Brutalised Already.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 867, 12 October 1888, Page 27

Brutalised Already.

During the recent session of the Supreme Court one prisoner was sentenced to two floggings, and in another case th e question—whether that punishment should be inflicted—was referred to the jury, as provided for by statute in that particular instance, the jury deciding against the infliction of flogging. These incidents have produced a revival of the well-worn protests agaiust corporal punishment, supported by the equally well-worn and ott-refuted arguments. We are told that the lash “ brutalises ” and “ degrades ” those subjected to it. Let us distinguish here. It would very likely brutalise, as it would assuredly degrade, an innocent person exposed to the infliction on a false accusation. But : surely the case is totally different with regard to a prisoner justly convicted of an atrocious offence. Is it not absurd to talk about “ brutalising ’* the sort of criminal that renders himself liable to the lash ? Must he not be utterly brutalised already before he could commit the crime which carried with it such a sentence ? It seems to us this is a perfectly iale fear. The ‘sort of men who come under the lash will never be brutalised by that. They are brutes already to all intents and purposes, and the lash will only exercise toward them the useful influence which it is required to exercise, and does in the case of the brute creation —that of wholesome fear. In these cases of-vile and loathsome crimes, and also in those of aggravated assaults ana other offences agaiust the person, the lash is the only adequate remedy. It is virtually lex talionis: he who inflicts on another personal injury or pain should be punished by the infliction of bodily pain on himself. No man need be flogged unless he likes. He has only to abstain irom injuring other persons, and then,

bis own skin will not suffer. If bo chooses to injure others, then it must be assumed that he is prepared to *teubmit to the penalty. We regret that the Legislature has not yet extended the puuiahment of the lash to all cases of violent assault. Ex-Judge "Weston introduced a Bill, going some distance in that direction, some years ago, but failed to carry it. On that occasion Sir George Grey used as a strong argument against the Bill the pathetic fact that a man who had been > flogged for brutality to bis wife could never take off his shirt and shew his back to their children because of the scars left by the “ cat.” We confess we have never been able to see the force of that argument. We do not see why a father need show his back to his children at all. They would be just as happy without seeing it, and the pleasure he would derive from exhibiting it could hardly be very intense. Beside, even if it were, that deprivation would have to be part of the punishment he had justly incurred by his brutality. The opponents of corporal punishment always ignore the real question at issue. They talk of the lash “ degrading ” a man. Is it the lash which degrades him, or the crime for which the lash is applied ? Supposing he had been scourged as a martyr or a patriot, would he then be ashamed of his scars ? Would he not, on the contrary, regard them as his proudest, noblest decoration, and .be inclined to wear a pane of glass in the bade of his coat and shirt so as to display, his blushing honours to an admiring world ? Of course he would ! It is not the lash that degrades the flogged criminal, but the infamous crime of which it has been the due punishment. It is because he is flogged for a vile offence that he feels justly degraded ; the punishment has merely put a proper stamp upon the crime.