Caning - is it too barbaric?
- Thread starter UncleFai
- Start date
Sion
Senior Member
But the Japs committed the biggest crime against humanity themselves.
Caning and hanging may be wrong. But dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was right. Correct?
Bukitimah
Senior Member
Not that extreme as to cut hand lah. Of course in a chaotic environment, it calls for.drastic measures. To expect people do.cause harm to.others and be pardon without panishment, ask yourself you can accept first before suggesting.
Sion
Senior Member
Cut hands is small matter to the Japs. Yakuza routinely cut their little fingers.
nitewalk
Senior Member
Actually, if you put it that way, then we can basically implement any law. For example we say it is barbaric to chop one's hand off for stealing. You could also argue, by your logic, that if you don't steal your hands won't be chopped off. Essentially, any law can be implemented based on such a logic hence this is quite a dangerous way to put it. So barbaric or not, is relative to where you stand. We see the law to chop hands off as barbaric, do we want to examine ourselves whether that is also why some feels that caning is barbaric?
As far as i know, i can take an example, Hong Kong's prison department is called Correctional Service. I guess their philosophy is pretty much spelt out. Their idea is to help offenders rehab so that they can establish themselves in the society after release. I must say this idea kinda buy in with me.
Last edited:
Yutaka Go
Senior Member
nitewalk
Senior Member
I think you just repeated the point i have responded to. This is dangerous because if this is the thinking basically we can implement ANY law and say that "oh you won't suffer that if you don't do wrong". The mere existence of a law that sentences a thief to have his hands cut off isn't exactly a civilised thing right?
The fact that a person deserves consequence for wrongdoings does not mean he deserves anything done to him. And to say that he deserve it because "you know then you still do" is something some elders like to serve the younger generation with and then we continue to propagate this logic.
Last edited:
Emperor Kangxi (Manchu) told his minister (of Han descent), the miles and miles of the Great Wall can't stop the Mongols from raiding our borders every summer. The minister replied, without the Great Wall, the Mongols will be invading the capital city every season. Kangxi, being one of the wisest and most successful emperor in Chinese history, had to agreed.
Likewise, without a harsh punishment, number of violent crimes will be even higher.
Last edited:
hanzohattori
Senior Member
Those who oppose capital punishment saying its ineffective, can compare singapore statistics against other countries..
junction88
New Member
Just look at India & China you will get answer
Sion
Senior Member
Yutaka Go
Senior Member
The law is ineffective because the law enforcer is ineffective.
capital punishment can surely bring down crime if the police are extremely good at catching criminals and conviction rates at the court are high.
Based on FBI statistic, the conviction rates in USA is only 28%. That means either the police catch the wrong guy or the criminals hired very good lawyers.
Countries with low crime rate like Japan, HK and SG have very high conviction rates. This show the effectiveness of the police force in these countries.
Statistics will only show results in numbers but will not show the contributing factors. But this is the essential part to understand the figures.
And you want to keep these Japanese style? Remember: whatever you want to law to be, you must be prepared to accept it if used on yourself.
My question is a question into the future, not about what happened in the past.
My simple analysis:
Running a country is like running a home.
At home, the parents hang the cane on the wall of living room. The kids see it everyday. The parents don't use it everyday. It's just hanging on the wall. Though the parents don't use it everyday, but the kids will think twice of doing something naughty because the cane is there.
That's the way to keep law and order of the home as well as in the country.
The law of caning and death penalty must be there.
But the judges don't have to implement them on every case. But the potential criminals know the laws are there and the judges will use it on them. And they will think twice about doing something wrong.
So what's the excuse that the criminals have when they are hauled to the courts?
Who says capital punishment is against human rights? The justice system already state the penalties for respective crimes. Everyone, from students to the old, knows the law and punishment. So if criminals do the crime, they get the stated punishment. Nothing against the human rights. Not as if the judge gave a surprise punishment that is not in the books.
Running a country is like running a home.
At home, the parents hang the cane on the wall of living room. The kids see it everyday. The parents don't use it everyday. It's just hanging on the wall. Though the parents don't use it everyday, but the kids will think twice of doing something naughty because the cane is there.
That's the way to keep law and order of the home as well as in the country.
The law of caning and death penalty must be there.
But the judges don't have to implement them on every case. But the potential criminals know the laws are there and the judges will use it on them. And they will think twice about doing something wrong.
So what's the excuse that the criminals have when they are hauled to the courts?
Who says capital punishment is against human rights? The justice system already state the penalties for respective crimes. Everyone, from students to the old, knows the law and punishment. So if criminals do the crime, they get the stated punishment. Nothing against the human rights. Not as if the judge gave a surprise punishment that is not in the books.
nitewalk
Senior Member
So if it is stated in the law that a thief will have his hands cut off, and everyone knows the punishment, the criminals get the punishment, it is not against human rights and is acceptable to you? I'm trying to follow your logic.
Whether the punishment is a "surprise" does not have to do with civility of punishment. I think it is quite a given that the punishment shouldn't and wouldn't be a surprise. Otherwise, we would be debating on the fundamental need for law and constitution, if indeed the punishment dished out is a "surprise". I don't think it even requires a discussion whether it being a surprise or not leads to whether it is a civilised law.
You see, the fundamental premise of your argument lies with the parenting tactics which aims to deter than to educate. If indeed, the consequence of doing something wrong at home, is to be caned, i have difficulty seeing how it is a logical consequence. Then if the child does not see the consequence of his actions beyond being caned into obedience, simply you are just complying and not making a moral decision that what is done is wrong. The child would not see why his action may have an adverse consequence for others or that it is morally wrong. I wonder how many parents would actually use reasoning to explain to the child his or her wrongdoings.
The aim of corrective philosophy towards punishment in law, aims to help criminals, some of which may not have the skills to secure a job, even if given a second chance. Imagine being jailed for 10 years. 10 years ago how was singapore like, what has changed, how many new jobs were created? And if they knew they would be caned and still do it, what then is the problem?
Last edited:
Yutaka Go
Senior Member
In the Confucian world view, rule of law is applied only to those who have fallen beyond the bounds of civilized behavior.
Civilized people are expected to observe proper rites. Only social outcasts are expected to have their actions controlled by law.
Thus the rule of law is considered a state of barbaric primitiveness, prior to achieving the civilized state of voluntary observation of proper rites. What is legal is not necessarily moral or just.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_law
Civilized people are expected to observe proper rites. Only social outcasts are expected to have their actions controlled by law.
Thus the rule of law is considered a state of barbaric primitiveness, prior to achieving the civilized state of voluntary observation of proper rites. What is legal is not necessarily moral or just.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_law
hanzohattori
Senior Member
Well if one premise is wrong, doesn't mean others is also wrong. I think some people simply cannot be dealt with in a civilized manner
Similar threads
