I like the idea on paper however we'd all choose it. Anyone in that life has already been beaten within an inch of it. Given the machismo y'all would find on the streets, it would take all of about two weeks for caining scars to be cred.
There was a time when that would've absolutely scared fellas straight but these days, I'd think any dude who didn't have the scars was a snitch.
I dig the idea, something visceral and showy, however I think it would need to be adjusted to fit the target group for maximum effectiveness.
Something that's painful and harms the ego, like a scarlet letter. I'd take a beating but if cutting my nose or ear off is on the table, I'm going to strongly consider my actions before I wow-out. Pain goes away, disfigurement never does.
I won't die on that hill either, it's a thought exercise, but as a guy who grew up in all of that, it's an exercise worth mulling over.
In the small town where I grew up, we had a judge who would offer shoplifters a choice: 30 days in jail or one day standing outside the business they stole from holding a sign that said “I got caught stealing. This is my punishment.” The vast majority chose jail 😂 but I do remember seeing one lady who chose the sign.
I think our bodies are much stronger than our egos!
What I would be looking for is a something that deters others from choosing the life. Martin Greenwald's footnote: "Humiliating someone in view of the entire human race is not the goal of this proposal. " made me wonder if we might be better off with a punishment which is less brutal but more humiliating. I don't have any ideas along those lines, but I suspect that people in hardcore S&M communities could come up with some. Maybe Coleman knows some too.
The problem, as I see it, is that we have pretty much walked to the end of the line where people don't commit crimes because they are afraid of the punishment. Either they think that getting caught is what happens to other people, or their poor impulse control means they have committed the offense before they ever thought about it, or the significant punishments they face in their communities for _not_ committing the offense are considered more severe. I don't think we can fix this one by making the punishment more corporal, and more severe. Maybe making justice more *swift* would have an effect. But I think that making it more humiliating might do some good. At any rate, I know people who would be up for any amount of pain, but not for knowing that all over town people are laughing at them and that small children are mocking them.
I suppose; tattoos or something like that could work. Also, everyone has their breaking point: the Viet Cong in the Hanoi Hilton went 293 for 293 on breaking people through torture. Every single prisoner in that compound - many US Naval Academy grads - broke. These weren't weak men and weren't men who lacked determination and grit.
I mean - there are more effective ways to cause people pain than flogging. The Gympie-Gympie plant (Dendrocnide moroides) comes to mind. Three days of excruciating pain, followed by two weeks of severe pain, then years of pain whenever the affected area is touched. Or, you could sting someone with the Irukandji jellyfish - although there's a chance that might kill them dead. It's roughly as painful as unmedicated childbirth by many accounts.
What are your thoughts on old-school judicial maiming: chopping off a hand, foot, or both? There's a reason it's not practiced - wrongful conviction sucks - but would it be any good as an effective deterrent? It's harder to commit crimes when you're missing a hand.
You could also tattoo or brand literal scarlet letters into people or something...
Finally, as an alternative to execution, you could offer criminals the opportunity to renounce their US citizenship and be parachuted over the Congolese jungle; if they've got literal cannibal armies out there an infusion of vicious American criminals isn't exactly going to make things worse.
Side Note: There is a lighthouse in Long Island Sound called Execution Light. It sits atop a large rock that submerges at high tide. In colonial days, convicted murderers where chained to the rock at low tide and waited patiently for the incoming tide to submerge them. Sounds more like torture than punishment. I don't know if it had an effect on the murder rate. Would the public accept this today? What would convicted criminals think who were facing execution?
That’s pain on steroids. It’s like when you do your spine in and have to be carried in to hospital and put on morphine. There are levels, as you say. Kidney stones are nasty man.
I dehydrated once from a nasty stomach bug that had me vomiting in a sink and sitting on the throne basically doing the same from my arse. I ended up on an IV in A&e but for about a day before I eventually got myself to the hospital, the pain in my by then dusty dehydrated cranium had me convinced I was on the way out. Hit with hammers, hatchets, stabbed, falls from heights that should have killed me but I hobbled away from, car wrecks, motorbike crashes at high speed, and industrial strength drink and drug fuelled benders, ( as well as other capers I can’t go into here as they involved other people, but were dangerous as fuck, believe me), and I thought a stomach bug was going to finish me off. Left that hospital fully hydrated, and headed for the nearest bar. Hangover be damned. Cos pain has No memory! Lol
I'm a retired school psychologist, and my bias is against physical discipline for the reasons listed in the APA article below. Granted, this is about using it on children, and perhaps it would be different with adults, but I still worry about the message we're sending, and whether this might lead to more acceptance of corporal punishment with children. It's been an uphill battle just to get it out of schools, and that battle is still not won. I'd hate to see us backslide. I also think that the difficulty in deciding who is going to be eligible for this form of punishment is glossed over here. Presumably we would only use violence (yes, flogging is a form of violence) with non-violent offenders. Would this lead them to become more aggressive/violent? Also, as somebody who has worked in a detention facility for adolescent male offenders, I've had many a young man tell me about all the crimes he committed for which he did NOT get caught. It's not that easy to know who is violent and who isn't based solely on the crime for which they were arrested. Some kids welcome spanking with a defiant attitude and it serves as no deterrent at all (not surprising since it teaches them nothing). I suspect there would be some adults like that, for whom the removal of the threat of imprisonment would increase their tendency to commit a crime. I agree the current system is in need of reform, but I worry that this "simple" solution would remove the pressure to actually do something more meaningful. But nice try! :)
I appreciate your perspective — I may write a response piece where I collect some comments and address them directly, you’ve given me a lot to think about!
Awesome! If I got you thinking, then I did my job! :) It's not an easy problem primarily because we're stuck in the rut of doing the same failing thing over and over, like a parent who finds that their punishment didn't work, so they increase the level of punishment without realizing they're repeating what didn't work in the first place. I do think there are other solutions that would be better options as I already posted, if we can get unstuck from our rut. As a trained mediator and admirer of the work of Dr. Marshall Rosenberg, I'm also very interested in restorative justice. Unlike punishment, it actually addresses the needs of victims while helping perpetrators to face what they've done and take ownership.
It's not just kids in schools. We've done a lot of good work as a society creating strong norms against the use of retributive violence. While it's true that prisoners are subject to violence in prisons, it isn't an explicit part of their punishment and (mostly) everyone agrees that it shouldn't be happening. Re-establishing the idea that violence is a solution to problems of justice, especially if no violence was done in the first place, looks to me like a huge step backward. It would give rhetorical cover to people who want to do violence (to their enemies, their children, their spouses...) anyhow and inspire the idea in people who are otherwise held well in check by our norms. Many people are tempted to use violence, and corporal punishment is a form of state violence they can legitimately copy (cf citizen warrior mentality.) Whereas you can't really imprison the person who broke into your car in your basement, and few people are naturally inclined to that behavior because it takes planning and sustained effort, whereas much violence is impulsive. Even while we fail horribly, the notion is that we are trying to make people who have been convicted of crimes better and less criminally inclined, while protecting others from them in the meantime. If people do need to be protected from a given perpetrator (because they are violent and likely to reoffend) then doing violence to them instead of holding them in some form of custody is an unsafe option. And again, if the perpetrator is non-violent, doing violence to them as a solution to their offense elevates the idea that you can solve problems by inflicting bodily harm on people. Calling the problem "optics" is really underselling it. We *want* a citizenry that is appalled by the idea that it makes sense to beat someone if they steal from you, and I don't see how we can institute corporal punishment at scale without doing substantial damage to this pearl of civilization.
Part 2. There are programs that are effective for the "lower level offender" that you're talking about (see link #1 below). I would add that every prisoner should be tested for reading skills upon prison entry and be offered literacy instruction if warranted, because illiteracy is a major problem with the prison population that contributes to why they commit crimes (link #2). When I worked at the juvenile detention facility mentioned in my other comment, I tested many young high-school-age students, and their reading level was invariably between the 2nd and 4th grade. This is the fault of our schools, who have failed to implement the findings of the National Reading Panel (NRP) released in 2000. After 24 years, some states are FINALLY passing laws that require schools to stop using curriculum such as "Balanced Literancy" that has been a total failure, and to use curriculum that are based on the 5 core foundational skills of reading described by the NRP's meta-analysis of the literature. So perhaps there's hope for the future, but in the meantime, teach people in prison how to read with the NRP's guidance!
The literacy link does not support your claim in any way. It says that illiteracy and criminal activity are correlated. It does not offer any information that supports the claim that increasing literacy would decrease crime. It could just as easily be that those prone to criminality are also just prone to have reading problems. Both things are associated with the same thing: low intelligence.
You're correct that correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but if reading intervention in prison reduces recidivism, that is evidence that supports my supposition, and there is such evidence. "...Inmates have a 16% chance of returning to prison if they receive literacy help, as opposed to 70% who receive no help." (link #1). Your hypothesis that low intelligence is associated with poor reading is not supported by evidence. While individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID) demonstrate reading deficits, they represent only about 1% of the population, whereas more than 50% of US adults are not proficient in reading. So your math doesn't add up. Also, if IQ were the cause of reading deficits, then IQ would be a good predictor of reading improvement in response to intervention. A large meta-analysis found that "...at most, IQ accounts for 1% to 3% of the variance in intervention response, a very small effect." (link #2) This is consistent with my observations of the adolescents in a juvenile detention facility that I tested, as I not only evaluated their reading skills, but also their IQ. I observed that poor reading sometimes negatively impacted their vocabulary knowledge, which in turn detracted from their verbal IQ score, but their nonverbal IQ scores were always intact. These kids were no dummies! The myth that low IQ is the cause of reading deficits is unfortunately still rampant, and reflects a lack of knowledge about what causes reading deficits. Research has clearly shown that the large majority (90-95%) of reading problems are caused by word-level reading problems; i.e., difficulty decoding words and remembering them for instant recognition later (orthographic mapping). This type of problem is caused by a deficit in phonological awareness which is totally uncorrelated with IQ. This post is already too long so I'll stop for now, but anybody who is interested can reply and I will happily provide more information on this topic.
I simply don't understand how someone of normal intelligence, with 12 years of help, can't learn to read, but some tiny intervention can create lasting fluency very quickly. I have worked with illiterate people via an NGO, they aren't very smart. I have also been an english tutor, and the bad writers also weren't very smart, except the ESL writers.
My gut reaction to your words is to be very sad that somebody with your lack of knowledge has been an English tutor. This is why our schools are failing us, because so many teachers and administrators who select reading curriculum have not been educated in the science of reading, and that's the fault of universities. (link #1). I worked in schools for decades and I've tested hundreds of children and adolescents with reading problems, and only those with intellectual disabilities had a low IQ score, which is about 1% of the kids I tested. The vast majority of poor readers have an IQ score that falls in the "typical" range, and that is not in dispute among experts. As for your experience with your "not very smart" students, maybe your expectations influenced your perception of their intelligence, and unless you tested their IQ, you don't know what it was. Kids who can't read well often grow up with the message that they're stupid, and they often come to believe it and conform to that expectation (the Pygmalion Effect). As for whether fluency happens quickly, no it doesn't. But research has demonstrated that the underlying deficit in phonemic awareness that causes it can be remediated in more than 99% of people in about 12 hours of instruction and become normalized. Once phonemic awareness is normalized, the person can more easily learn phonics to help them decode words. It takes longer to build fluency because that involves orthographically mapping words once they've been decoded, and adult poor readers have an orthographic lexicon that is thousands of words smaller than adult typical readers. It takes a lot of reading to map all those words; therefore, they may never become highly fluent, but luckily fluency is not a prerequisite for reading comprehension. The greatly reduced recidivism rate among prisoners who have had reading intervention speaks for itself (16% vs 70%). If your theory is correct and all adults who are not proficient readers are low IQ, then over 50% of US adults are low IQ. That would be a really wacky bell curve! If you care to learn about what causes the majority of reading problems and how they can be remediated (and why the US has so many poor readers), I recommend the second link. Unless and until you read it, please don't do any more tutoring.
I'm not sure why you think that I made such a bad tutor. Improvement in writing mainly has to do with practice about being clear and structuring arguments. It is a learned skill possible for anyone who is fluent in a language and of at least near average intelligence.
As to your other point, IQ is generally well correlated with subjective ratings of the intelligence of any given person.
We should also expect 50% of the population to be of below average intelligence.
We were talking about reading. You made the claim that lack of proficient reading skills is due to "low IQ," based on your experience. That is empirically false and you seem to be unaware of the mountain of research demonstrating that. Do you know what the definition of specific learning disability in reading is? Hint: poor reading, normal IQ. IQ falls along a bell curve, and about 85% of the population falls in the range of "average" (i.e., typical) or higher. So mathematically, it's not possible for all of those adults who are not proficient readers to be "low IQ" (again, your words). IQ tests correlating with "subjective ratings?" What are you even talking about? Clearly you are not a psychologist, and clearly you have never given an IQ test, and I would bet you have never taken a course in tests and measurements.
I’m not familiar with it, but I’ll have to check it out. I intentionally didn’t look at any articles or books on the topic beforehand because I wanted to think through the issue myself, and didn’t want to just rehash something someone else said. But I’m sure many others have made all the arguments I’ve made but much more eloquently and with much more supporting evidence.
Very unconvinced here -- unless MAYBE if you want to use “punishment” as simple retribution. To work as a genuine deterrent you'd probably need to make it pretty severe (cf. Singapore judicial caning, tho they have it in addition to prison) which then makes the "cruel and inhumane" case against it much stronger and would make it much less suitable for low level offences.
So, when humane/not severe probably pretty useless as a deterrent, obviously sending a wrong message about use of violence, and if voluntarily chosen as a swap, likely to be chosen by people for whom it's not a big deal at all and might be a fairly low price to risk paying for certain crimes.
Alternative to prison for low level offences other than financial penalties include electronic tagging (reduction of freedom without being imprisoned in a secure facility) and doing a number of hours of unpaid but useful work, on top of more "social work" type interventions to reduce reoffending. I don't have handy data on how well these work, in what context of at all, or whether any are widely used in the US system and to what effect, though.
You can't win the optics. Most people are not ethical in the deep utilitarian sense, but just sentimental against things that look viscerally bad. I think 20 minutes of physical pain is far far less bad than the mental torture of boredom in prison for years and years. But prison *looks* more humane because no one is screaming in pain.
I'm not sure why it has to be voluntary. I mean if I steal socks from Wal-Mart, I don't get to decide if I get thirty days in the clink or community service or a fine. That's up to the judge. If a doctor certifies that I can survive the flogging, not sure why I should get to choose.
Also, if you don't want worldwide public humiliation, just require spectators to be searched for cell phones or other recording devices.
The biggest benefit of prison, for all its flaws and horrors, is that it immobilizes the convict so they cannot commit more crimes against civilians and gives them the chance to reconsider their behavior. Beating and humiliating someone and then sending them right back out onto the street where they can commit more crimes…doesn’t do that at all.
As I watch global society deteriorate to the point that kindergartners are charged with stealing, brutality against fellow students, etc. my heart sinks.
I see so much of the "me" movement. No one can touch me. No one can arrest me. No one can say anything because I will cry rape, racism, the trampling of my constitutional rights - amendments 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. It leaves people, police, lawyers, justice system with their hands tied.
I can't imagine there are many people in this world who don't know right from wrong, good from bad, legal from illegal. So why are so many people let go with a slap on the hand?
There is no deterrent for illegal, immoral, unethical behavior. People are just not afraid to do whatever they please.
I don't know what the answer is. But the prison systems across the planet are in trouble. They all have the same issues - poor sanitation, not enough food, disease, no healthcare, no rehab, beatings and killings from each other and the guards. Guantamano Bay, Black Dolphin, and so it goes...
This is an interesting idea. I have spent quite a bit of time working in the Pacific Rim, especially Singapore, where caning is often used.
Caning is done by trained experts on a man's (women may not be caned) naked ass. It's no joke; even after the minimum of 3 strokes, a guy is unlikely to walk away and I believe the maximum is 20, which would pretty much guarantee a month laying on your stomach.
Singapore is renowned for it's lack of crime. In my opinion, fear of the cane is one reason. I think it's definitely worth a try.
Ya know, I’m more for it after reading your framework.
Where I’d personally start is with ending the war on drugs and ensuring that incentives to put humans in prison were nonexistent. At that point I’d feel much more confident that someone in prison was actually guilty of a worthy crime against another human.
I’d also suggest that flogging need not be committed by another human, but by a well calibrated flogging machine. In my belief of humanity in a healthy society, the punisher doing the flogging is damaging their humanity as much as the criminal is getting hurt.
I’m also not willing to die on these hills, but greatly appreciate the prompt to think about them.
I like the idea of making it public. It's a pentinance for the offender and a reminder for everyone else. Right now prison is a out-of-sight-out-of-mind situation or, for those in that culture, a proving ground. Make it public, make it viceral, make it memoriable.
Prison is really screwed up though. Something to think about is that the ancient Isrealites didn't have prison. They had restitution, expulsion, and death... and no prison
I mean, you could offer someone the chance to renounce their US citizenship and be parachuted into the Congolese jungle with an AK-47, some food, and stuff. In the cannibal army's territory.
This is an interesting idea and worth considering as part of a larger project that doesn’t consider prison as the primary response to crime. I think it makes the most sense as 1 reform component, and with juveniles and young adults.
I have worked in prisons, mostly juvenile corrections, and it is very difficult to create positive change within the current system. It does help many kids, but also causes harm.
Anything that could help provide quicker, cheaper and less harmful alternatives is worth evaluating first as a pilot project. As noted already, we also need more restorative justice, reading and vocational programs, arts, yoga. (See prison yoga project,etc). All of this needs to be offered as quickly as possible to at risk youth as the initial phase.
Plus, the current (back end) mental health assessment after the kid is locked up functionally prevents the ideal treatment path, but as a psychiatrist I can tell you mental health treatment is not the most important option for the vast, vast majority.
Any new approach needs more flexibility, transparency and accountability.
I like the idea on paper however we'd all choose it. Anyone in that life has already been beaten within an inch of it. Given the machismo y'all would find on the streets, it would take all of about two weeks for caining scars to be cred.
There was a time when that would've absolutely scared fellas straight but these days, I'd think any dude who didn't have the scars was a snitch.
I dig the idea, something visceral and showy, however I think it would need to be adjusted to fit the target group for maximum effectiveness.
Something that's painful and harms the ego, like a scarlet letter. I'd take a beating but if cutting my nose or ear off is on the table, I'm going to strongly consider my actions before I wow-out. Pain goes away, disfigurement never does.
I won't die on that hill either, it's a thought exercise, but as a guy who grew up in all of that, it's an exercise worth mulling over.
In the small town where I grew up, we had a judge who would offer shoplifters a choice: 30 days in jail or one day standing outside the business they stole from holding a sign that said “I got caught stealing. This is my punishment.” The vast majority chose jail 😂 but I do remember seeing one lady who chose the sign.
I think our bodies are much stronger than our egos!
What I would be looking for is a something that deters others from choosing the life. Martin Greenwald's footnote: "Humiliating someone in view of the entire human race is not the goal of this proposal. " made me wonder if we might be better off with a punishment which is less brutal but more humiliating. I don't have any ideas along those lines, but I suspect that people in hardcore S&M communities could come up with some. Maybe Coleman knows some too.
The problem, as I see it, is that we have pretty much walked to the end of the line where people don't commit crimes because they are afraid of the punishment. Either they think that getting caught is what happens to other people, or their poor impulse control means they have committed the offense before they ever thought about it, or the significant punishments they face in their communities for _not_ committing the offense are considered more severe. I don't think we can fix this one by making the punishment more corporal, and more severe. Maybe making justice more *swift* would have an effect. But I think that making it more humiliating might do some good. At any rate, I know people who would be up for any amount of pain, but not for knowing that all over town people are laughing at them and that small children are mocking them.
I suppose; tattoos or something like that could work. Also, everyone has their breaking point: the Viet Cong in the Hanoi Hilton went 293 for 293 on breaking people through torture. Every single prisoner in that compound - many US Naval Academy grads - broke. These weren't weak men and weren't men who lacked determination and grit.
I mean - there are more effective ways to cause people pain than flogging. The Gympie-Gympie plant (Dendrocnide moroides) comes to mind. Three days of excruciating pain, followed by two weeks of severe pain, then years of pain whenever the affected area is touched. Or, you could sting someone with the Irukandji jellyfish - although there's a chance that might kill them dead. It's roughly as painful as unmedicated childbirth by many accounts.
What are your thoughts on old-school judicial maiming: chopping off a hand, foot, or both? There's a reason it's not practiced - wrongful conviction sucks - but would it be any good as an effective deterrent? It's harder to commit crimes when you're missing a hand.
You could also tattoo or brand literal scarlet letters into people or something...
Finally, as an alternative to execution, you could offer criminals the opportunity to renounce their US citizenship and be parachuted over the Congolese jungle; if they've got literal cannibal armies out there an infusion of vicious American criminals isn't exactly going to make things worse.
Side Note: There is a lighthouse in Long Island Sound called Execution Light. It sits atop a large rock that submerges at high tide. In colonial days, convicted murderers where chained to the rock at low tide and waited patiently for the incoming tide to submerge them. Sounds more like torture than punishment. I don't know if it had an effect on the murder rate. Would the public accept this today? What would convicted criminals think who were facing execution?
I remember pain. I had a kidney stone once, and if you could induce kidney stones as a punishment, it would sure deter me.
Unfortunately, you can: the Gympie-Gympie plant exists.
I will try to avoid.
That’s pain on steroids. It’s like when you do your spine in and have to be carried in to hospital and put on morphine. There are levels, as you say. Kidney stones are nasty man.
It’s why I pay attention to proper hydration!
I dehydrated once from a nasty stomach bug that had me vomiting in a sink and sitting on the throne basically doing the same from my arse. I ended up on an IV in A&e but for about a day before I eventually got myself to the hospital, the pain in my by then dusty dehydrated cranium had me convinced I was on the way out. Hit with hammers, hatchets, stabbed, falls from heights that should have killed me but I hobbled away from, car wrecks, motorbike crashes at high speed, and industrial strength drink and drug fuelled benders, ( as well as other capers I can’t go into here as they involved other people, but were dangerous as fuck, believe me), and I thought a stomach bug was going to finish me off. Left that hospital fully hydrated, and headed for the nearest bar. Hangover be damned. Cos pain has No memory! Lol
I'm a retired school psychologist, and my bias is against physical discipline for the reasons listed in the APA article below. Granted, this is about using it on children, and perhaps it would be different with adults, but I still worry about the message we're sending, and whether this might lead to more acceptance of corporal punishment with children. It's been an uphill battle just to get it out of schools, and that battle is still not won. I'd hate to see us backslide. I also think that the difficulty in deciding who is going to be eligible for this form of punishment is glossed over here. Presumably we would only use violence (yes, flogging is a form of violence) with non-violent offenders. Would this lead them to become more aggressive/violent? Also, as somebody who has worked in a detention facility for adolescent male offenders, I've had many a young man tell me about all the crimes he committed for which he did NOT get caught. It's not that easy to know who is violent and who isn't based solely on the crime for which they were arrested. Some kids welcome spanking with a defiant attitude and it serves as no deterrent at all (not surprising since it teaches them nothing). I suspect there would be some adults like that, for whom the removal of the threat of imprisonment would increase their tendency to commit a crime. I agree the current system is in need of reform, but I worry that this "simple" solution would remove the pressure to actually do something more meaningful. But nice try! :)
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2019/05/physical-discipline
I appreciate your perspective — I may write a response piece where I collect some comments and address them directly, you’ve given me a lot to think about!
I think he's right that some career criminals might find this an easy way out. Perhaps it should only be available once.
I don't see much difference between flogging and caning. What difference do you see?
Also, hinting that we are importing something from a foreign country is probably a total loser for the American mindset.
Since neither term has a universal definition, I think that's an impossible question. Singapore canine compared to whose flogging?
Awesome! If I got you thinking, then I did my job! :) It's not an easy problem primarily because we're stuck in the rut of doing the same failing thing over and over, like a parent who finds that their punishment didn't work, so they increase the level of punishment without realizing they're repeating what didn't work in the first place. I do think there are other solutions that would be better options as I already posted, if we can get unstuck from our rut. As a trained mediator and admirer of the work of Dr. Marshall Rosenberg, I'm also very interested in restorative justice. Unlike punishment, it actually addresses the needs of victims while helping perpetrators to face what they've done and take ownership.
https://www.connectionfirst.org/how-restorative-justice-works
It's not just kids in schools. We've done a lot of good work as a society creating strong norms against the use of retributive violence. While it's true that prisoners are subject to violence in prisons, it isn't an explicit part of their punishment and (mostly) everyone agrees that it shouldn't be happening. Re-establishing the idea that violence is a solution to problems of justice, especially if no violence was done in the first place, looks to me like a huge step backward. It would give rhetorical cover to people who want to do violence (to their enemies, their children, their spouses...) anyhow and inspire the idea in people who are otherwise held well in check by our norms. Many people are tempted to use violence, and corporal punishment is a form of state violence they can legitimately copy (cf citizen warrior mentality.) Whereas you can't really imprison the person who broke into your car in your basement, and few people are naturally inclined to that behavior because it takes planning and sustained effort, whereas much violence is impulsive. Even while we fail horribly, the notion is that we are trying to make people who have been convicted of crimes better and less criminally inclined, while protecting others from them in the meantime. If people do need to be protected from a given perpetrator (because they are violent and likely to reoffend) then doing violence to them instead of holding them in some form of custody is an unsafe option. And again, if the perpetrator is non-violent, doing violence to them as a solution to their offense elevates the idea that you can solve problems by inflicting bodily harm on people. Calling the problem "optics" is really underselling it. We *want* a citizenry that is appalled by the idea that it makes sense to beat someone if they steal from you, and I don't see how we can institute corporal punishment at scale without doing substantial damage to this pearl of civilization.
Well said!
Part 2. There are programs that are effective for the "lower level offender" that you're talking about (see link #1 below). I would add that every prisoner should be tested for reading skills upon prison entry and be offered literacy instruction if warranted, because illiteracy is a major problem with the prison population that contributes to why they commit crimes (link #2). When I worked at the juvenile detention facility mentioned in my other comment, I tested many young high-school-age students, and their reading level was invariably between the 2nd and 4th grade. This is the fault of our schools, who have failed to implement the findings of the National Reading Panel (NRP) released in 2000. After 24 years, some states are FINALLY passing laws that require schools to stop using curriculum such as "Balanced Literancy" that has been a total failure, and to use curriculum that are based on the 5 core foundational skills of reading described by the NRP's meta-analysis of the literature. So perhaps there's hope for the future, but in the meantime, teach people in prison how to read with the NRP's guidance!
https://www.gov1.com/public-safety/articles/top-5-recidivism-reducing-programs-Y0Qm03jLSadTwD38/
https://www.literacymidsouth.org/news/the-relationship-between-incarceration-and-low-literacy#:~:text=According to the National Adult,work are the most prone
The literacy link does not support your claim in any way. It says that illiteracy and criminal activity are correlated. It does not offer any information that supports the claim that increasing literacy would decrease crime. It could just as easily be that those prone to criminality are also just prone to have reading problems. Both things are associated with the same thing: low intelligence.
You're correct that correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but if reading intervention in prison reduces recidivism, that is evidence that supports my supposition, and there is such evidence. "...Inmates have a 16% chance of returning to prison if they receive literacy help, as opposed to 70% who receive no help." (link #1). Your hypothesis that low intelligence is associated with poor reading is not supported by evidence. While individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID) demonstrate reading deficits, they represent only about 1% of the population, whereas more than 50% of US adults are not proficient in reading. So your math doesn't add up. Also, if IQ were the cause of reading deficits, then IQ would be a good predictor of reading improvement in response to intervention. A large meta-analysis found that "...at most, IQ accounts for 1% to 3% of the variance in intervention response, a very small effect." (link #2) This is consistent with my observations of the adolescents in a juvenile detention facility that I tested, as I not only evaluated their reading skills, but also their IQ. I observed that poor reading sometimes negatively impacted their vocabulary knowledge, which in turn detracted from their verbal IQ score, but their nonverbal IQ scores were always intact. These kids were no dummies! The myth that low IQ is the cause of reading deficits is unfortunately still rampant, and reflects a lack of knowledge about what causes reading deficits. Research has clearly shown that the large majority (90-95%) of reading problems are caused by word-level reading problems; i.e., difficulty decoding words and remembering them for instant recognition later (orthographic mapping). This type of problem is caused by a deficit in phonological awareness which is totally uncorrelated with IQ. This post is already too long so I'll stop for now, but anybody who is interested can reply and I will happily provide more information on this topic.
https://www.begintoread.com/research/literacystatistics.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2836021/
👊
I simply don't understand how someone of normal intelligence, with 12 years of help, can't learn to read, but some tiny intervention can create lasting fluency very quickly. I have worked with illiterate people via an NGO, they aren't very smart. I have also been an english tutor, and the bad writers also weren't very smart, except the ESL writers.
My gut reaction to your words is to be very sad that somebody with your lack of knowledge has been an English tutor. This is why our schools are failing us, because so many teachers and administrators who select reading curriculum have not been educated in the science of reading, and that's the fault of universities. (link #1). I worked in schools for decades and I've tested hundreds of children and adolescents with reading problems, and only those with intellectual disabilities had a low IQ score, which is about 1% of the kids I tested. The vast majority of poor readers have an IQ score that falls in the "typical" range, and that is not in dispute among experts. As for your experience with your "not very smart" students, maybe your expectations influenced your perception of their intelligence, and unless you tested their IQ, you don't know what it was. Kids who can't read well often grow up with the message that they're stupid, and they often come to believe it and conform to that expectation (the Pygmalion Effect). As for whether fluency happens quickly, no it doesn't. But research has demonstrated that the underlying deficit in phonemic awareness that causes it can be remediated in more than 99% of people in about 12 hours of instruction and become normalized. Once phonemic awareness is normalized, the person can more easily learn phonics to help them decode words. It takes longer to build fluency because that involves orthographically mapping words once they've been decoded, and adult poor readers have an orthographic lexicon that is thousands of words smaller than adult typical readers. It takes a lot of reading to map all those words; therefore, they may never become highly fluent, but luckily fluency is not a prerequisite for reading comprehension. The greatly reduced recidivism rate among prisoners who have had reading intervention speaks for itself (16% vs 70%). If your theory is correct and all adults who are not proficient readers are low IQ, then over 50% of US adults are low IQ. That would be a really wacky bell curve! If you care to learn about what causes the majority of reading problems and how they can be remediated (and why the US has so many poor readers), I recommend the second link. Unless and until you read it, please don't do any more tutoring.
https://edsource.org/updates/teacher-prep-programs-fail-on-the-science-of-reading-report-shows
https://cehs.usu.edu/teal/centers-and-labs/literacy-clinic/files/kilpatrick-resources/kilpatrick--obrien-prevention-and-intervention-for-reading-difficulties-copy-2021.pdf
I'm not sure why you think that I made such a bad tutor. Improvement in writing mainly has to do with practice about being clear and structuring arguments. It is a learned skill possible for anyone who is fluent in a language and of at least near average intelligence.
As to your other point, IQ is generally well correlated with subjective ratings of the intelligence of any given person.
We should also expect 50% of the population to be of below average intelligence.
We were talking about reading. You made the claim that lack of proficient reading skills is due to "low IQ," based on your experience. That is empirically false and you seem to be unaware of the mountain of research demonstrating that. Do you know what the definition of specific learning disability in reading is? Hint: poor reading, normal IQ. IQ falls along a bell curve, and about 85% of the population falls in the range of "average" (i.e., typical) or higher. So mathematically, it's not possible for all of those adults who are not proficient readers to be "low IQ" (again, your words). IQ tests correlating with "subjective ratings?" What are you even talking about? Clearly you are not a psychologist, and clearly you have never given an IQ test, and I would bet you have never taken a course in tests and measurements.
https://www.medfriendly.com/standardscoretopercentileconversion.html
Peter Moskos wrote a very good short book on this subject about a decade ago from the prison reform perspective called In Defense of Flogging.
I found it very compelling on the same grounds as your argument.
I’m not familiar with it, but I’ll have to check it out. I intentionally didn’t look at any articles or books on the topic beforehand because I wanted to think through the issue myself, and didn’t want to just rehash something someone else said. But I’m sure many others have made all the arguments I’ve made but much more eloquently and with much more supporting evidence.
Very unconvinced here -- unless MAYBE if you want to use “punishment” as simple retribution. To work as a genuine deterrent you'd probably need to make it pretty severe (cf. Singapore judicial caning, tho they have it in addition to prison) which then makes the "cruel and inhumane" case against it much stronger and would make it much less suitable for low level offences.
So, when humane/not severe probably pretty useless as a deterrent, obviously sending a wrong message about use of violence, and if voluntarily chosen as a swap, likely to be chosen by people for whom it's not a big deal at all and might be a fairly low price to risk paying for certain crimes.
Alternative to prison for low level offences other than financial penalties include electronic tagging (reduction of freedom without being imprisoned in a secure facility) and doing a number of hours of unpaid but useful work, on top of more "social work" type interventions to reduce reoffending. I don't have handy data on how well these work, in what context of at all, or whether any are widely used in the US system and to what effect, though.
I am not sure it is a good look for a civilized society….not that our crumbling society can even be called civilized. Definitely food for thought
How could it be a worse look than the present?
Let’s let the victims do the flogging, if they want to. Cathartic…
A bold idea, that’s for sure.
You scooped me! About to release an article about this.
Do it! I’m sure yours will be more thoroughly argued and persuasive than mine is anyway.
You can't win the optics. Most people are not ethical in the deep utilitarian sense, but just sentimental against things that look viscerally bad. I think 20 minutes of physical pain is far far less bad than the mental torture of boredom in prison for years and years. But prison *looks* more humane because no one is screaming in pain.
I'm not sure why it has to be voluntary. I mean if I steal socks from Wal-Mart, I don't get to decide if I get thirty days in the clink or community service or a fine. That's up to the judge. If a doctor certifies that I can survive the flogging, not sure why I should get to choose.
Also, if you don't want worldwide public humiliation, just require spectators to be searched for cell phones or other recording devices.
The biggest benefit of prison, for all its flaws and horrors, is that it immobilizes the convict so they cannot commit more crimes against civilians and gives them the chance to reconsider their behavior. Beating and humiliating someone and then sending them right back out onto the street where they can commit more crimes…doesn’t do that at all.
Let’s put $ into genuine prison reform instead
As I watch global society deteriorate to the point that kindergartners are charged with stealing, brutality against fellow students, etc. my heart sinks.
I see so much of the "me" movement. No one can touch me. No one can arrest me. No one can say anything because I will cry rape, racism, the trampling of my constitutional rights - amendments 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. It leaves people, police, lawyers, justice system with their hands tied.
I can't imagine there are many people in this world who don't know right from wrong, good from bad, legal from illegal. So why are so many people let go with a slap on the hand?
There is no deterrent for illegal, immoral, unethical behavior. People are just not afraid to do whatever they please.
I don't know what the answer is. But the prison systems across the planet are in trouble. They all have the same issues - poor sanitation, not enough food, disease, no healthcare, no rehab, beatings and killings from each other and the guards. Guantamano Bay, Black Dolphin, and so it goes...
This is an interesting idea. I have spent quite a bit of time working in the Pacific Rim, especially Singapore, where caning is often used.
Caning is done by trained experts on a man's (women may not be caned) naked ass. It's no joke; even after the minimum of 3 strokes, a guy is unlikely to walk away and I believe the maximum is 20, which would pretty much guarantee a month laying on your stomach.
Singapore is renowned for it's lack of crime. In my opinion, fear of the cane is one reason. I think it's definitely worth a try.
Ya know, I’m more for it after reading your framework.
Where I’d personally start is with ending the war on drugs and ensuring that incentives to put humans in prison were nonexistent. At that point I’d feel much more confident that someone in prison was actually guilty of a worthy crime against another human.
I’d also suggest that flogging need not be committed by another human, but by a well calibrated flogging machine. In my belief of humanity in a healthy society, the punisher doing the flogging is damaging their humanity as much as the criminal is getting hurt.
I’m also not willing to die on these hills, but greatly appreciate the prompt to think about them.
I like the idea of making it public. It's a pentinance for the offender and a reminder for everyone else. Right now prison is a out-of-sight-out-of-mind situation or, for those in that culture, a proving ground. Make it public, make it viceral, make it memoriable.
Prison is really screwed up though. Something to think about is that the ancient Isrealites didn't have prison. They had restitution, expulsion, and death... and no prison
I mean, you could offer someone the chance to renounce their US citizenship and be parachuted into the Congolese jungle with an AK-47, some food, and stuff. In the cannibal army's territory.
This is an interesting idea and worth considering as part of a larger project that doesn’t consider prison as the primary response to crime. I think it makes the most sense as 1 reform component, and with juveniles and young adults.
I have worked in prisons, mostly juvenile corrections, and it is very difficult to create positive change within the current system. It does help many kids, but also causes harm.
Anything that could help provide quicker, cheaper and less harmful alternatives is worth evaluating first as a pilot project. As noted already, we also need more restorative justice, reading and vocational programs, arts, yoga. (See prison yoga project,etc). All of this needs to be offered as quickly as possible to at risk youth as the initial phase.
Plus, the current (back end) mental health assessment after the kid is locked up functionally prevents the ideal treatment path, but as a psychiatrist I can tell you mental health treatment is not the most important option for the vast, vast majority.
Any new approach needs more flexibility, transparency and accountability.