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/.
