This is quite a complicated and detailed subject: one that if done properly, would have to involve a lot points being made. The anti-CP (corporal, not capital) lobby has used extremely emotive arguments to favour a ban on it and as a result, the waters are muddier than the Thames or the Hudson. This being the case, let me explain a bit of my history with it.
I started school in 1983, four years before it was banned from government run schools in England. British public schools (a public school in Britain is actually one of the very topmost private, or independent schools, what you would call a public school we call a state school – long and very boring explanation), although world famous for their history of birching and caning, were actually among the first to phase it out. Most started getting rid of corporal punishment in the 1960’s and 70’s, and the state system didn’t follow suit until the early 80’s in any great quantity.
I didn’t witness corporal punishment being given to anyone else at school, nor was I ever given it, apart from one very minor occasion, which was very far from a formalised ritual, and which involved a large dictionary, not a cane anyway. (Two minor occasions if you include being hauled around a classroom by my hair, being told to improve my conduct all the way.)
My involvement with the subject started around 1989, when I was eleven. Our schools had dispensed with it in the legal sense two years ago and hadn’t used it practically for nearly a decade, for the most part.
I knew it had happened of course, mainly from tales from my parents, but hadn’t given it much thought or felt any interest in it.
I started thinking about it when I saw it depicted in a film, and from then one thought about it quite a lot.
I looked around at the problems I saw in school: the smoking; the bullying; the little shits telling teachers to fuck off and then following it with ‘Don’t touch me, I know my rights’ and thought, ‘I know this never used to happen.’
Quite frankly, I saw no fear of consequence for hoodlums in schools and came to the conclusion that detentions and suspensions were looked on as little more than minor inconveniences and wonderful extra school holidays respectively.
So never being one to do things by halves, I wrote a letter to the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher asking for it to be brought back.
Oh, the optimism of youth, eh?
Quite naturally, Mrs. Thatcher didn’t take a blind bit of notice. Indeed, I would be monumentally surprised if she even knew of my letter’s existence.
It was forwarded to some department of the gub’mint or other who sent me a very nice three page, mass-produced letter (a stack of which were kept in a filing cabinet somewhere labelled “replies to nutters”, probably) telling me to sod off and mind my own business, but thanking me for my concern.
It did give me five minutes of fame at my school though, which was kind of nice. Sadly, it also got me a shoeing off a group of older boys who knew they would have been the regular subjects of it should it ever have been bought back. Hey ho, the vagaries of life.
Two or three years later I did it again, this time to John Major, who was probably too busy shagging Edwina Currie to take any notice.
Got another nice letter though, different only in the respect of it saying “Mr. Major thanks you for your concern” instead of “Mrs. Thatcher thanks you for your concern”. Did Maggie ever actually thank anyone apart from Ronald Regan?
So, to the details of the debate...
I remain to this day, a proponent of the use of reasonable corporal punishment both in the home and at school.
But what is reasonable? What is justifiable?
For completely different reasons (No, not those reasons! Get your mind out of the gutter!), I have recently been researching this subject and handily have a few good points to make.
During the course of this research, I found, rather to my surprise (although knowing America, it probably shouldn’t have been a surprise), that America alone of all the industrialised nations, continues to practice CP in schools. Whilst studying this, I found a few rather disturbing things...
According to the various articles I was reading, such practice was often referred to as “paddling”, which apparently had something to do with the implement used.
‘Oh this is interesting’ I thought, ‘What is a paddle exactly?’
I quickly found an image of said implement and my reaction was, ‘Jesus Christ in a queue at a fucking brothel, that’s a fucking cricket bat!’
Looking at this thing, the first thought that came to mind was that this, with just the tiniest misjudgement by the user, could do serious damage, especially to a female.
Right on cue, I found a story about a girl of 17 who had been paddled (only one stroke) recently who had subsequently suffered vaginal bleeding for about three weeks as a result.
I think this girl was also the one who was simultaneously thrown off her cheerleading squad for the offence, which in my opinion was totally wrong.
Her offence (smoking at school) was one I consider bad enough to justify CP, but I think being paddled was enough. If she had refused to submit to it, then I could understand such a sanction, but doubling it with CP was in my opinion, too severe.
This incident confirmed my opinion that a “paddle” was too wide and carried too much penetrating kinetic force, created too much of a shock wave in the flesh, to be a suitable implement for CP.
As I read further, I started to see other things that concerned me deeply about the practice in the US. Paddlings were being handed out, in this day and age for such heinous offences as: chewing gum, public displays of affection; having a mobile phone (not using it) on the offender’s lap instead of in a bag; talking during a lesson and so on.
This is the sort of offence that I would punish, were I a teacher, with a verbal reprimand followed by a trip to the headteacher’s (principal’s) office. But these went right to CP!
This sort of thing is the material which gives the anti-CP lobby plentiful ammunition for emotive campaigning. This is the sort of thing which “debases the currency” of CP and, most importantly of all, it’s the sort of thing that can have a profoundly negative effect on the subject.
Chewing gum? A public display of affection? Bugger me; did anyone have a sense of proportion here? Presumably not.
What would be the result of swearing at a teacher or taking drugs? Life without parole? Force-feeding with sheep dip? A public stoning? Jehovah, Jehovah, JEHOVAAAAAAHHHHH!!! (Always look on the bright side of life, tee tum, tee tum, tee tum tee tum tee tum!)
So what would be my alternative? Hmmm...
The cane as administered at English schools, would, if done on the palm of the hand, result in a red and white wheal with a raised centre that would have faded within about twenty four hours.
If done across the backside (usually with more force, as the hand canings were softer so bones would be broken and were done with a different action that didn’t let the momentum build up) the resulting purple and scarlet bruising stayed on the victim for two to three weeks and usually fade from agony to tingling within one to two hours.
The cane carries very little penetrating force at all, spending all its power on the surface. Certainly I don’t imagine that any caning bar the fabled “Eton Pop tanning” could have produced the sort of injuries that that American girl suffered as a result of her paddling, which was done, according to the mother, by the male principal (another thing I object to – a male teacher inflicting it on a female pupil, especially one who is as old as this one was), with both hands and with an action somewhat resembling a golf swing, delivering enough force with the first shot to throw her nearly over the top of the desk she was bent over. Lack of proportion again?
Another possible alternative is what was popularly referred to as “slippering”, and a proviso of British state schools, rather than public or private ones.
This was something of a misnomer, as it was actually done with the sole of a large gym shoe with the top cut away. Stung like a bastard, but being rubber, didn’t injure. Probably not the equal of the cane in terms of pain, but affected a wider area and didn’t mark the skin as much.
Of course, one must consider the “target” audience and the effect it would produce. You have to do this, because you have to ask yourself what you would be trying to achieve if you wanted it brought back.
Back when the fight to get it outlawed here was reaching its conclusion, several proponents of CP uttered the utterly shite line that it was, ‘The last resort’.
Bollocks.
Blatant untruths like that, easily revealed untruths at that, gave the anti lobby more ammunition than a break-in at Fort Bragg (or Stirling Lines, if you’re British) could’ve done.
It was very often the first resort and, in my opinion, if the offence is more than a piddlingly trivial one, that is not unreasonable.
You can safely assume that if a situation has reached the point where a “last resort” is even necessary, then nothing short of self interest is going to correct the miscreant’s behaviour.
So here’s a thought...
Disruption usually has a ringleader. That ringleader is, in my experience, (which was pretty horrific at school – I would have at least four Purple Hearts) beyond correction and will very often go on to lead an adult similar life to the one they did as a child.
That ringleader, no matter how bad they may be, can achieve only so much on their own. The bulk of their influence on a class or school lies in their followers. Hitler, evil mass-murdering numpty-bollock that he was, would have achieved nothing more than public derision if most of the people at his rallies had pissed themselves laughing at the nonsense he was saying.
CP would very likely act as nothing more than an antagonism to said ringleader. So get rid of them. Expel them from school and if necessary, detain them in a correctional centre for minors. That isn’t to say that CP wouldn’t be appropriate for them at an earlier stage, perhaps it would turn them away from disruption before they get to ringleader status?
CP however, act as a very effective deterrent for the majority of the gang-members who follow them around, giggle behind their hands and then go on to spread mischief in their own way. The moment one of them steps out of sufficient line... well, you know the rest.
Such opponents of physical chastisement are often quick to point out that it is used too often, for too trivial an offence and administered with too much severity. They say such a thing is not punishment at all, but child abuse.
I say, fucking right. It is and you are totally correct. The people in such instances should face criminal charges, let alone dismissal from their posts, or even a reprimand.
I however, am equally quick to point out that this is not corporal punishment or even correction. This is idiocy and an act of bullying.
For corporal punishment to be truly punishment and not some adult with no imagination’s way of letting off steam, it must be done cold-bloodedly.
Of course, we normally assume that “cold-blooded” is something negative, but in this case, it is decidedly no such thing. To administer physical punishment while the blood is singing in your ears and your anger is roused is fucking dangerous, both to the deliverer and the subject.
So far as I am concerned, there needs to be time between the offence and the punishment. There needs to be a period of calm and rational thought, on both sides. This will prevent, in 99% of cases (yes, I did just pluck that figure out of thin air, so please don’t bother asking me to cite a reference for it) both overly severe punishment and trivial wrongs being punished with CP.
Obviously there are occasions when corporal punishment has “escalated” into abuse or battery, but that is insufficient information to suggest there is a causal relationship between the two.
Indeed, many years after corporal punishment of all kinds, including parental within the home, was abolished in Sweden, a study in that country revealed that physical abuse toward children was as widespread there as it is in America, where it is extremely widespread both at home an in schools, helped by the religious lobby.
Another argument is that corporal punishment is “degrading”. I don’t fully understand this, and the definition seems to be very loose. All punishment, to some degree, causes discomfiture, embarrassment or shame to the receiver.
I assume degrading in this sense to mean something that causes such a blow to the ego, the sense of self, that it causes severe emotional harm to the recipient. In the instance of corporal punishment, I would say a public flogging, being caned in front of the whole school in the assembly hall for instance (such as was rarely done for extremely severe offences), would be degrading. In the same breath I would say that forcing the recipient of CP to lower their trousers and underpants and take it on the bare bottom, would be degrading and thoroughly unacceptable.
A caning/slippering on the hand or the backside in the privacy of the headteacher or head of house’s office however? No, I wouldn’t call that degrading, not even if the victim of the miscreant, such as in a case of bullying, were present to see justice done.
Is corporal punishment psychologically damaging? Are we turning out the drug abusers, alcoholics, wife beaters and bank robbers of the future, if we chastise children?
To give what is pretty much my view, I shall quote David Benetar of Cape Town University...
Although there is evidence that excessive corporal punishment can significantly increase the chances of such psychological harm, most of the psychological data are woefully inadequate to the task of demonstrating that mild and infrequent corporal punishment has such consequences. One opponent of corporal punishment who has provided data on even mild and infrequent physical chastisement is Murray Straus.10 His research, which is much more sophisticated than most earlier investigations into corporal punishment, does lend support to the view that even infrequent noninjurious corporal punishment can increase one's chances of being depressed. However, for two reasons this research is inadequate to the task of demonstrating that mild corporal punishment is wrong. First, the studies are not conclusive. The main methodological problem is that the studies are not experiments but post facto investigations based on self-reports.11 Murray Straus recognizes this12 but nevertheless thinks that the studies are compelling. The second point is that even if Professor Straus's findings are valid, the nature of the data is insufficiently marked to justify a moral condemnation of mild and infrequent corporal punishment. For instance, the increase of depression, according to his study, is not substantial for rare physical punishment. The increments on his Mean Symptoms Index of depression are only slight for one or two instances of corporal punishment during one's teen years. The increments are somewhat more substantial for three to nineteen incidents of corporal punishment but, surprisingly, for twenty to twenty-nine incidents the Mean Symptoms Index falls again nearly to the level of two episodes of corporal punishment.13 The chances of having suicidal thoughts, according to this study, decreases marginally with one incident of corporal punishment during adolescence, then rises slightly for three to five episodes of corporal punishment. For ten to nineteen instances of physical punishment the likelihood of having suicidal thoughts is approximately the same as it is for those who are not beaten at all during adolescence. The probability increases markedly for more than twenty-nine episodes of physical punishment during one's teens,14 as one would expect when many beatings are administered. Professor Straus does not provide data about how physical punishment during (preteen) childhood affects the likelihood of depression, which would have been interesting given that one might expect corporal punishment to be psychologically more damaging to adolescents than to younger children.
Given that even the data suggesting that very rare instances of mild corporal punishment do have some negative effects also suggest that the effects are not substantial, there is a strong likelihood that they could be overridden by other considerations in a consequentialist calculation. In other words, showing some negative effects is not sufficient to make a consequentialist case against all corporal punishment. Other considerations, including possible advantages of corporal punishment, would have to be taken into account. Moreover, because the available evidence shows no serious harm from mild and infrequent corporal punishment, there seem to be poor grounds for suggesting that for retributivists the punishment should be regarded as unacceptably severe.
A further argument I hear from the especially vocal anti-CP brigade, is that it teaches children that violence is the way to resolve issues.
I say… cobblers.
Authority always has, and has always had, the power to do things to private people that they don’t have the right to do to each other. Would an after school detention or imprisonment teach a person that kidnapping someone and holding them against their will was the way to resolve an issue? Would confiscating an item or a fine teach a person that stealing something off of someone who had pissed them off was the way to resolve an issue? Of course it wouldn’t! Authority, be it a government, a parent, a school or a court is very different to an interpersonal relationship and everyone of sound minds must realise that.
To quote Benetar again…
The objection takes too crude a view of human psychology and the message that punishment can impart. There is all the difference in the world between legitimate authorities -- the judiciary, parents, or teachers -- using punitive powers responsibly to punish wrongdoing, and children or private citizens going around beating each other, locking each other up, and extracting financial tributes (such as lunch money). There is a vast moral difference here and there is no reason why children should not learn about it. Punishing children when they do wrong seems to be one important way of doing this. To suggest that children and others cannot extract this message, but only the cruder version that the objection suggests, is to underestimate the expressive function of punishment and people's ability to comprehend it.
Nuff said.
And what about the argument that says CP does not deter? That it doesn’t prevent future wrongdoing? Would someone who is anti-CP seriously tell me that counseling, a lunchtime detention, a verbal reprimand and so on should therefore be equally abandoned? Ask any average kid, not a kingpin troublemaker as discussed above, which they’d rather have, a session of counceling, a verbal reprimand or six of the best. You could ask me which I’d have dreaded most when I was a kid and which one would have deterred me from doing whatever misdemeanor!
Well, that’s me for now (Stop cheering at the back there!) No doubt there’ll be other discussions, one of which is the Hand Vs. Implement idea, which would of course be mainly of interest between pro-CP people, but we can leave that for later.
