Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
9
debates
27.78%
won
Topic
#4970
Judicial corporal punishment
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 11,500
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
0
1420
rating
395
debates
43.8%
won
Description
The full resolution is
"Judicial corporal punishment should be implemented in the United states"
1. Judges are required to judge sensibly, by using a cost benefit analysis on whether implementing JDC will be an improvement on the status quo.
2. Con will be arguing to keep the status quo and arguing any counterplans should be considered a forfeit.
3. APA citations must be used in the debate round itself
Round 1
The Problem
The criminal justice system in the United States disproportionately harms many marginalized communities. African Americans at just below 13% of the population according to the census 2022 census, are approximately 40% of the United States prison population (Walmsley, 2003) most of which are men.
There are those who may argue that if a population of people violate more laws than the general population, that those people should be punished at a disproportionate rate. However, this misses the point that these disproportionate sentences have devastating effects on not just the inmates themselves, but to those close to them and by extension society.
There are about 3 black men for every 5 black women in society (Maciag 2019). These gender imbalances can be devastating to the communities that experience them. Women in communities with large male emigration are negatively affected by taking on the roles traditionally placed on males, and increasing their anxiety (Ullah, 2017).
When fathers are arrested it has even worse effects than emigration, because emigration also typically comes with an increase in household income and more regular communication. Single mothers are significantly more likely to live in poverty (census 2022) and face half the annual income of 2 parent households according to statistics gathered by payscale.com.
Fatherless homes are statistically more likely to result in children with behavioral issues and criminal behavior (Weaver and Schofield, 2015), children that are abused (Alan Daly, 2007), and that suffer academically (Potter, 2010). This positive correlation with fatherless homes and its effects on creating children statistically more likely to become criminals who go on to create fatherless homes, creates a circular feedback loop.
It's not just women and children who are harmed by losing so many men from their communities. We all likely have seen the firsthand effects of crime, or at least seen the effects on those close to us. Anything we can do to interrupt the feedback loop of incarceration creating criminals would benefit society.
The criminals themselves are harmed in the current system. As much as we need to punish people who break the law, we also need to create a system that better allows those same criminals to become better citizens, to be better fathers, and better husbands.
When a person goes to prison for any significant length of time, it leaves a gap in their employment history that is hard to overcome. A person receiving a 5-year prison sentence will not be able to financially support their family while in prison, cannot gain new skills in their chosen field and that is on top of the stigma of having a criminal record.
If somebody made a decent income from their criminal activities, it may just make more sense to continue a life of crime. Even somebody who didn’t make good money from criminal activities has now acquired a network of criminals who can help them with tips, tricks and connections to people who can help them make a good living from crime. There is a reason that prison is often referred to as “Felon University”.
Thesis
Judicial corporal punishment would punish criminals without harming society by taking them from their families and communities. There is already a road map on how to implement judicial corporal punishment, and we can Americanize the system and implement it in a voluntary way to handle any ethical objections.
Course of Action
Judicial corporal punishment (JDC) is the caning of criminals (in this context). This is something already occurring in 28 countries, but most famously in Singapore. The American version of this practice will and should look different than it does in any other country, but we can look to Singapore as a bit of a guide, since they have done a lot of the work in implementing judicial corporal punishment (JDC), in an ethical way.
Judicial corporal punishment can take the place of sentencing, potentially saving taxpayers billions of dollars that go to into the criminal justice system. But more importantly it can prevent prison sentences that contribute to the feedback loop of criminality, and that contribute to the inmate himself getting involved in a miniature loop of criminality on a personal level as well, with so many options being lost due to doing time.
We are going to take the basics of the Singapore method and then expand them to fit our society. According to section 325 to section 332 in the Singapore criminal procedure code, caning can only be done a maximum of 24 strokes. The caning can only be done to a person between the ages of 18 and 50 and must be approved of by a medical professional.
In the U.S.A we should also have a medical professional on hand to supervise the caning and who has the ultimate authority on whether a caning should proceed, be stopped or be paused. This is to mitigate any immediate harms.
We also must make JDC a completely voluntary punishment and it would not be offered to criminals too dangerous to enter society, such as serial killers. It wouldn’t be offered to people too unhealthy to withstand the punishment. It is an option for those who made a mistake, deserve a second chance and who want to mitigate the harm their punishment causes to their family, their communities and themselves.
Challenges
One of the most common challenges to JDC, is that it violates the constitutional mandate that the government should not engage in cruel or unusual punishment. I would argue that punishing the family of the offender instead of just him is cruel and unusual punishment. I think a lot of people see long sentences for people who are addicted and need treatment for substance abuse as more cruel and unusual treatment for a medical condition than 5 lashes with a cane that is over in less than 10 minutes, the healing in about 2 weeks (Farrel). The current system is cruel and unusual punishment, for both the criminal and society.
I have heard rebuttals that say, Judicial corporal punishment is going to easy on offenders. Here are descriptions of the punishment from those who have suffered from it before:
"I stumbled to an adjacent room and plonked myself down. For the next three weeks (I) slept with my face down. (I) could neither eat or sleep properly. For the first week, I couldn't even sleep. The pain was unbearable. It took more than a month for the wounds to dry. My buttocks didn't look normal after that, with the skin drooping and the scars." (Sam)
Another person caned stated: "(After the caning) I couldn't sit down or lie on my back for a week. (Going to the toilet) was the worst of all [...] I could not squat or even bend my knees. I got scared every time I got the urge [...] I tried not eating but this did not work. I still had to go and I had to do this standing up, holding my buttocks wide apart. (This lasted) one week then things came back to normal." (Ah Seng - 5 strokes).
This punishment may be more humane than a long prison sentence, but it is still harmful enough to be a very strong deterrent to criminal activity and one that satisfies the public’s desire to punish criminal activities.
Another common rebuttal is that JDC isn’t a real deterrent because children having corporal punishment used on them often are less well behaved than children receiving alternative forms of punishment. Ignoring the fact that most studies cited confirming this view conflate abusive and non-abusive forms of corporal punishment, we can look at recidivism rates in countries that use JDC.
In the United States 50% of people released from prison will reoffend within their first 3 years out (Benecchi, 2021). While Singapore has a recidivism rate of about 20% according to statista.com. This recidivism rate is not special to Singapore as other societies that use JDC, such as Brunei and the United Arab Emirates have similar success. There may be other factors playing into recidivism rates in those countries, but I would have a hard time thinking that JDC could possibly make recidivism rates any worse than they currently are.
Most ethical concerns by critics of JDC have been mitigated by how the proposal has taken them into account and “Americanized” this form of corporal punishment. However, it is worth going over them more clearly here. It is argued that it can be medically dangerous. This has been mitigated by not only setting age limits, and having medical clearance but having a medical professional with ultimate authority on stand by while the punishments are being administered.
The ethical concern of putting somebody through such physical punishment is mitigated by the fact that this is completely voluntary. If somebody prefers 10 years in prison to 10 reminders of their crime in the form of scars, they are free to make that choice. This is not something meant to ever be forced.
Conclusion
The solution to the biggest problems caused by the current justice system is to add judicial corporal punishment to mitigate the current harms that play into the criminal feedback loop. There is already a system in place, getting fantastic results we can use.
There will be many strong skeptics and opponents to changing the criminal justice system in this radical way. Those claiming the punishment is too soft on the right side of the political spectrum will change their mind when challenged to voluntarily accept the punishment and certainly be happy when they see safer streets from the loop of criminality being interrupted. Those on the left inclined to see this sort of punishment as overly harsh, will most certainly change their mind when children no longer go without their father, and when social programs can be rolled back due to the decreased poverty because of fewer single parents.
References
“U.S. Census Bureau Quickfacts: United States.” Census.Gov, United States Census Bureau, 1 July 2022, www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045222.
Walmsley, Roy. World prison population list. London: Home Office, 2003. http://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/prisonstudies.org/files/resources/downloads/wppl_10
Maciag, Mike. “Where Have All the Black Men Gone?” Governing, Governing, 21 Apr. 2021, www.governing.com/archive/gov-black-men-gender-imbalance-population.html.
Ullah, A. A. (2017). Male Migration and ‘Left–behind’ Women: Bane or Boon? Environment and Urbanization ASIA, 8(1), 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0975425316683862
U.S. Census Bureau. Poverty Status, Food Stamp Receipt, and Public Assistance for Children Under 18 Years by Selected Characteristics: 2022
“2023 Gender Pay Gap Report (GPGR).” Payscale, Payscale, 13 Mar. 2023, www.payscale.com/research-and-insights/gender-pay-gap/.
Jennifer M. Weaver, and Thomas J. Schofield, “Mediation and Moderation of Divorce Effects on Children’s Behavior Problems,” Journal of Family Psychology 29, no. 1 (2015): 39, 43, 45.
Allen, S., & Daly, K. (2007). The effects of father involvement: An updated research summary of the evidence. Guelph: Father Involvement Research Alliance.
D. Potter, “Psychosocial Well-Being and the Relationship Between Divorce and Children's Academic Achievement,” Journal of Marriage and Family 72, (2010): 933, 940-941
Farrel, C. “Judicial Caning in Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei.” CORPORAL PUNISHMENT RESEARCH: JUDICIAL CANING IN SINGAPORE, MALAYSIA AND BRUNEI, www.corpun.com/singfeat.htm#healing. Accessed 1 Oct. 2023.
Benecchi, Liz. “Recidivism Imprisons American Progress.” Harvard Political Review, 8 Aug. 2021, harvardpolitics.com/recidivism-american-progress/.
The opposing side hit on fatherless homes and in summary a criminal loop.
"When fathers are arrested it has even worse effects than emigration, because emigration also typically comes with an increase in household income and more regular communication. Single mothers are significantly more likely to live in poverty (census 2022) and face half the annual income of 2 parent households according to statistics gathered by payscale.com.
Fatherless homes are statistically more likely to result in children with behavioral issues and criminal behavior"
So I can build on the opposing side's points here and explain why the penalty for breaking the law has to be a strong deterrent. One , because of the consequences for myself, it deters me to break the law to get possibly convicted in a court of law.
It's because of the consequences not just for myself but others that did depend on me. So this is what a strong deterrent has done. It's keep me out of the criminal life as well as others.
Now for those whom became criminals, I guess there just wasn't a deterrent strong enough in the world.
I've watched many police interrogations that have displayed individuals that have confessed to second degree murder. The ramifications didn't just include a family that is without the one they can depend on who is going to prison. Also the other families that depended on the person who became victim of the perpetrator. So the consequences get heavy.
If all of that wasn't heavy enough to prevent the crime and the criminal is aware that they can still have freedom like anybody else, all they or anybody else has to do is toughen up for a beat down.
Now if this person goes into a crime of passion again, where is the criminality repetition cut off?
You want to cut off the loop, it goes back to your point about fatherless homes. The solution to cutting down crime is not having the fatherless home or a lack of guidance and teaching to be law abiding citizens.
We still have other factors like that of mentally disturbed folks who are just doomed. But to everyone else who has appeared to be upstanding on the straight and narrow but came to a road when they broke the law, we don't know what will truly rehabilitate. People receive parole eligibility and still fail to be law abiding.
So what is judicial corporal punishment really doing to make a difference in results?
Are we even thinking why harsher penalties or extended ones came about?
Everything comes along to serve some type of improvement.
According to Wikipedia the end of judicial corporal punishment is the following:
"Physical punishments for crimes or injuries, including floggings, brandings and even mutilations, were practised in most civilizations since ancient times. With the growth of humanitarian ideals since the Enlightenment, such punishments are increasingly viewed as inhumane in the Western society. By the late 20th century, corporal punishment had been eliminated from the legal systems of most developed countries."
Now the opposing side according to them, this is all humane. So it's a matter of perspective. It's humane for me to sit in a prison cell for ten years, get free food, water and eventually some recreation than getting a beat down.
Just speaking on the consequences for a bit. It's like with abortion or taking drugs. Single parent households, low income or poverty is all a part of the consequences. You try to mitigate them, it's not a deterrent for the person committing the act or crime. Apparently the consequences are not harsh enough. The one that's on duty to deliver the punishing punch has no onus in softening the blow.
I know the part of society that likes to do the second chances trying to extricate, redeem, rectify the worse in a situation . Let's get back to working on fixing the root to eliminate having these exacerbated circumstances altogether.
Continuing to try to mitigate the ramifications just takes the meaning out of correcting initial actions that turn into those ramifications.
You want a solution of cutting the crime caused by the lack of fathers or proper parental guidance, deploy the programs at the cradle to turn around a generation from one to the next generation.
Round 2
I am done with this site. Honestly judges should vote for me but do with you want when I forfeit the following rounds.
This idiot I am debating broke the rules.
1. He used citations that are not in APA format.
2. He has brought up hints at a counter plan.
The stupidity doesn't end at the rule breaking though. He then proceeds to make arguments I have already crushed in my section labeled challenges.
An IQ test should be required to join this site, even if it means I am the only member of the site.
Blah blah blah.
That's all it is unless you present counterpoints.
You've presented nothing but ad hominems so yes the vote goes against you .
Willing to accept criticism in the comments but talk down to me .
I rest my case. No refutation for anything I said. Boy when you guys concede, it is word to the obvious.
Round 3
I literally already anticipated your arguments in r1 and refuted them. The counterplans violate the rules and count as a forfeit per the rules. Also APA format was not used, which should also count as a forfeit.
Please take nootropics idiot
Can you at least make one counterpoint?
By the way an ad hominem is not a counterpoint.
At least try to argue for your position a little.
It's a shame. I take the time and countered what you said and you can't reciprocate the same.
I cited Wikipedia for context. What is the complaining and crying about?
No more excuses from you. Step up to my points and respond to them or concede. If you do not counter it means you concede.
Round 4
Forfeited
The opposing side has failed to disprove what I've stated. This is a case closed.
I appreciate the feedback.
The classism is a point I wanted to avoid because i think this does mitigate it a bit, as for removing the ability to plea bargain, I am not sure it makes an interesting debate. It is a simple moral argument.
The same type of argument that makes the Alford plea unfair. One side (me) would argue that it is more fair to just give everyone a trial, but the other side will argue as they always do that the system would be flooded with too many cases to handle, which is a pragmatic argument, but misses the point hat the system being overloaded would mean that enforcement of crime would have to be more laid back with victimless crimes like smoking weed or car jacking.
I agree with Barney that the debate is not clear from either the resolution or the description. If you wanted to argue against plea bargains and judge trials, you probably should have done that in your opening argument (even better if it was in the description that that was your position) in order to establish the entirety of your case instead of a shifting target. Notably, these additions would also be non-topical, and as a judge, I would be amenable to your opponent perming that part of your plan since it has nothing to do with corporal punishment.
As for specific points against your position a la corporal punishment, I'd say you've got an issue with classism. Who is most likely to see time in jail/prison as the most damaging to their livelihoods and families? Those who cannot afford bail or are generally financially strapped. You're also leaving these same people with a lasting physical mark, one that shows in their day-to-day behaviors and functions as a near constant reminder during that time to them and everyone around them (including police) that they have been convicted of a crime and suffered a punishment.
My biggest issue with your justice system would almost entirely resolve itself by removing the ability to plea bargain. I know, madness at the beginning, but if you see the policy changes that arise from the chaos it will correct so much. Also ban trials by judges. Make them all jury trials by default and perhaps allow them to refuse the default but judges as a default for petty crimes in some areas, man that a lot of people are getting screwed just because it is easier to accept a light sentence than fight for your freedom because you are innocent
Immediately from the description don’t know what is being argued. Glancing at R1, a lot of it seems like it should be in the description.
…
My attacks would be on how it is unlikely to be implemented in the states manner, as it would be implemented by the same people who currently make our justice system suck.
The problem with this tactic is quite obviously that it does not favor the status quo either.
Tag any competent debater but I wanted feedback on my argument and how you would attack it, even if it gives my opponent ammunition
If anyone else is interested just challenge me to a 4 round or 5 round debate and forfeit the first round. Needs to be the same rules as this debate as well