DOES FLOGGING DETER?

Marlborough Express, Volume XLII, Issue 138, 12 June 1908, Page 6

DOES FLOGGING DETER?

(By Jabez Balfour.) Recent sentences of corporal punishment for crimes of violence have not only attracted a good deal of comment, but have revived, as was inevitable, the well-worn controversy as to the expediency and humanity of any such method. Many excellent persons have been stirred to protest vehemently against these sentences. The use of the "cat" has been denounced as a relic of barbarism equally degrading to the coun-

try which adopts it and the unhappy men upon whom1 it is inflicted. Other, and perhaps sterner, minds have defended it as one of the few effectual weapons which society still retains for its.defence against the savage brutality of the worst class of criminals. It is hopeless to expect that either party will ever convert or convince the other. They look at the subject from totally different points of view. One side apparently thinks most about the criminal, the other side most about the crime. It seems to be forgotten by both parties that corporal punishment has always been, and is still, inflicted in I our gaols. Let us see how it works I there, and extract from that experiI ence some notion of its effect as a deterrent. If we find that it does deter when inflicted in prison, we may reasonably assume that it will have_ the same effect when inflicted on precisely similar offences. FOR HARDENED CRIMINALS. Then are .those conditions of life among the class of criminals who resort to crimes of violence sufficiently realised? Can they be by any but those who know them by actual acquaintance? Of course, I am not speaking of all, or even of the majority of habitual criminals. Among forgers, "long-firm men," and even burglars, there are, strange to say, many men who never resort to violence. But there is a small, yet distinct, type of offenders who are swayed only by their passion, who defy all the decencies of social life, who submit to no control or restraint but force, and who are as dangerous as the most ferocious savages—more dangerous, in fact, jfor , they have learnt how to use the re- ' sources of civilisation against its laws and their guardians. It is a dreadful thing to be brought into <even casual contact with these men. A decent-minded man-—criminal though he be—shuns them instinctively, and thus they consort only with their own fellows in abomination. Now it is among such men that the * prison warder spends his- life, and it 1 is to the credit of the service that he * is so little contaminated by such surroundings. It is no exaggeration to say that many prison warders who are in charge of parties where the most violent prisoners are employed take their lives in their hands every day they go on duty. They have to watch, curb, rebuke, restrain men whom all check and all restraint as once inflame and infuriate. As a result, the prison warder is exposed at time ,to assaults of the most brutal violence. Heavy stones are hurled at him, he is knocked down and kicked about like a football, he is suddenly smitten by a hammer or some other heavy weapon. Now, how are the perpetrators of such outrages to be dealt with? I ask this specifically of the opponents of the "cat." How can a man be adequately punished who may be actually undergoing a life sentence for some brutal and murderous crime? The ordinary methods of punishment are already exhausted. Bread and water, isolation, the loss of certain privileges are mere trifles, to such a man. When the lawhas deprived him of bis liberty, restricted him in his diet, and shut him up for more than twelve hours a day in a cell, what is left for authority to do? There is nothing but the "cat." Much is talked about its degradation as a puishment. No doubt it is degrading to a man who is not yet degraded, but these men are beneath all degradation. They have already degraded themselves to a lower depth . than any outside power can degrade them. THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION. The question remains: Does corporal punishment deter? If it does not, it is needless to persevere with it. But my \ own personal observation convinces me that it does. V ~ There was a man at Parkhurst—l grieve to say an educated man—who had been many times a prisoner. He was deliberately at.war with society, and he carried on the warfare inside the prison walls with much the same [ venom as he had done outside. I myself saw him leap suddenly upon an officer's back and batter his head and ' f j face. The officer was rescued with ' '■!, difficulty. The offender was tried be- ! +-fore fhe^Biagisti^ates^ »and sentenced to 'i be flogged. The sentence was conj firmed .and carried out. . Aftei\ a short time the prisoner returned to his ordinary work apparently none the worse for his ordeal. He assumed a jaunty air. The suffering he had undergone did not appear to have chang■ed his disposition. He was as quarrelsome and vindictive as ever, but ■ though he often talked of violence he * never again attempted it. Fear, the 1 fear of acute physical suffering, and ' that alone, kept him henceforth with•in some bounds. At one time or an- ■ other before he was flogged he had : undergone every form of prison pun- : ishment, and all without effect. The ■ 1 "cat" alone proved successful. . How can the State safely deprive ' . itself of the right to avail itself of such a deterrent in such cases? Unhappily, the cases are not rare. Now, apply, as we may justly do, this experience to cowardly crimes of violence, upon helpless and unoffend- ■| ing women and children, and lonely i wayfarers. If the "cat" deters, as we have seen it does deter, the brutal hardened and deliberate criminal, will it not have the same effect on .precisely the same type of ruffian who ( may never yet have found himself in prison, but who is graduating in the j same kind of crime P ! The man who commits such offences is nearly always a physical coward. The prospect of imprisonment has often no terrors for nim. It means in many cases better food and much less work than await him in freedom. It will never restrain his evil passions —his cruelty, his lust, his envy, his revenge. Physical, pain is the only thing he really dreads. He is as keen to avoid it in his own person as he is indifferent to inflicting it upon others. It is, I confess, with sorrow, the last resort of society in its own defence. It should only be used as j such, sparingly, reluctantly, excep- , tionally, but to dispense with it altogether is to capitulate to the worst arid most degraded elements of human , nature. —Daily Mail. I'l- .