not, are usually against it... My own experience is quite the opposite. One (fairly slight) smack on my bottom was the top of my mum's anger, and knowing that I had made her angry enough to do that was what really helped me tell right from wrong, because she never made a fuss over unimportant things. It is not how hard you hit, but how you provide your kids with simple rules of dos and don'ts, and give them proportionate punishments. If your kids get used to yelling and hitting, after a while it becomes the norm and does not impress them a lot... I also went to an old-fashioned school where some of the teachers still smacked and knocked our heads against the blackboard, and honestly, I don't think the system worked better for those teachers than for the more modern or better-natured ones who just made us stand against the wall....

df001i6876

a smack no belt no stick just smack by hand thats all it was for me and my brothers ? i agree ? a simple lesson to right + and wrong ? martarg i agree .

df001i6876

Originally posted by df001i6876
a smack no belt no stick just smack by hand thats all it was for me and my brothers ? i agree ? a simple lesson to right + and wrong ? martarg i agree .

parents no longer have control off there children any more ?
mother sent to jail because her child will not go to school/?
government say it wrong to hit children ?
child caught shoplifting whos blame parents /?
catch 22 who wins .

Doctor Funfrock

Originally posted by RampagingBadger
I've been reading a number of thread on boards over the last few day that are roughly similar to this on

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=134104&perpage=20&highlight=husband%20terrorised&pagenumber=1

It seemed to me that the overwhelming majority of posters seemed to suggest dishing out a beating to the little b@stards in question. This raised an interesting point. Has the banning of corperal punishment somehow made the police impotent in their dealings with such groups? Would the administering of no scarring (in the physical sense) physical violance act as a suitable deterrant in these cases. Lets say you spray them with Mace for 20 mins or give them some electo-shock treatment. Also should the police be given more powers to deal adequately with these miscrients?

that is the most disgraceful thing i have ever read

RampagingBadger

quote

---

that is the most disgraceful thing i have ever read

---

Well you're obviously not much of a reader.
We live in a democracy, the majority of replys to that post seemed in favor of corperal punishment. It might solve the situation and may even help those kids by getting them in line. Do you want to explain your position or is that all you can say?

dr_manhattan

this may be of some interest (especially to that embattled suburban couple)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3565801.stm

Now, rampaging badger:

If you can't understand why someon thinks that proposing "Lets say you spray them with Mace for 20 mins or give them some electo-shock treatment." is somehow a disgrace, then fair enough.

if you also think that a democracy means that if everyone wants to kick someone's head in, then it should happen, then you are very much mistaken. That's why we have judges, and why we train and limit the powers of police. We recognise that a level of objectivity must be maintained in order to dispence "justice". Which is not punishment, or revenge, or what the majority feel is right, but actual justice, meted out by trained and qualified people that will, however difficult the short term benefits are to see, benefit the greater good in the long term.

Fact is, kids misbehave. Another fact is, hitting kids does not stop them misbehaving, and in many cases it cause both the kids to harden up, and those who dispense the thumps to become excessive and gratuitous with their power.

Yet another fact is that, if people were getting a slap for certain crimes, I damn well know they'll just do it again. I did when I was a kid - and I have to say, they outlawed corporal punishment in school when I was about 7 or 8, and the new punishments that were substituted (detention, lines, etc.) were *much* worse for a kid who want his time to himself.

Either way, you can spout that "these people only understand violence" routine until you're blue in the face, fact is that those who understand violence also employ it, so if you want to go to war with criminality and crack some heads, why don't you join the police?

Western society is choked with people calling for more violence, whether it's "bomb iraq" or "put 'em all up against a wall".

We had that mentality for at least 2,000 years. Now that we have stopped doing it, our society is starting, very slowly, to grow up. And that's regardless of bull**** media statistics about crime on the increase, yadayada. it's not. Our society is far less violent than it was, we now know such things as war is actually wrong, attrition is pointless, etc. etc.

So what makes you so determined to bring out the jackboots?

Stark

Those new laws look pretty good, hopefully Ireland will follow suit soon enough. Moving back home to Cork in 2 months, and dreading facing the gangs around my estate again. Half the time I could only go jogging if was raining, or early in the morning, because running gear made me a prime target. Would be great if they could be gotten rid of.

RampagingBadger

Quote:

---

That's why we have judges, and why we train and limit the powers of police. We recognise that a level of objectivity must be maintained in order to dispence "justice".

---

I wasn't proposing vigalentism. I proposed that the courts be able to visit a good kick in the goolies if they deem it appropriate. I'm not totally sure if I'm in favor of it myself but it seemed to me that everyone on the thread I posted wanted something like that so I wanted to see what people thought.
I do think there are other solutions that would work better, but these necessitate the spotting of troubled youths/areas early and investing time and money in them. Corperal punishment may/may not be a soln for those that social services have overlooked.
In any case if you were being harassed in the manner of the people on that estate I think I'd know which state of affairs you'd think was the worse disgrace.

Syth

Well I think that corporal punishment might be a good responce to certain kinds of crime. I'm mainly thinking about crimes where the criminal did it to earn respect. If they are publically whipped/beaten/thrown in the stocks then it would cancle any benefit of commiting the crime.

Each type of crime requires a different responce in order to reduce the occurance of the crime in future. I think corporal punishment could conteract and reduce respect-earning crimes. (If you know what I mean).

Silent Grape

my brother used to beat the **** out of me untill my boyfriend and his friends had a chat with him. not a problem since.

it was a VERY drastic measure though. i had a restraining order against him but apparently that meant sweet **** all to the gardai

The Beer Baron

My mother used to slap me silly with the wooden spoon and I turned out ok.

but seriously, ixoy is right on this.
I'm children don't have the mental development to listen to psychobabble, I'm not advocating beat the seven shades of ****e out of them but sometimes it's the only way to make them understand.

Stark

Smacking isn't the answer either unless a kid knows what he/she's being smacked for. I remember being smacked as a kid and not knowing what for. Used to dread going out with the mother because I knew I'd always get slapped when I got home. Turned out it was because I was a hyperactive kid and couldn't keep still.

Boston

Originally posted by Kappar
JESUS GOD NO!!!! that would, imo, be absolutely sick and wrong.

Corporal punishment as far as I am concerned has no place in a society. Nothing gives anyone the right to inflict pain on someone else. I am aware of the irony that those that would be at the end of the corporal punishment would have mostly inflicted pain on someone else but if society was to respond equally it is then legitimising it which is not what i would like to see. I am a strong advocate of human rights and would see this as not the way to go.

Would you say the same if you where a victim of violent crime. Fair enough you're entitled to your believes but you have never suffered for them, something you should do before advocating how things should be. You say it has no place is society, I'd say it has no place in a prefect idealized society. Now I see you're in philosophy and the like, which teaches you have to live in tomorrows world today if its ever going to be a reality, but the rest of us live into days world where the threat of violence is the only things keeping many areas safe. Many new Irish estates are over run by gangs of teenage scum, and the communities in these areas are all middle class hard working types, who look exclusively to the gardi to solve the problem, but can't. Local garda stations with two cells and two officers that closes at 6pm each night, who are they kidding. If you don't allow, or at least turn a blind eye to, some corporal punishment then you will have people taking the law into their own hands.

Kappar

Would you say the same if you where a victim of violent crime.

I have been started on on the street a few times for no valid reason and we all accept that you have the right to defend yourself and I did say that I would feel like kicking the **** out of them most people would but I wouldn't lower myself. I also feel that doing it wouldn't achieve any affect because they would continue doing it. I also have had someone close been severely attacked and have had to stop myself from kicking the crap out of the perpetrator.

Fair enough you're entitled to your believes but you have never suffered for them, something you should do before advocating how things should be.

Do you mean I have never been a victim of crime so I don't know how it feels? If so Q.E.D

You say it has no place is society, I'd say it has no place in a prefect idealised society.

I would argue that we can't reach a perfect society ever but we can come close and this would never happen if we advocate things that we are trying to rid ourselves of.

Now I see you're in philosophy and the like, which teaches you have to live in tomorrows world today if its ever going to be a reality,

The area of Philosophy I am most interested in and of which I am talking about here is the study of society TODAY, YESTERDAY and TOMORROW.

Many new Irish estates are over run by gangs of teenage scum, and the communities in these areas are all middle class hard working types, who look exclusively to the gardi to solve the problem, but can't. Local garda stations with two cells and two officers that closes at 6pm each night, who are they kidding. If you don't allow, or at least turn a blind eye to, some corporal punishment then you will have people taking the law into their own hands

Corporal punishment is only legitimising violence in the eyes of the criminal and in the eyes of everyone in society. It seems to me that you are more interested in punitive actions rather that preventive.

Boston

Originally posted by Kappar
I have been started on on the street a few times for no valid reason and we all accept that you have the right to defend yourself and I did say that I would feel like kicking the **** out of them most people would but I wouldn't lower myself. I also feel that doing it wouldn't achieve any affect because they would continue doing it. I also have had someone close been severely attacked and have had to stop myself from kicking the crap out of the perpetrator.

That wouldn't make you a victim of violent crime, have you ever been attacked?

Originally posted by Kappar

Do you mean I have never been a victim of crime so I don't know how it feels? If so Q.E.D

I its one thing to walk away when you don't have to deal with these people every day, its another to walk away when you know the result will be you getting the ****e kicked out of you. You may no like the fact, but that doesn't make it any less true, that sometimes violence is the only short term solution. What would you have people do who are having there communities destroyed by gangs of thugs while the gardi watch on? invite them around for tea?

Originally posted by Kappar

I would argue that we can't reach a perfect society ever but we can come close and this would never happen if we advocate things that we are trying to rid ourselves of.

Never the less you still have to deal with the practicality of the situation you find yourself in, the alternative being chaos.

Originally posted by Kappar

Corporal punishment is only legitimizing violence in the eyes of the criminal and in the eyes of everyone in society. It seems to me that you are more interested in punitive actions rather that preventive.

Preventive is grand, but what of those that are al ready thugs who are only interested in causing mayhem? As for punitive, that would require some lust for vengeance on my part. This is simply about protecting myself.

Problems need to be dealt with, yes corporal punishment is an evil but when compared to the alternative of telling gangs run riot around our towns and cities, its the lesser of two. Maybe you will sleep more soundly tonight with your high minded morality intact, some of us don't have the luxury of such noble and grand ideals.

dr_manhattan

You know it's funny, people who advocate corporal punishment wonder why other people call them fascists?

First off, boston, you're telling people they have no right to an opinion unless they have been victims of violent crime? (not only that, but you're saying later that the violent crimes used as an example aren't violent enough?)

Unfortunately (for you but not me) in this society, everytone's opinions matter. You are second guessing people with liberal beliefs and assuming they have no intimate knowledge of what they discuss. Then you are attacking their philosphical leanings and taking the idea that you know this world better than they do as read. That's not argument, it's browbeating.

But anyways: please don't start whining about my implication that you have fascist tendencies. When you tell people their rights, you are exhibiting these very tendencies: also when you divide people up into "thugs" and "decent people".

Now, perhaps you'll listen to me, as I have been a victim of violent crime, and have witnessed quite a lot of violent crime in my time. I have also been broken into, harassed etc. by perfect examples of what you describe as "thugs", ranging in age from 14 to 40.

VIOLENCE. IS. WRONG. no if's, buts, whatever: even those generals who lead our armies know this. They know that when force is employed, everything goes crazy, and you have to be prepared to accept the consequences of using force.

And the consequences of using violence is that you make violence acceptable on your own terms. It doesn't matter how many short term problems you solve, because in the long term, you have legitimised violence: when you say "the only language they understand is violence", and then you speak that language, you are making it acceptable.

Military action never creates peace. It is the civil administrators that create the peace AFTER the war calms down. In a similar way, riot police do not restore calm: people create that cam with each other. Riot police create riots, and then end them.

And in this way, violent retaliation doesn't stop people being violent. Up until the end of WW2, violence was largely employed as a means of civil control.

Now answer this question: was the world safer before WW2? Did smacking, birching, execution, flogging and pillories make the world safer? Nope. The world was wild before 1950.

"You may no like the fact, but that doesn't make it any less true, that sometimes violence is the only short term solution. What would you have people do who are having there communities destroyed by gangs of thugs while the gardi watch on? invite them around for tea? "

I could flip that paragraph back on you thus:

"You may no like the fact, but that doesn't make it any less true, that violence is never the only solution. What would you have people do who are having there communities destroyed by gangs of thugs while the gardi watch on? Beat the **** out of them and hope it never happens again?"

I have on several occasions had the guts to go and chase down people, and have a pint with them. It has always been worthwhile, and always improved the situations at hand. So yeah, maybe I would invite them round for tea, I dunno: it'd make a hell of a lot more sense than creating a new law to legally beat the **** out of them.

"Yes corporal punishment is an evil but when compared to the alternative of letting gangs run riot around our towns and cities, its the lesser of two. Maybe you will sleep more soundly tonight with your high minded morality intact, some of us don't have the luxury of such noble and grand ideals."


Oh, get off your high horse: you obviously figure Kappar is some posh intellectual, why not just say it? Honestly, it's just sad: however, I would like to enquire what towns and cities are overrrun by gangs, currently?

Trying to build a society without violence is not a highminded, noble ideal: it's just plain and simply the right thing to do: you can make Ireland sound like "Fort Apache: the Bronx" as much as you want, but that doesn't change the fact that violence is a bull**** solution, and what it fixes in the short term it leaves around for successive generations to harvest.

Just look at america: you think private prisons are a good idea?

Boston

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
You know it's funny, people who advocate corporal punishment wonder why other people call them fascists?

First off, boston, you're telling people they have no right to an opinion unless they have been victims of violent crime? (not only that, but you're saying later that the violent crimes used as an example aren't violent enough?)

Don't have time to reply in full, just on this point. I was saying he doesn't have the right to condem others for failing to turn the other cheak, unless hes been in the same position and has done so. Its one thing to say violence isnt an answer, its another thing to say it when you don't live in constant fear.

Boston

Originally posted by dr_manhattan

Now, perhaps you'll listen to me, as I have been a victim of violent crime, and have witnessed quite a lot of violent crime in my time. I have also been broken into, harassed etc. by perfect examples of what you describe as "thugs", ranging in age from 14 to 40.

No need for the Tone.

Originally posted by dr_manhattan


VIOLENCE. IS. WRONG. no if's, buts, whatever:

Wasn't I the one who called it evil, I don't like violence, I avoid it at all costs.

Originally posted by dr_manhattan

And the consequences of using violence is that you make violence acceptable on your own terms. It doesn't matter how many short term problems you solve, because in the long term, you have legitimised violence: when you say "the only language they understand is violence", and then you speak that language, you are making it acceptable.

Alternative please.

Originally posted by dr_manhattan

In a similar way, riot police do not restore calm: people create that cam with each other. Riot police create riots, and then end them.

I think you will find rioter's cause riots. If you believe that certain people arn't out to cause riots and destroy then you're naive.

Originally posted by dr_manhattan

Now answer this question: was the world safer before WW2? Did smacking, birching, execution, flogging and pillories make the world safer? Nope. The world was wild before 1950.

Is it not still?

"You may no like the fact, but that doesn't make it any less true, that sometimes violence is the only short term solution. What would you have people do who are having there communities destroyed by gangs of thugs while the gardi watch on? invite them around for tea? "

I could flip that paragraph back on you thus:

Originally posted by dr_manhattan


"You may no like the fact, but that doesn't make it any less true, that violence is never the only solution. What would you have people do who are having there communities destroyed by gangs of thugs while the gardi watch on? Beat the **** out of them and hope it never happens again?"

Never know, might never happen again, seen it work on a small scale. The only thing that is assured not to work is doing nothing. Violence is only a short term solution to logn term problems, I'll admitt that, but I don't see anybody elses with there tut tut tut, you should be doing that, suggesting alternatives.

Originally posted by dr_manhattan


I have on several occasions had the guts to go and chase down people, and have a pint with them. It has always been worthwhile, and always improved the situations at hand. So yeah, maybe I would invite them round for tea, I dunno: it'd make a hell of a lot more sense than creating a new law to legally beat the **** out of them.

I have on several occasion chased down people and beaten the **** out of them, its why I'm able to walk home at night.

Oh, get off your high horse: you obviously figure Kappar is some posh intellectual, why not just say it? Honestly, it's just sad: however, I would like to enquire what towns and cities are overrrun by gangs, currently?

Don't make assmptions about how I view people, and don't call someone a facist either. As for towns and cities, people like you only see what you want to see and nothing more.

Trying to build a society without violence is not a highminded, noble ideal: it's just plain and simply the right thing to do: [/B]

And sure we'll just cover up the cracks in the society and pretend all is well, if we ignore it, it will jsut go away. Trying to build a society with out violence is great, I'd like to live there, but pretend that social problems don't exist isnt an answer.

I notice you're dig at the prison system as well, Shold be happy then with all the recent closers of prisons in the country, thugs are serving 4 years for killing someone, how is that right?

dr_manhattan

Most of the points you make there involve taking something I have said, and taking it to mean an extreme viewpoint: for example -

" I think you will find rioter's cause riots. If you believe that certain people arn't out to cause riots and destroy then you're naive. "

Perhaps it was OTT of me to say that riot police 'create riots' - however, my main point was that *people* maintain civil order, police and the threat of force don't: it just appears that way.

And I never said nobody is out to creat chaos. I *wish* I was that naive. Just like I never said doing nothing is the best way to deal with crime.

" Never know, might never happen again, seen it work on a small scale. The only thing that is assured not to work is doing nothing. "

Who said "doing nothing" was the way to do things?

I advocated nonviolent means, and I also advocated ethical punishment: you are effectively implying that the two options presented are "corporal punishment" or "doing nothing" - this is not the case.

I also posted a link to a BBCi article about new police powers in the UK to deal with *exactly* what you're discussing: so I am not devoid of alternative answers. I'm not 100% behind these new powers, but I definitely prefer them to corporal punishment.

"...but I don't see anybody elses with there tut tut tut, you should be doing that, suggesting alternatives."

Yes you do: me.

I have suggested a ton of alternatives, see above.

You also say that you hate violence and avoid it at all costs, yet admit chasing down some people and beating them up. That seems contradictory to me, but there ya go.

now as regards your assertion that the world is still as wild as pre-1950s....?

I'm sorry but hitler killed 6 million jews in WW2. Stalin Killed 10 million in his pogroms. War was seen as an effective means to solve disputes even after WW1. Countries fought, invaded each other, etc. On every level, the world was a more violent place, more people died young, etc. this is what happens when you say violence is okay: it becomes a central paradigm of society.

This does not happen on this scale anymore: though terrible things still happen, we have at the very least realised that they *should* not happen.

And in a similar way, enough violence is involved in the process of policing as it is, even though it shouldn't be, without setting up laws to enable more violence to be dispensed.

next, in one sentence, you contradict yourself:

" Don't make assmptions about how I view people, and don't call someone a facist either. As for towns and cities, people like you only see what you want to see and nothing more"

when you use the phrase "people like you", I will make all the "assumptions" I want about how you view people. You have made up your mind about what kind of person I am, just like you did with kaffar, because we have opinions different to yours.

As I said before, when people tell other people they have no right to an opinion, I will call them fascists.

And I notice you are not interested in saying where you live, is that because it might damage your platform for argument? IF you don't want to say where you live, fair enough, but you keep using it in your arguments: this makes it relevant to the discussion.

" I notice you're dig at the prison system as well, Shold be happy then with all the recent closers of prisons in the country, thugs are serving 4 years for killing someone, how is that right?"

Your grammar is getting tricky to interpret, but I'll ask this in reply:

Would you prefer that these muderers were executed? Flogged? Ritually maimed? Because we are not talking about sentencing levels here, we are talking about corporal punishment. This would mean that, instead of serving time, you would be physically punished for your crime. Therefore your solution doesn't stand up much better.

And no, I do not approve of murderers serving 4 years in jail. But there again, prison is just like college for criminals: I actually think the entire practice of punishing someone for a crime by locking them up with experts at crime, in an atmosphere where crime is seen as the only way ahead, to learn tricks of the trade, is ****ed in the head.

However, a lot of people don't give a **** about crime, they just want to see people punished.

A recent survey in the UK asked people if practices *proven* in other countries to reduce re-offending (such as community service, working directly for the people you assaulted/robbed/whatever) could be used, would they use them?

Most people indicated that, even though the new methods would mean that other people wouldn't be stolen from, even though the new methods meant that the criminals would sort their lives out and stop comitting crime, they still wanted them in jail.

So that's people for ya ;-)

Syth

Military action never creates peace. It is the civil administrators that create the peace AFTER the war calms down.

But in order for the civil administrators to be able to work, there must be a functioning civil structure. If not then there is a kind of anarchy. Military action can remove anarchy and impose some hierarchy of power. Use 'military action' to impose the rule of law and to ensure the laws are respected.

Two good books that have parts related to thins discussion are 'The Blank Slate' and 'How the Mind Works' both by Steven Pinker. He touches on violence in both. He claims that the jungle-like violence is a result of there being no rule of law. If there is no rule of law, then you could be killed soon, and you have no guarantee that your propetry will remain yours. The only thing you have is your reputation. If you kill someone because he looked at you funny, then you will have a reputation as a guy no-one don't want to mess with. If you believe you have a high chance of dying soon, then there is little reason to respect the laws.

Getting whipped in public is humilating, and so will cancel out the respect that someone will get by beating the crap out of a guy who talked to his girlfriend.

Boston

I never said he had no right to an opinion, I said he had no right to condem others if he hasn't walked in their shoes, this is my second time explainign this point to you, and the second time you have ignored it. As for avoiding violence at all costs, I mean at all cost barring letting some ****e get away with pulling a knife on me and threating to murder me mother.

Would you prefer that these muderers were executed? Flogged? Ritually maimed? Because we are not talking about sentencing levels here, we are talking about corporal punishment. This would mean that, instead of serving time, you would be physically punished for your crime. Therefore your solution doesn't stand up much better.

Rendered unable to kill again, by what ever means, seems fair. I wouldn't view corporal punishment as a first resort, merely a last one after all else has failed.

Most people indicated that, even though the new methods would mean that other people wouldn't be stolen from, even though the new methods meant that the criminals would sort their lives out and stop comitting crime, they still wanted them in jail.

Can you blame people for being afraid. I know that if I was attacked and reports it to the police,went through the court case and gave evidence to convict the guy, only to turn around in a relatively short time and see him out again damn right I' be scared and more then a little angre.

AngelofFire

im against it cos that type of thing has its roots in nazism

Boston

Originally posted by AngelofFire
im against it cos that type of thing has its roots in nazism

No it doesn't, Nazism has its roots in Corperal Punishment, theres a difference.

Duckjob

When I was growing up, it was taken as a given that if you stepped out of line, you got your arse kicked. My dad even had a special 'spanker' for the task. It was a sort of 'family heirloom', made and passed down by my grandfather - a flattish block of beech wood with a lovingly crafted handle and the express function of administering stinging bottom pain. I can still remember the dread of seeing my father comming in and rummaging on top of the wardrobe where it was kept. I only extracted revenge on it years later by popping it into a halloween bonfire.

On a serious note though, is it a coincidence that since political correctness has taken hold and these forms of dicipline have been virtually outlawed, that the crime rate in the country has spirraled out of control? I mean, when I remember back, I wouldn't have dreamed of getting in trouble with the law, not because of fear of the law, but because of fear of the hiding I would get because of it.

dr_manhattan

is it a coincidence that since political correctness has taken hold and these forms of dicipline have been virtually outlawed, that the crime rate in the country has spirraled out of control?

ahem...

1) not having corporal punishment is not really anything to do with political correctness. I know Political Correctness is the favourite label of this posting board, but nonetheless the move to stop beating people for crimes is a lot older than the 1980s.

2) Can you produce evidence that crime has "spirraled (sic) out of control"? I personally feel that ireland and the UK are safer than ever - and as far as I know there's actually been a decrease in crime over the 1990s, but I could be wrong. Either way, I don't think it's a given.

This thread is going nowhere, really. I mean, it's all very well to advocate CP, but nobody here has actually said what they mean by it: flogging, birching, what? Somebody said "left in a state incapable of committing the crime again" or something, but that's just as vague: could mean anything from crippled to contrite.

So what do people want done to these people? Cos kicking the **** out of people is illegal, even if corporal punishment IS legal: think about it. You go and assault someone and you'll get birched / flogged / hung for it.

Any suggestions? What methods? And the original suggestion of mace or electroshock is no good: 1 in every 500 or so people would be killed by it.

But there again, same goes for any beating. If an official punisher kills someone who just broke a window, does he get executed? Or is he exempt?

Either way, sounds like a charming world to me: bit like "starship troopers", no?

df001i6876

so what most people are saying corperal punishment is wrong.
so let social services take care off it? you can not hit your kid there all little angels police + and social services will sort it out for every one? i wonder what they will turn out like/ i guess it all about give and take] moods off your parents/ bad day at work come home kick kids about /
and the wife dog ?anyone else add any think/

df001i6876

Originally posted by df001i6876
so what most people are saying corperal punishment is wrong.
so let social services take care off it? you can not hit your kid there all little angels police + and social services will sort it out for every one? i wonder what they will turn out like/ i guess it all about give and take] moods off your parents/ bad day at work come home kick kids about /
and the wife dog ?anyone else add any think/

beam me up scottie

Stark

Either way, sounds like a charming world to me: bit like "starship troopers", no?

Will we have those male/female communal showers after corporal punishment is introduced?

Walls

Of course, we all trust the gardai so much we'd be happy to let them hit taxpayers without a trial. Brilliant idea.

Stark

We won't be letting them hit taxpayers, only the unemployed, students and the people earning too little to pay tax.

dr_manhattan

we'd be happy to let them hit taxpayers without a trial.

A trial as in, a sample thump, to see how they liked it? ;-)

Corporal punishment, with free trial! If you don't like it, you get your freedoms back ;-)

As for the communal showers... yiii! I have to say, as a sci fi geek I'd give almost anything to fly around in a big spaceship killing ugly ass aliens. But if the price was having to look like caspar van dien...? Bleeeurgh. Not even sharing a shower with a thousand of his collagen freak bimbo mates would make up for that...

More seriously, I'd like to think that people these days wouldn't tolerate the sight of someone being publicly flogged / corporally punished. I have had huge debates online with advocates of Shariah law, probably the most hardcore system of corporal punishment there is, and I can still soundly say that there's not a single valid point I have ever heard that supports it.

And before anyone pipes in again about smacking kids:

---

THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT SMACKING KIDS! CORPORAL PUNISHMENT DOES NOT MEAN THAT! CHECK THE INITIAL POST ABOUT MACING / ELECTROSHOCKING CRIMINALS

---