Should we re-introduce corporeal punishment into our penal system?

[middleagedgamer]

Ok, I know what you're thinking, and no, that is not what I'm suggesting.

The punishment must still fit the crime. However, it should also fit the person.

You've probably heard about such things as prison rape. You've also know that there are a lot of repeat offenders. However, as far as I'm concerned, "repeat offender" is a polite way of saying "the system isn't doing squat for this guy."

The bottom line is that criminals come in just as many shapes and sizes as people in general do. Different punishments have different levels of effectiveness for different people. For some, incarceration, and the boredom they experience in jail, is all the punishment they need. Some are genuinely sorry for what they did (maybe even minutes after doing it), and thus, probation is a sufficient punishment.

However, there are some who either don't care about being incarcerated, or maybe even like it. They don't think of it as a punishment; they think of it as "hey, now the state's gonna pay my living expenses?! Neat-o!"

Those who engage in prison rape are the best cases for the ineffectiveness of the current penal system. They commit crimes while being punished for their old ones, and better yet, there are cameras that typically pick this stuff up, and they don't care. They seriously don't care about the immorality of their actions!

However, imagine if an expert in Krav Maga got a little overzealous protecting his girlfriend, and was sent to prison for a few years for almost killing a person... because almost killing him wasn't necessary, and in this state, you're only allowed to use as much force as is necessary to defend yourself, and not any more. So, he's in prison now, but he's one of those guys who will rehabilitate on incarceration alone. However, while he's there, he decides to go Batman on their asses, and beat the holy hell out of anyone who preys on the weak, maybe even acting like Batman and holding a rapist by his neck over one of the balconies, re-enacting this scene and telling everyone to leave everyone else alone, because there's a new enforcer in the Pod.

If this Krav Maga guy were to do that, nobody would be messing with anybody else. Prison rape - at least in that pod - would come to a screeching halt while he's there. In other words, physically beating the hell out of people who try to control other, weaker inmates would actually be effective at deterring that particular crime!

So... why don't we officially incorporate that? If you're convicted of, say, threatening or stalking your ex girlfriend, and incarceration or probation proves ineffective, imagine if, for your second conviction, on top of your incarceration, the prison staff is instructed to taze (spelling?) you at least once per day, on top of the tazings they give you at their discretion for breaking prison rules. You'll probably stop stalking your ex when you get out, simply because you don't want the daily tazings anymore.

Corporeal punishment would be at the discretion of the sentencing party (in some states, it's the court; in some, it's the jury), depending on how sorry they think the criminal is for his crime (e.g. whether or not he cares about the damage he caused), and his likelihood to do it again, otherwise.

Thoughts?

 

[Goshin]

Ok, I know what you're thinking, and no, that is not what I'm suggesting.

The punishment must still fit the crime. However, it should also fit the person.

You've probably heard about such things as prison rape. You've also know that there are a lot of repeat offenders. However, as far as I'm concerned, "repeat offender" is a polite way of saying "the system isn't doing squat for this guy."

The bottom line is that criminals come in just as many shapes and sizes as people in general do. Different punishments have different levels of effectiveness for different people. For some, incarceration, and the boredom they experience in jail, is all the punishment they need. Some are genuinely sorry for what they did (maybe even minutes after doing it), and thus, probation is a sufficient punishment.

However, there are some who either don't care about being incarcerated, or maybe even like it. They don't think of it as a punishment; they think of it as "hey, now the state's gonna pay my living expenses?! Neat-o!"

Those who engage in prison rape are the best cases for the ineffectiveness of the current penal system. They commit crimes while being punished for their old ones, and better yet, there are cameras that typically pick this stuff up, and they don't care. They seriously don't care about the immorality of their actions!

However, imagine if an expert in Krav Maga got a little overzealous protecting his girlfriend, and was sent to prison for a few years for almost killing a person... because almost killing him wasn't necessary, and in this state, you're only allowed to use as much force as is necessary to defend yourself, and not any more. So, he's in prison now, but he's one of those guys who will rehabilitate on incarceration alone. However, while he's there, he decides to go Batman on their asses, and beat the holy hell out of anyone who preys on the weak, maybe even acting like Batman and holding a rapist by his neck over one of the balconies, re-enacting this scene and telling everyone to leave everyone else alone, because there's a new enforcer in the Pod.

If this Krav Maga guy were to do that, nobody would be messing with anybody else. Prison rape - at least in that pod - would come to a screeching halt while he's there. In other words, physically beating the hell out of people who try to control other, weaker inmates would actually be effective at deterring that particular crime!

So... why don't we officially incorporate that? If you're convicted of, say, threatening or stalking your ex girlfriend, and incarceration or probation proves ineffective, imagine if, for your second conviction, on top of your incarceration, the prison staff is instructed to taze (spelling?) you at least once per day, on top of the tazings they give you at their discretion for breaking prison rules. You'll probably stop stalking your ex when you get out, simply because you don't want the daily tazings anymore.

Corporeal punishment would be at the discretion of the sentencing party (in some states, it's the court; in some, it's the jury), depending on how sorry they think the criminal is for his crime (e.g. whether or not he cares about the damage he caused), and his likelihood to do it again, otherwise.

Thoughts?

What would actually happen is that four or five tough men would gang up on Mr Krav Maga and shank him (stab him) forty or fifty times, killing him or putting him in the infirmary crapping into a colostomy bag for six months.

Inmates with a background in martial arts, combative sports, or military training are the minority but they're not that uncommon, and formal martial arts training isn't absolutely necessary to be a bad-ass.

But I get your point... not everybody cares about being locked up, but most people don't want to tote a world-class ass-whoopin'.

 

[middleagedgamer]

What would actually happen is that four or five tough men would gang up on Mr Krav Maga and shank him (stab him) forty or fifty times, killing him or putting him in the infirmary crapping into a colostomy bag for six months.

You don't know anything about Krav Maga, do you? You probably heard that it's the most dangerous martial art in the word, but that's about it, right?

In Krav Mga, you're trained on how to fight off multiple attackers, and even disarming armed opponents (even those armed with guns, not just shanks). Best of all, it's no-quarters combat, meaning the victor is not expected to spare the life of the loser. Four or five tough men would become four or five dead men.

 

[rathi]

You don't know anything about Krav Maga, do you? You probably heard that it's the most dangerous martial art in the word, but that's about it, right?

In Krav Mga, you're trained on how to fight off multiple attackers, and even disarming armed opponents (even those armed with guns, not just shanks). Best of all, it's no-quarters combat, meaning the victor is not expected to spare the life of the loser. Four or five tough men would become four or five dead men.

You spouting nonsense. In reality, the people with better weapons and better numbers almost always win. The most useful tactic in unarmed combat is finding a weapon.

 

[middleagedgamer]

You spouting nonsense. In reality, the people with better weapons and better numbers almost always win. The most useful tactic in unarmed combat is finding a weapon.

Have you specifically verified that this applies even against Krav Maga?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Have you specifically verified that this applies even against Krav Maga?

Martial arts don't work that way.

 

[Goshin]

You don't know anything about Krav Maga, do you? You probably heard that it's the most dangerous martial art in the word, but that's about it, right?

In Krav Mga, you're trained on how to fight off multiple attackers, and even disarming armed opponents (even those armed with guns, not just shanks). Best of all, it's no-quarters combat, meaning the victor is not expected to spare the life of the loser. Four or five tough men would become four or five dead men.

Oh lawd, here we go again....

Well, I've seen Krav Maga training, but what do I know? I've only spent much of my forty-odd years of life training in a variety of martial arts and combatives, including karate, aikido, judo, wrestling, kickboxing, boxing, kung fu, Philippino knife & stick fighting, fencing, Western blade arts, defensive handgunning, combat shotgun, riflery, small-unit tactics, and stuff like that.

I must admit I've only ever fought in the ring, in the street, in bars and clubs and behind them, in jails and in the back of a patrol car. In my meagre real-world experience I've only been a cop, a P.I., a bodyguard and other things I probably shouldn't mention. I've only fought with bare hands, knives, sticks and guns. The most men I ever actually fought was six, and the most I ever made back down by myself was about 14. I only have a few scars from real fights that were potentially life and death.

I've only ever seen a couple of shankings in prison, true, and no more than a handful of stabbings on the street.

So nah, I don't know crap I guess. :mrgreen:


Look, bud.... (sigh).... every martial art has its hype, and Krav Maga is no exception. Can one man beat four? Yes, it can be done... I did it once myself, but I was more than a little lucky too... and they were not armed. Can one man beat four with shanks? It's not impossible.... but the smart money says it is FAR from a sure thing, in fact it is a bad bet. When it comes to gang attacks, whether you survive or not (let alone come out on top or relatively intact) depends heavily on the quality and determination of your attackers. If they lack courage and determination and skill you have a chance... but if they're very determined and have enough experience at violence to know what they're doing, you're in big trouble, and I don't care how many black belts you have or what system you've trained in.

Let me describe a prison shanking.... two to four guys decide to get you, and they wait for their moment... a moment when you're distracted or off your guard. If need be, they arrange for the distraction actively. Then a couple of muscle-bound monsters grab your arms and legs while another guy rams a homemade dagger into you over and over and over.... a lot of times they pick a moment when there isn't a guard close by, and they can inflict a lot of stab wounds before the guards intervene. Is it possible to beat such an ambush? Possible... but not probable. Not for anyone. Especially not if you've pissed off enough people that more than one gang is out to get you.

No martial art, Krav Maga included, is magic.

 

[Goshin]

You spouting nonsense. In reality, the people with better weapons and better numbers almost always win. The most useful tactic in unarmed combat is finding a weapon.

... or hauling ass the heck outta there.


That was my preferred solution to being outnumbered.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Ok, I know what you're thinking, and no, that is not what I'm suggesting.

The punishment must still fit the crime. However, it should also fit the person.

You've probably heard about such things as prison rape. You've also know that there are a lot of repeat offenders. However, as far as I'm concerned, "repeat offender" is a polite way of saying "the system isn't doing squat for this guy."

The bottom line is that criminals come in just as many shapes and sizes as people in general do. Different punishments have different levels of effectiveness for different people. For some, incarceration, and the boredom they experience in jail, is all the punishment they need. Some are genuinely sorry for what they did (maybe even minutes after doing it), and thus, probation is a sufficient punishment.

However, there are some who either don't care about being incarcerated, or maybe even like it. They don't think of it as a punishment; they think of it as "hey, now the state's gonna pay my living expenses?! Neat-o!"

Those who engage in prison rape are the best cases for the ineffectiveness of the current penal system. They commit crimes while being punished for their old ones, and better yet, there are cameras that typically pick this stuff up, and they don't care. They seriously don't care about the immorality of their actions!

However, imagine if an expert in Krav Maga got a little overzealous protecting his girlfriend, and was sent to prison for a few years for almost killing a person... because almost killing him wasn't necessary, and in this state, you're only allowed to use as much force as is necessary to defend yourself, and not any more. So, he's in prison now, but he's one of those guys who will rehabilitate on incarceration alone. However, while he's there, he decides to go Batman on their asses, and beat the holy hell out of anyone who preys on the weak, maybe even acting like Batman and holding a rapist by his neck over one of the balconies, re-enacting this scene and telling everyone to leave everyone else alone, because there's a new enforcer in the Pod.

If this Krav Maga guy were to do that, nobody would be messing with anybody else. Prison rape - at least in that pod - would come to a screeching halt while he's there. In other words, physically beating the hell out of people who try to control other, weaker inmates would actually be effective at deterring that particular crime!

So... why don't we officially incorporate that? If you're convicted of, say, threatening or stalking your ex girlfriend, and incarceration or probation proves ineffective, imagine if, for your second conviction, on top of your incarceration, the prison staff is instructed to taze (spelling?) you at least once per day, on top of the tazings they give you at their discretion for breaking prison rules. You'll probably stop stalking your ex when you get out, simply because you don't want the daily tazings anymore.

Corporeal punishment would be at the discretion of the sentencing party (in some states, it's the court; in some, it's the jury), depending on how sorry they think the criminal is for his crime (e.g. whether or not he cares about the damage he caused), and his likelihood to do it again, otherwise.

Thoughts?

What makes you think stuff like that doesn't happen al lthe time already?

And since we know it happens - though it shouldn't - and it's not a deterrent - what's the point in thinking it's going ot be effective on a larger scale?

All in all = if they don't care now they won't care then. They're in jail; isn't that good enough for you?

 

[Goshin]

Have you specifically verified that this applies even against Krav Maga?

You've got it backward bud: the default position is that one unarmed man vs four or five tough armed men accustomed to violence, is that the lone hero is in big trouble and not likely to come out in one piece at best.

The burden of proof is on Krav Maga to demonstrate that it is so badass that a KM expert kills multiple armed attackers before breakfast, without spilling his coffee or dropping his toast butter-side-down.


Hint: practice sessions where all participants are KM students with a vested interest in making their instructor look good don't count.

 

[ChunkySalsa]

Yeah, we should totally move away from metaphysical punishments and get back to physical, corporeal sanctions.

 

[Goshin]

.... chirp..... chirp.... chirp....



:mrgreen:

 

[What if...?]

Per the OP, I think some forms of corporal punishment would be more effective than prisons.

The stocks and similar forms of public humiliation.

"Caning", within reason. Where its more about the "state" being able to simply spank you than about the actual pain. The feeling of helplessness and loss of control, quickly imprinted rather than slowly and at great expense.

And direct compensation kinds of punishments, where appropriate. (Although these aren't really "corporal")

Every mammal on the planet smacks the crap out of its kids when appropriate. They just don't make a ritual out of it.

Whack! And its over.

 

[rathi]

If you look at the Stanford Prison Experiment, humans already have a psychological tendency to exploit prisoners they have authority over. Legitimizing sadism is just asking for all kinds of horrible abuse. Prison already has plenty of horrible torments without the state deliberately adding more.

 

[molten_dragon]

You don't know anything about Krav Maga, do you? You probably heard that it's the most dangerous martial art in the word, but that's about it, right?

In Krav Mga, you're trained on how to fight off multiple attackers, and even disarming armed opponents (even those armed with guns, not just shanks). Best of all, it's no-quarters combat, meaning the victor is not expected to spare the life of the loser. Four or five tough men would become four or five dead men.

Mr. Krav Maga still has to sleep and take a crap from time to time.

 

[molten_dragon]

I'm not sure how effective it would be, and I don't know if it would be constitutional, but it would certainly be cheaper than prison.

I've often wondered if humiliation-type punishments would work on low-level criminals. Stick them in the stocks and let people thrown rotten fruit at them like in medieval times. It might deter some people.

 

[Goshin]

I'm not sure how effective it would be, and I don't know if it would be constitutional, but it would certainly be cheaper than prison.

I've often wondered if humiliation-type punishments would work on low-level criminals. Stick them in the stocks and let people thrown rotten fruit at them like in medieval times. It might deter some people.

I've thought at times that a day in the public stocks, or a (carefully controlled not to inflict serious injury) public caning would probably be more effective (AND more humane) on petty thieves and other small-time non-violent douches, than locking them up for months with hardened real criminals.

 

[d0gbreath]

Just whom is going to be delivering these corporal punishments? Certainly not the guards. They have families. You just cannot publicly cane a gang member and not expect retaliation from the rest of the gang on the outside.

Is this why the King's executioner of medieval yore wore a hood? Was he also a loner sans family and friends? Do we really want to devolve to that extent?