NationStates Jolt Archive

Inspired by this thread: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=388730 I was wondering if anyone else thought we should being back corporal punishment? Personally, I've always thought of pain as a legitimate type of punishment. Probably not the "hook his balls up to a car battery" treatment, or "naked pyramids while we take photos of you," but something like a flogging with, say, bamboo, or father's belt. Possibly even small electric shocks, if it causes less tissue damage.

Don't kid yourself, corporal punishment is very much alive today, just look at mothers smacking their screaming children in the supermarket. If they were not related it could easily be assult. So if individuals can do this to their progency, why cannot the government do this to repeat anti-social elements? Not only is pain a deterrant, but if done in public it could help to shame the person that society has decided is a 'wrong doer' into behaving. What's more it would save taxpayers money, instead of short jail term you could have the option of an even swifter kick up the backside.

There is a diffrence between this and torture, and there would have to be strict government guidelines. So what do you think of corporal punishment? Are you mentally scarred from when you father used the belt on you? Or getting the cane at school? Do those nuns still make your knees knock? If it's OK for kids, why not use it on adults too? Their bodies are more devoloped and can withstand more without long term damage. What do you think?

It's not ok in any circumstances.

It's not ok in any circumstances.

What isn't OK? Spanking kids or spanking adults or both?

I have one word for you: Masochists.

Pain is not a form of punishment. Pain is natures way of telling us that we should or should not be doing something. This is the basis of aversion therapy, which is really that parents who spank small children are doing. The children associate pain with undesired behavor and aviod the latter. Unless, of course, they are masochists. Then, the opposite is true.

I'm of the belief that any "punishment" (with the obvious exception of the death penalty) should be aimed at deterrance rehabilitation. I don't see how physical pain would rehabilitate any adult, and if someone isn't deterred by jail time, physical pain wouldn't do any better.

Children, on the other hand, can and should be spanked on occasion.

What isn't OK? Spanking kids or spanking adults or both?
Both. It = corporal punishment

Children, on the other hand, can and should be spanked on occasion.
What? SHOULD be spanked? Oh dear. :(

You know it's illegal to spank your child in some countries.

I got smacked as a kid (but never with a belt or stick or anything like that) and I think I've managed to grow up ok. I'm not so sure about corporal punishment for adults though, I'm not sure what it would achieve. Would the pain & humiliation lead to more anti social behaviour, crimes, etc?

I got smacked as a kid (but never with a belt or stick or anything like that) and I think I've managed to grow up ok. I'm not so sure about corporal punishment for adults though, I'm not sure what it would achieve. Would the pain & humiliation lead to more anti social behaviour, crimes, etc?
seconded

If others are interested in reading more I have found two useful links:
a) Corporal Punishment for Adults by Eliot Jones. Has a list of Pros and Cons, it also documents the arguements of both sides.
http://www.debatabase.org/details.asp?topicID=109
From: Idea database (http://www.debatabase.org/)

b) Corporal Punishment by David Benatar. Highly detailed page outlining the arguements of both sides of corporal punishment for children and adults.
http://www.corpun.com/benatar.htm
From: Corporal Punish Research (http://www.corpun.com/)

What? SHOULD be spanked? Oh dear. :(

You know it's illegal to spank your child in some countries.
Sorry, that came out wrong. If you can't or don't want to spank your child, I'm sure he/she will turn out fine. The worst I ever got was a (literal) slap on the wrist. But sometimes I think a spanking could help.

I got smacked as a kid (but never with a belt or stick or anything like that) and I think I've managed to grow up ok. I'm not so sure about corporal punishment for adults though, I'm not sure what it would achieve. Would the pain & humiliation lead to more anti social behaviour, crimes, etc?

The bigger issue is the huge time gap between crime and punishment. Anyone who knows anything about classical conditioning knows that, psychologically speaking, the legal system now probably only rehabilitates people by accident.

The CC point is also the reason I think speed cameras are a joke. You don't even know you've been fined until a few weeks later, so there's absolutely zero mental connection between the crime and the punishment. A better way would be to equipped cars with some sort of 'computerized automatic notification'. Program in the speed limits, and then if the driver exceeds them, they get notified immediately. If they're doing it for emergency reasons, the notification will be the least of their worries, and if not, the connection between crime and punishment will be almost instantaneous. Much better.

If you spanked adults as a punishment it would simply lead to a rise in the number of BDSM enthusiasts committing crimes. Do we really want rubber-clad 50-somethings snatching handbags in the street and having to endure our car stereos being stolen by bound and gagged housewives with their breasts exposed? I think not.

The CC point is also the reason I think speed cameras are a joke. You don't even know you've been fined until a few weeks later, so there's absolutely zero mental connection between the crime and the punishment. A better way would be to equipped cars with some sort of 'computerized automatic notification'. Program in the speed limits, and then if the driver exceeds them, they get notified immediately. If they're doing it for emergency reasons, the notification will be the least of their worries, and if not, the connection between crime and punishment will be almost instantaneous. Much better.

The point of speeding tickets into generate revenue. If people didn't speed then the scheme wouldn't work.

I have one word for you: Masochists.

.

Of course, you do realise that masochists like to inflict punishment on *themselves*, not have other people causing them pain?

If you spanked adults as a punishment it would simply lead to a rise in the number of BDSM enthusiasts committing crimes. Do we really want rubber-clad 50-somethings snatching handbags in the street and having to endure our car stereos being stolen by bound and gagged housewives with their breasts exposed? I think not.

*Falls off chair laughing, cola splurting everywhere*

Of course, you do realise that masochists like to inflict punishment on *themselves*, not have other people causing them pain?

That's not true at all. Surely, there are some masochists who prefer self-inflicted pain. However, without another person to be in control, the sense of humiliation and powerlessness is not there.
Besides, there are just some things that you can't safely do to yourself, like stranglinging you to the point of unconciousness or violently raping you with a strap-on. Really, how many people can violently rape themselves?

Really, how many people can violently rape themselves?

I've seen this DVD called Go fuck yourself And on it there were 8 people who did what the title said...

So I guess minimum eight...

A better way would be to equipped cars with some sort of 'computerized automatic notification'. Program in the speed limits, and then if the driver exceeds them, they get notified immediately. If they're doing it for emergency reasons, the notification will be the least of their worries, and if not, the connection between crime and punishment will be almost instantaneous. Much better.

But then how could you have a quiet hoon with your mates?

I have one word for you: Masochists.

Pain is not a form of punishment. Pain is natures way of telling us that we should or should not be doing something. This is the basis of aversion therapy, which is really that parents who spank small children are doing. The children associate pain with undesired behavor and aviod the latter. Unless, of course, they are masochists. Then, the opposite is true.

Exactly why I am in full support of parents spanking their children, which I believe should be a right. Spanking adults? It may be effective, but I'd like to think people grow up at some stage in their lives, hopefully before legally responsible for themselves. If they were properly brought up, it wouldn't be necessary.

Sorry, that came out wrong. If you can't or don't want to spank your child, I'm sure he/she will turn out fine. The worst I ever got was a (literal) slap on the wrist. But sometimes I think a spanking could help.
huoh. alright. I can live with that :)

The real problem with spanking children is that they eventually figure out that it can work both ways. When they start hitting back, you've got a problem. If the parent escalates the situation one of them will end up being seriously hurt and either way it will be the parent's fault.

My grandmother was once fond of pain based conditioning. She would she a switch taken from a tree out in her yard. It wasn't actualy painful, but it did sting. I was about 8 when I figured out that I could take it away from her and break it. After repeating several times I never faced corporal punishment again.

Anyone how says that any adult can safly and effectively overpower an 8 year old have never seen me get my blood drawn at that age. It took 5-8 grown men to hold me down so that the nurse could take a blood sample and I was very small for my age. Adrenaline is a wonderful chemical, especialy in the body is a small child.

I have never been spanked, not even punished, by my parents. If I did something wrong, they obviously got mad at me and told me off, but they never "grounded" me or anything like that. I've turned out totally fine. I think spanking is a disgusting form of child abuse that leads to children becoming aggressive and more tolerant to violence. It is illegal where I live.

Edit: I also had a friend when I was younger who got spanked/slapped by her mother. She was always in (physical) fights, constantly edgy, and overall violent.

The real problem with spanking children is that they eventually figure out that it can work both ways. When they start hitting back, you've got a problem. If the parent escalates the situation one of them will end up being seriously hurt and either way it will be the parent's fault.

My grandmother was once fond of pain based conditioning. She would she a switch taken from a tree out in her yard. It wasn't actualy painful, but it did sting. I was about 8 when I figured out that I could take it away from her and break it. After repeating several times I never faced corporal punishment again.

Anyone how says that any adult can safly and effectively overpower an 8 year old have never seen me get my blood drawn at that age. It took 5-8 grown men to hold me down so that the nurse could take a blood sample and I was very small for my age. Adrenaline is a wonderful chemical, especialy in the body is a small child.
I think you're absolutely correct. You have to be very careful when physically punishing a child. And there has to be an age at which physical punishment should no long be administered.

That being said, I have no doubt that I could overpower any eight year old. The only reason it took 5-8 men to hold you down was because they had to draw blood, which meant they needed you as still as possible.

No. It sickens me. Particularly on children- i see parents violently slapping their kids in public all the time, despite it being illegal here. My parents never hit me (I got taps to scare me but they never actually hurt) and i'm fine. It's totally unneccessary.

As for corporal punishment for adults, why? it's unnecessarily degrading. Up until recently in Singapore, chewing gum was punishable by public flogging. Aside from the law being in my opinion stupidly oppressive, why not just give a fine? I see no reason for it, apart from the sick pleasure some onlookers might take in witnessing it.

Well, I think a lot of it was holding my legs so that I didn't kick the nurse in the face, as well. And my tendancy to twist out of their grip. However, people should not underestimate children in physical combat. What they lack in strength they make up for in agility, speed, and the ability to punch your testicles from a standing position. Seriously, small children tend to resist much more violently than adults. They twist, kick, bite, and more. Their small size makes effective restriant difficult because they can twist out of most holds. Unless you are willing to cause serious damage to the kid you'll have your hands full.
Also, and most importantly, these features make children very dangerous knife fighters. Put an edged weapon in a kid's hand and any size or strength advantage you may have had is meaningless.

I think spanking is a disgusting form of child abuse that leads to children becoming aggressive and more tolerant to violence. It is illegal where I live.

So you are saying my parents are child abusers?

If I am more aggressive it is a good thing because I have never been violent. Obviously (in my case at least) this aggressiveness can be used to motovate in an ever growing world based upon healthy competition.

Spanking is simple, you did the wrong thing so undesirable consequences result, then it's over. All parties can now walk away guilt free with crimes punished, as opposed to being in jail for months and always having the 'inmate' stigma.

No. It sickens me. Particularly on children- i see parents violently slapping their kids in public all the time, despite it being illegal here. My parents never hit me (I got taps to scare me but they never actually hurt) and i'm fine. It's totally unneccessary.

As for corporal punishment for adults, why? it's unnecessarily degrading. Up until recently in Singapore, chewing gum was punishable by public flogging. Aside from the law being in my opinion stupidly oppressive, why not just give a fine? I see no reason for it, apart from the sick pleasure some onlookers might take in witnessing it.


Truthfully, I would prefer flogging to a fine or imprisonment. To endure a little discomfort for a few miniutes so that I can avoid paying a few hundred dollars, certainly I'd go for it. To endure a lot of discomfort so that I can avoid imprisonment for several months, I'd be happy.
I'd draw the line at permenant mutilation, unless it was in the form of sylish tribal scarification performed by half-naked women.

No. It sickens me. Particularly on children- i see parents violently slapping their kids in public all the time, despite it being illegal here. My parents never hit me (I got taps to scare me but they never actually hurt) and i'm fine. It's totally unneccessary.

As for corporal punishment for adults, why? it's unnecessarily degrading. Up until recently in Singapore, chewing gum was punishable by public flogging. Aside from the law being in my opinion stupidly oppressive, why not just give a fine? I see no reason for it, apart from the sick pleasure some onlookers might take in witnessing it.

Taking this with reguards to the origional post, you would fine a man who deliberatly drove over a baby in a pram with his car? That is what I find sick.

Truthfully, I would prefer flogging to a fine or imprisonment. To endure a little discomfort for a few miniutes so that I can avoid paying a few hundred dollars, certainly I'd go for it. To endure a lot of discomfort so that I can avoid imprisonment for several months, I'd be happy.
I'd draw the line at permenant mutilation, unless it was in the form of sylish tribal scarification performed by half-naked women.

Just to clarify again, pain is the punishment, not physical damage. The pain must be inflicted without long term damage on the criminal.

Truthfully, I would prefer flogging to a fine or imprisonment. To endure a little discomfort for a few miniutes so that I can avoid paying a few hundred dollars, certainly I'd go for it. To endure a lot of discomfort so that I can avoid imprisonment for several months, I'd be happy.

Yeah, and so would most people I imagine. Corporal Punishment doesn't act as a deterrent, or even an adequate punishment.

Taking this with reguards to the origional post, you would fine a man who deliberatly drove over a baby in a pram with his car? That is what I find sick.

No, I wouldn't. I'd jail him, of course. And get him a psychiatrist. I'm talking about small crimes here, which should be pretty obvious.

So you are saying my parents are child abusers?

If I am more aggressive it is a good thing because I have never been violent. Obviously (in my case at least) this aggressiveness can be used to motovate in an ever growing world based upon healthy competition.

Spanking is simple, you did the wrong thing so undesirable consequences result, then it's over. All parties can now walk away guilt free with crimes punished, as opposed to being in jail for months and always having the 'inmate' stigma.

Simple, but wrong. Spanking may work when you look at it from a short-term perspective, but what you end up with is a kid who believes violence to be the only effect of undesireble (sp?) behaviour. Why not teach kids WHY it's wrong to steal or lie or whatever; because it hurts OTHER people! Show them the consequenses it has for the owner of the broken vase or the stolen puppy (lol, okay, can't say I'm good at examples exactly). Otherwise the child will end up judging all their actions based on what the consequenses will be for THEM.

Also, beating a child can have them get very insecure and hostile, but I think I made that clear in my last post.

But then how could you have a quiet hoon with your mates?

Uh, you'll need to translate 'hoon' for those of us who have no idea what you're on about.

Yeah, and so would most people I imagine. Corporal Punishment doesn't act as a deterrent, or even an adequate punishment.


Actualy, that is one of the reasons I'd support flogging or stocks. The many crimes are so small and insignificant that long jail times are cruel. People often say "he only got 5 years" Well, 5 years actualy is a long time, especialy in a heavily regimented and generally hopeless enviroment. It is more than 1/16 of the average person's life.

I'd support it for minor drug offenses, trafic offences, and the like. 10-20 year sentences for smoking marijuna are absurd. 10 week sentances for smoking marijuna are absurd, for than matter. Public humiliation, that would work. If a person has a drug problem, then brining that out in public might actualy do some good.

Yeah, and so would most people I imagine. Corporal Punishment doesn't act as a deterrent, or even an adequate punishment.

No, I wouldn't. I'd jail him, of course. And get him a psychiatrist. I'm talking about small crimes here, which should be pretty obvious.

Corporal punishment DOES work as a detterant, it's why countries that deploy it have such lower crime rates for offences that can be punished by it. Let's look at Singapore (which I am using only because someone else on this thread has already used it as an example) there is next to no crime there when compared with America; the results speak for themselves.

Another area where it could effectivly be used would be jail. Take for example someone who is already in prision for life, longer jail sentences will not deter him from raping someone, but pain might.

Now I can understand that you would not want to apply this to smaller crimes, who in their right mind would? However if you read the first post (especially if you read it in context), you would see we are not talking about flogging for spitting gum.

Actualy, that is one of the reasons I'd support flogging or stocks. The many crimes are so small and insignificant that long jail times are cruel. People often say "he only got 5 years" Well, 5 years actualy is a long time, especialy in a heavily regimented and generally hopeless enviroment. It is more than 1/16 of the average person's life.

Yeah, and that's when fines are implemented.

I'd support it for minor drug offenses, trafic offences, and the like. 10-20 year sentences for smoking marijuna are absurd. 10 week sentances for smoking marijuna are absurd, for than matter. Public humiliation, that would work. If a person has a drug problem, then brining that out in public might actualy do some good.

Whoa, you arrest people for smoking it over there? Over here, only possession (over a certain amount- theres a "personal use" and "trafficking" threshold) is illegal. Though to be quite frank, I would gladly endure corporal punishment to protest for my right to smoke it. So I don't believe that would work either.

Simple, but wrong. Spanking may work when you look at it from a short-term perspective, but what you end up with is a kid who believes violence to be the only effect of undesireble (sp?) behaviour. Why not teach kids WHY it's wrong to steal or lie or whatever; because it hurts OTHER people! Show them the consequenses it has for the owner of the broken vase or the stolen puppy (lol, okay, can't say I'm good at examples exactly). Otherwise the child will end up judging all their actions based on what the consequenses will be for THEM.

Also, beating a child can have them get very insecure and hostile, but I think I made that clear in my last post.

Well then it is fortunate that this is a thread talking about corporal punishment for adults mostly.

Uh, you'll need to translate 'hoon' for those of us who have no idea what you're on about.

It's Australian slang for noisy, fast, dangerous driving. Usually with illegally modified cars; often in a drag race.

It is also a term for the drivers.

a smacked arse never hurt anyone. i was smacked on the arse as a child when i had done wrong. it was a simple lesson - you have done wrong, therefore you will be punished. i have not grown up a violent man. i would even go so far as to advocate the reintroduction of corporal punishment in schools in place of suspension, which serves as a punishment to unruly children rather than a deterrent. who ever thought days off school was a punishment?

as far as adults go. i would say no. at that age you're too old to learn consequences as a reflex from punitive actions and so punishments to act as a deterrent should be harsher than a flogging. jail is a good thing. i have been faced with jail and when i was given a lighter sentence i vowed never to risk jail again. this was my first offence for which i was caught and so i was let off as most people are for the first offence.

Just to clarify again, pain is the punishment, not physical damage. The pain must be inflicted without long term damage on the criminal.

What about psychological damage?

Corporal punishment DOES work as a detterant, it's why countries that deploy it have such lower crime rates for offences that can be punished by it. Let's look at Singapore (which I am using only because someone else on this thread has already used it as an example) there is next to no crime there when compared with America; the results speak for themselves.

That may or may not have something to do with their culture. I imagine police-officers that walk around with M-16's and the constant government messages telling you to smile and be a happy person contribute to the detterent factor too. More relevant, however, there are many countries that do not have capital punishment and have lower average crime rates than the USA.

Another area where it could effectivly be used would be jail. Take for example someone who is already in prision for life, longer jail sentences will not deter him from raping someone, but pain might.

They beat eachother up in there anyway. I imagine payback in a prison can be quite brutal.

Now I can understand that you would not want to apply this to smaller crimes, who in their right mind would? However if you read the first post (especially if you read it in context), you would see we are not talking about flogging for spitting gum.

Then why bother lowering yourself (and the nation) down to that level? A jail term is sufficient punishment.

Just to clarify again, pain is the punishment, not physical damage. The pain must be inflicted without long term damage on the criminal.

Ha, but of course, you only mean 'physical' damage.

It's incredibly annoying how little people know about psychological damage and illnesses.

Physical punishment is a *bad* thing. It can lead to learned helplessness, depression, developmental problems, social-skill problems, increase in violent urges/desensitization to violence...

People always reply with 'well I was punished physically, and I turned out ok'. To them I point out that the human brain ALWAYS thinks it's ok. Serial killers think they're ok. Sociopaths often believe that they are the only 'real' person in existence, and their brains can't pick out the problem. And before you say 'but that's them, they're wrong and evil', realise that that's a neat trick the human brain uses. It's a ritual - "they're Bad. I'm not Bad. It's not an illness, it's something fundamental about Them. So it couldn't happen to ME, because I'm Good, and not 'fundamentally wrong'". Bah.

The human brain reacts to cognitive dissonance by rationalizing - usually in favour of pre-conceived notions, and almost always to the effect of 'I'm ok, it's the world that's wrong'.

There's also a big difference between physically punishing children (who are still developing mentally) and punishing adults. Children are taught to *expect* adult-meted punishments. Adults are taught that they are responsible, and have some control of their life. You take that away to the extent that they have no way to escape *physical pain*, and you risk seriously, seriously damaging them mentally.

The answer here is for punishments to be more strongly connected with crimes, not upped depending on how 'emotionally distressing' their crime is.

Corporal punishment DOES work as a detterant, it's why countries that deploy it have such lower crime rates for offences that can be punished by it. Let's look at Singapore (which I am using only because someone else on this thread has already used it as an example) there is next to no crime there when compared with America; the results speak for themselves.


What about the fact that Singapore is an extremely rich country? Crime rates in general are lower in rich areas.

What about psychological damage?

Belt it out of them.

No, more seriously if most children are spanked (and I imagine they are) and end up with no psychological damage, then why would bigger, tougher adults be psychologically damaged for being punished for their wrong doings?

http://www.corpun.com/benatar.htm

"Although there is evidence that excessive corporal punishment can significantly increase the chances of such psychological harm, most of the psychological data are woefully inadequate to the task of demonstrating that mild and infrequent corporal punishment has such consequences. One opponent of corporal punishment who has provided data on even mild and infrequent physical chastisement is Murray Straus. His research, which is much more sophisticated than most earlier investigations into corporal punishment... (finds) the chances of having suicidal thoughts, according to this study, decreases marginally with one incident of corporal punishment."

"Given that even the data suggesting that very rare instances of mild corporal punishment do have some negative effects also suggest that the effects are not substantial, there is a strong likelihood that they could be overridden by other considerations in a consequentialist calculation. In other words, showing some negative effects is not sufficient to make a consequentialist case against all corporal punishment. Other considerations, including possible advantages of corporal punishment, would have to be taken into account. Moreover, because the available evidence shows no serious harm from mild and infrequent corporal punishment, there seem to be poor grounds for suggesting that for retributivists the punishment should be regarded as unacceptably severe."

It's Australian slang for noisy, fast, dangerous driving. Usually with illegally modified cars; often in a drag race.

It is also a term for the drivers.

Ah. You expect me to make an exception? It's illegal. It's dangerous.

If you want to punish a guy for tyring to run over a pram, you* damn well don't make excuses for people intentionally driving dangerously.

Actually, I must admit, I'm currently very much against that group. I'd make it illegal for them to own cars at all, ever.

But then, I've got some weird politics in me - usually along the lines of 'if they endanger society willingly, they get disarmed'. If people abuse their cars in a dangerous fashion, no cars for them.

And yay for being a cynical old grump at 17.

*general you, not directed at poster I'm replying to.

What about the fact that Singapore is an extremely rich country? Crime rates in general are lower in rich areas.

You think America is poor?

Anyway I'd love to continue as it's starting to get more interesting, but dinner is burning, I've been neglecting my culinary duties. I'll see what you say when I get back! ;)

They beat eachother up in there anyway. I imagine payback in a prison can be quite brutal.


So we should do nothing to enforce order or to protect people?

Belt it out of them.

No, more seriously if most children are spanked (and I imagine they are) and end up with no psychological damage, then why would bigger, tougher adults be psychologically damaged for being punished for their wrong doings?

Because they are at a different stage developmentally. Children EXPECT to be punished, and that doesn't exclude physical punishment (unless they have hippy parents).

Adults do not think like that. Adults expect a degree of control over their bodies. It's exactly why rape is psychologically traumatic to an adult, but much less so to a child (children who are raped often don't show signs of distress until they reach the age where they start being taught that they have the right to their own body - ie, the point where they reach an 'adult' level of thinking).

So we should do nothing to enforce order or to protect people?

You think taking dangerous elements out of society does nothing to protect society from them?

Note! If they're in jail, they aren't a danger to the public.

Now, if only we'd couple jail with proper mental care while incarcerated, jails might do their job and actually help rehabilitate people.

So we should do nothing to enforce order or to protect people?

I never said that at all, please don't twist my meaning. If I had my way, no violence would happen in prisons and they would be primarily a rehabilitation center.

The way it happens now, people get raped, revenge beatings happen, etc. Simple fact.

You think America is poor?

Anyway I'd love to continue as it's starting to get more interesting, but dinner is burning, I've been neglecting my culinary duties. I'll see what you say when I get back! ;)
No. But there are a lot more poor people in America than there are in Singapore. And crime rates are lower in America's rich areas too.

Ah. You expect me to make an exception? It's illegal. It's dangerous.

If you want to punish a guy for tyring to run over a pram, you* damn well don't make excuses for people intentionally driving dangerously.

Actually, I must admit, I'm currently very much against that group. I'd make it illegal for them to own cars at all, ever.

But then, I've got some weird politics in me - usually along the lines of 'if they endanger society willingly, they get disarmed'. If people abuse their cars in a dangerous fashion, no cars for them.

And yay for being a cynical old grump at 17.

*general you, not directed at poster I'm replying to.

Ah, but I'm talking about a quiet hoon. Not lairising through suburbs/towns, but a quick blat down the ocean road or along the black spur.

The CC point is also the reason I think speed cameras are a joke. You don't even know you've been fined until a few weeks later, so there's absolutely zero mental connection between the crime and the punishment. A better way would be to equipped cars with some sort of 'computerized automatic notification'. Program in the speed limits, and then if the driver exceeds them, they get notified immediately. If they're doing it for emergency reasons, the notification will be the least of their worries, and if not, the connection between crime and punishment will be almost instantaneous. Much better.

I really like this idea. Let's patent it TT.

The CC point is also the reason I think speed cameras are a joke. You don't even know you've been fined until a few weeks later, so there's absolutely zero mental connection between the crime and the punishment. A better way would be to equipped cars with some sort of 'computerized automatic notification'. Program in the speed limits, and then if the driver exceeds them, they get notified immediately. If they're doing it for emergency reasons, the notification will be the least of their worries, and if not, the connection between crime and punishment will be almost instantaneous. Much better.
I don't think there has to be a mental connection between crime and punishment (thinking about adults now). The driver knows she/he has broke the law. She can only wish that noone (police or speed camera) saw her.

I don't think there has to be a mental connection between crime and punishment (thinking about adults now). The driver knows she/he has broke the law. She can only wish that noone (police or speed camera) saw her.

Well, I'm working off Classical Conditioning theory here. And the basis of it is that while *consciously* an adult realises it, the basic behavioural connectors aren't created. A direct, immediate response, with no ambiguity about what the punishment is in response to, has much more lasting effects than a punishment that comes after a time period.

That's why most animal psychologists tell you not to, for instance, rub your pets nose in the mess if they pee/crap on a carpet. Unless you catch them in the act, they won't have any idea what you're punishing them for, and it causes random anxiety and resentment.

Of course, with humans it *is* more complex. But in general, even in humans, the effectiveness of a punishment goes down very quickly, in direct proportion to the length of time you wait after the crime before introducing the punishment.

The 3 weeks that it can often take for a speeding fine to reach someone would almost totally negate the fine itself. That's why people almost ALWAYS say 'Ack, those bastards, stealing my hard earned money'. All delayed punishment does is create unattached resentment.

The 3 weeks that it can often take for a speeding fine to reach someone would almost totally negate the fine itself. That's why people almost ALWAYS say 'Ack, those bastards, stealing my hard earned money'. All delayed punishment does is create unattached resentment.
I see your point and I mostly agree with it. But I think that people almost always say that if they've been fined. No matter if it happens immediately or 3 weeks later. They just don't think that speeding is such a bad crime.

Of course, with humans it *is* more complex. But in general, even in humans, the effectiveness of a punishment goes down very quickly, in direct proportion to the length of time you wait after the crime before introducing the punishment.
Actually I find this a bit hard to believe. (again, adults)

No. But there are a lot more poor people in America than there are in Singapore. And crime rates are lower in America's rich areas too.

Not true either. Singapore has their slums and homeless.

But I wouldn't go as far saying that Singapore has low crime rate because of public flogging. Small pool, less accurate. Thats all.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see your point and I mostly agree with it. But I think that people almost always say that if they've been fined. No matter if it happens immediately or 3 weeks later. They just don't think that speeding is such a bad crime.


Actually I find this a bit hard to believe. (again, adults)

Well, it could be that they weren't speeding but insted the police pricient fudged the radar calibration so that they could meet their city mandated ticket quota.
Make no mistake, many cities use speeding tickets as a type of tax and ticket quotas do exist.

It is fairly easy to sucessfuly challange a speeding ticket. Radar is fallaible and unless the police have the radar calibration records on hand most judges will dismiss a ticket.

Not true either. Singapore has their slums and homeless.

But I wouldn't go as far saying that Singapore has low crime rate because of public flogging. Small pool, less accurate. Thats all.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well if you compare which country has more people living below poverty line, US has more poor citizens. Singapore looks better in stats also because about 95% of those homeless people are not citizens of Singapore. It's a harsh country for foreigners (well, poor foreigners)

I'm not saying that Singapore has less crimes because there are fewer poor people either. I was just pointing out that there are usually several reasons why crime rates are low or high in one particular area.

I think corporeal punishment does work. To some extent. My country has corporeal punishment.

Corporeal punishment usually is for certain crimes, not all. Plus small minor one's that sometimes to jail a person would be a waste of the governments money.

Like petty-theft like shoplifting,pickpocketing , drunk-driving and some others.. Not first time offenders.. But rather a offence which the person has been caught multiple times and still hasn't learned his lesson.

I think pain and shame does rehabilitate some.

Not all can be talked to, nor do they want to listen. See how hard is it just to tell someone that smoking is bad for your health? Same can be said that those who like to shoplift because the stupid people at the counter is too stupid to realise.

Plus some of these fellows have been in jail numerous numerous numerous times for all sorts of stupid small crimes. And now their getting a free stay, and free food. There has to be something more.

Inflicting some amounts of pain on a child can be a required evil to
teach it that 'uncomfortable' doesn't kill you. If the pain is delivered as a means of punishment, the child will also, subconciously, learn to asscociate breaking rules with pain. A most effective deterrent.

In adult humans, however, it doesn't work in quite the same way. A man knows his place. He will remember the pain and why he recieved it, yes, but it will not have the profound effect it has on children. Therefore, punishment on adults must, sadly, reach a level easily confused with torture before it has any significant, and lasting, effect.

That's not necessarilary true. Pain can have signifiant effects on adults. Especialy when acompanied with sleep depriviation, sensory deprivation/overload, and certain drugs.

Well, it could be that they weren't speeding but insted the police pricient fudged the radar calibration so that they could meet their city mandated ticket quota.
Make no mistake, many cities use speeding tickets as a type of tax and ticket quotas do exist.

It is fairly easy to sucessfuly challange a speeding ticket. Radar is fallaible and unless the police have the radar calibration records on hand most judges will dismiss a ticket.
True, but most of the drivers pay their fines nicely without making complains (except in their mind) so they keep sending tickets.

I don't know about your country but here they can't make you pay if they can't prove you were the one driving (eventhough they can see the car has been registered to you). So it's very easy to challenge a ticket.

the general consent seems to be that if there is pain as punishment, it must not leave any permanent damage. but i dont see how the whole thing ist going to work then. pain without consequence can be ignored rather easily, and im not trying to be the hardass here. the humiliation, well here in germany at the age of maybe 20 you dont really care for the publics opinion of you. then some of you might go: but you can invite all his friends... thats just ridiculous i can see this pain for minor crimes thing becoming a sport.

I have never been spanked, not even punished, by my parents. If I did something wrong, they obviously got mad at me and told me off, but they never "grounded" me or anything like that. I've turned out totally fine. I think spanking is a disgusting form of child abuse that leads to children becoming aggressive and more tolerant to violence. It is illegal where I live.

Edit: I also had a friend when I was younger who got spanked/slapped by her mother. She was always in (physical) fights, constantly edgy, and overall violent.

I disagree. Spanking should only be used on young children when they do stupid things that could cause harm to them, others, or damage property etc. because it is the most direct way tell them not to do it. (at an age where reasoning is futile) I was spanked as a chiled when necessary and I feel it has done more good than harm. I do understand though, that children can easily be abused or over-spanked for wrong doing. It should be a method of discipline used in moderation. I have never rebelled against my parents, and am considered by most I know to be mature beyond my years in all aspects. Then again, maybe that had nothing to do with methods of discipline. There are plenty of violent people who were never spanked.

OK, I am back now. No it wasn't a long dinner, I just decided to go to bed afterwards! ;)

How about this for an example?

A person has repeatedly driven while talking on a mobile phone and/or speeding. They are putting their lives at risk, which I think is their right, but they are also infringing on the rights of others by putting theirs at risk. If you flogged them I suspect that you would see a drop in the number of people using mobile phones while driving, plus you may save the lives of the family in the station wagon they plow into while not paying attention to the road.

As for corporal punishment not being a deterrant, I don't see how prision or fines are either really. I've heard of many repeat offenders who have got several fines, or have been sent back to prision after re-offending, but I have NEVER heard of someone re-offending after being flogged.

but I have NEVER heard of someone re-offending after being flogged.

Maybe that's because we don't have corporal punishment in western democracies?

Maybe that's because we don't have corporal punishment in western democracies?

True, but I was looking more outside the box we live in;)

Like, say, Singapore...

True, but I was looking more outside the box we live in;)

Like, say, Singapore...

Even so, it's not particularly likely that you'd hear about a petty repeat-offender from there (they tend to kill all of their really bad ones). I mean...how many horrid crimes from Singapore do you hear about at all?

OK, I am back now. No it wasn't a long dinner, I just decided to go to bed afterwards! ;)

How about this for an example?

A person has repeatedly driven while talking on a mobile phone and/or speeding. They are putting their lives at risk, which I think is their right, but they are also infringing on the rights of others by putting theirs at risk. If you flogged them I suspect that you would see a drop in the number of people using mobile phones while driving, plus you may save the lives of the family in the station wagon they plow into while not paying attention to the road.

As for corporal punishment not being a deterrant, I don't see how prision or fines are either really. I've heard of many repeat offenders who have got several fines, or have been sent back to prision after re-offending, but I have NEVER heard of someone re-offending after being flogged.

No phone or car for them. Any store/sales-person caught selling them a phone or car gets fined (on a steep scale, so if they get caught more than once, they pay say 400% more for the second fine). Also, if they repeat despite the fines, they can lose their license to sell/run their business.

The offender doesn't get a phone/car until they either go to a number of classes on "Why you don't get to endanger others for no reason", or leave the country.

If people can't use their non-necessities properly, they don't deserve them. Period. But physical punishment doesn't need to come into it.

No phone or car for them. Any store/sales-person caught selling them a phone or car gets fined (on a steep scale, so if they get caught more than once, they pay say 400% more for the second fine). Also, if they repeat despite the fines, they can lose their license to sell/run their business.


How exactly do you expect a sales rep to know someone with a criminal background from someone who doesn't have one? Telepathy? National Criminal Identity Cards? Be realistic...

What about someone with a criminal past who does not drive?

How exactly do you expect a sales rep to know someone with a criminal background from someone who doesn't have one? Telepathy? National Criminal Identity Cards? Be realistic...

How about making the mobile phone legal, but the service provider has to run a background check on the customers name when registering?

How about "Yes, and don't be a sissy about it either." I really couldn't care either way, but I'd probably have cared back in high school, and probably not have injured so many people in fights at school, or spent as much time in juvi.
(And, yes, I am to lazy to spell juvenile hall.)

How about making the mobile phone legal, but the service provider has to run a background check on the customers name when registering?

And how about an invasion of privacy? Or what about the idea of having paid a debt to society? Why would you would put this additional burden on small business? How could a second hand dealer or someone who is selling their phone in the trading post do this? If you let the individual look at someone's personal information then isn't there massive scope for abuse?

And how about an invasion of privacy? Or what about the idea of having paid a debt to society? Why would you would put this additional burden on small business? How could a second hand dealer or someone who is selling their phone in the trading post do this? If you let the individual look at someone's personal information then isn't there massive scope for abuse?

No, i'm talking about the telecommunications company that provides the service (ie. when buying a phone, you actually have to sign up with a network and that's where the check would take place - the purchasing of the phone itself is legal). I think placing the burden on one sales rep is unfair too. It should be a "three strikes and you're out" policy. If the driver has committed 3 driving-while-talking-on-mobile-phone offences, then when the telecommunications company requests the information, they will be told not to register the person on their network. No other personal information need be revealed- if nothing is in their record, they'll see a "sale approved" come up on their computer screen.

(The idea of "paid a debt to society" is irrelevant. You wouldnt sell a gun to a person who has been in prison for armed robbery before, would you?)

No, i'm talking about the telecommunications company that provides the service (ie. when buying a phone, you actually have to sign up with a network and that's where the check would take place - the purchasing of the phone itself is legal). I think placing the burden on one sales rep is unfair too. It should be a "three strikes and you're out" policy. If the driver has committed 3 driving-while-talking-on-mobile-phone offences, then when the telecommunications company requests the information, they will be told not to register the person on their network. No other personal information need be revealed- if nothing is in their record, they'll see a "sale approved" come up on their computer screen.

(The idea of "paid a debt to society" is irrelevant. You wouldnt sell a gun to a person who has been in prison for armed robbery before, would you?)

And how would this be enforced? Would you pull over everyone who owns a mobile phone to see if the telecommunications company has decided to ignore the law for a profit? What about if someone has a phone in another person's name, like their wife or sibling? Or they borrow someone else's phone then go driving?

And how would this be enforced? Would you pull over everyone who owns a mobile phone to see if the telecommunications company has decided to ignore the law for a profit?

Only if they're caught talking on it while driving. I imagine the telecom company would be subject to similar enforcement that faces gun dealers, and any profit that they would make from ignoring the law would be offset by the massive fine that they would receive.

What about if someone has a phone in another person's name, like their wife or sibling? Or they borrow someone else's phone then go driving?

Then that is treated as a criminal offence.

I imagine the telecom company would be subject to similar enforcement that faces gun dealers, and any profit that they would make from ignoring the law would be offset by the massive fine that they would receive.


Assuming they were caught.

And how would this be enforced? Would you pull over everyone who owns a mobile phone to see if the telecommunications company has decided to ignore the law for a profit?

No. A person gets caught talking on the phone and driving once, it gets recorded. Twice, it gets recorded. Three times, the police (or another branch in charge of this part, whatever) contact the telecommunications provider and have the mobile phone cut off. At that point the offenders name is blacklisted from buying further services, or pre-paid phones. No mobile for them until they take the aforementioned 'No abusing rights and putting others in danger for no reason" classes.

What about if someone has a phone in another person's name, like their wife or sibling? Or they borrow someone else's phone then go driving?

If they let someone else use their phone, and that person breaks the law it's THEIR OWN DAMN FAULT.

If I hit someone while driving someone else's car (assuming I had permission to take the car) it's not *me* who'll have to pay the insurance claim of the other person, it's the person whose name the car is in - your property, your liability. If people can't handle those responsibilities, they don't get the property.

Assuming they were caught.

As soon as just one person is pulled over by police for talking on it while driving, a background check reveals they shouldn't have the phone in the first place, and a check on the phone account reveals it is registered under their name, they would be.

Assuming they were caught.

Hey, did you know murder is legal if you don't get caught? Same with rape, and in fact, now that I think about it, every crime.

Unless you get caught, no action is taken. And some people won't get caught. That's true in every case of crime punishment, and no reason to not implement a measure to deal with people who ARE caught.

No mobile for them until they take the aforementioned 'No abusing rights and putting others in danger for no reason" classes.

Meanwhile they attend these classes and then go driving about while talking on their phones.

If they let someone else use their phone, and that person breaks the law it's THEIR OWN DAMN FAULT.


And how are they supposed to know if you have had prior encounters with talk-driving? Will we let everyone search a databse of previous phone-car related offences?

As soon as just one person is pulled over by police for talking on it while driving, a background check reveals they shouldn't have the phone in the first place, and a check on the phone account reveals it is registered under their name, they would be.

Unless they kill someone first. I still feel that a flogging would be more of a deterrant. No matter what the law is there will always be some people who will try and get around it, unless you make the punishment something that they will NEVER want to experience.

Anyway it seems to me that we are going about in circles talking about telecommunications providers. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, and you can be thankful that I am not responsible for law and order in your area!:D;)

Ciao for now!

and you can be thankful that I am not responsible for law and order in your area!:D;)

Most definitely. LOL :D