Hungry Ojos said:

---

My only hang up to legal caning would be fear of the left regaining control and unlawfully wielding it against political enemies for the slightest, or even made up infractions.

Because they absolutely would.

---

ding ding ding.

agsalaska said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

We don't need to be canning people in the US.

We have a constitution that protects us from cruel and u usual punishment. That absolutely falls in that category.

Supporting that stuff is not right wing or hard right or conservative. It is just nonsense. I find it very unfortunate that people that support this kind of **** tend to align themselves with Republicans

---

We are a weak society and how we have devolved is proof that the status quo is not working. If we fix our culture, then you would have a point but our government is so big and essentially thrives off of a degrading culture.

---

Just know that you are no better than a Democrat who also wants to throw out the constitution.

Sad what has happened to some of yall.

---

Lighten up Francis from your ivory tower.

You want the status quo of no improvement but at least no ones backside gets scarred. That very "timeout" instead of spanking mindset is exactly what has made our society so weak.

I want our culture to improve and if means harsh criminals get the rod then so be it.

---

At no point did I say I wanted the status quo. Now you are just putting words in my mouth. You can do better than that.

---

Conservative is about preserving culture in a sense, ultimately through government and personal responsibility. Libertarianism or Constitutionalism is about preserving limited government as the Constitution was originally intended.

Increased punishment for criminals as a means of preserving culture absolutely does align with conservativism, but would deviate from Libertarianism and Constitutionalism.

Maybe that's the difference in what you were referring to in your initial post before you jumped on all of us degenerates.... I don't mean to poke, but you did come out swinging right out of the gate .

TheWoodlandsTxAg said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

We don't need to be canning people in the US.

We have a constitution that protects us from cruel and u usual punishment. That absolutely falls in that category.

Supporting that stuff is not right wing or hard right or conservative. It is just nonsense. I find it very unfortunate that people that support this kind of **** tend to align themselves with Republicans

---

I find it very unfortunate that this type of violent crime happens to innocent hard working law abiding people in our country. I guess you don't care about them. I encourage you to watch the video in the second link all the way through.

On Sept. 11 in Tupelo, Miss., an armed black male robbed a food mart. The store clerk, Parmvir Singh, was compliant & opened the safe. He sat on the ground & was executed.

Chris Copeland, who has convictions for multiple violent felonies, has been charged with capital murder. pic.twitter.com/9jbCbLl05I

— Andy Ngo 🏳️‍🌈 (@MrAndyNgo) September 16, 2022

https://usacrime.com/man-charged-capital-murder-fatally-shooting-tupelo-store-clerk/

I find it unfortunate that people that support any kind of policy that allows this kind of stuff to happen in the richest and most powerful country in human history would ever align themselves with Republicans.

The only reason the United States has a 40 times higher murder rate than Japan, despite being 9 times less densely populated, is because our government allow it through soft on crime policies. Yes 40 times the murder rate. Not 40 percent more, but 40 times more.

Japan and Singapore are safe, clean, and beautiful.

---

This is just as dense as it gets. Not supporting canning does not mean supporting the current status quo.

Again, the kind of logic that is hard to argue with.

Tea Party said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

We don't need to be canning people in the US.

We have a constitution that protects us from cruel and u usual punishment. That absolutely falls in that category.

Supporting that stuff is not right wing or hard right or conservative. It is just nonsense. I find it very unfortunate that people that support this kind of **** tend to align themselves with Republicans

---

We are a weak society and how we have devolved is proof that the status quo is not working. If we fix our culture, then you would have a point but our government is so big and essentially thrives off of a degrading culture.

---

Just know that you are no better than a Democrat who also wants to throw out the constitution.

Sad what has happened to some of yall.

---

Lighten up Francis from your ivory tower.

You want the status quo of no improvement but at least no ones backside gets scarred. That very "timeout" instead of spanking mindset is exactly what has made our society so weak.

I want our culture to improve and if means harsh criminals get the rod then so be it.

---

At no point did I say I wanted the status quo. Now you are just putting words in my mouth. You can do better than that.

---

Conservative is about preserving culture in a sense, ultimately through government and personal responsibility. Libertarianism or Constitutionalism is about preserving limited government as the Constitution was originally intended.

Increased punishment for criminals as a means of preserving culture absolutely does align with conservativism, but would deviate from Libertarianism and Constitutionalism.

Maybe that's the difference in what you were referring to in your initial post before you jumped on all of us degenerates.... I don't mean to poke, but you did come out swinging right out of the gate .

---

Fair. But respecting the constitution is a must. And beating people with canes is just not an acceptable punishment in the US. There are plenty of other answers to the problems that we have. We do not have to tear up the constitution to do it. That's how Democrats think. That was my point.

I'm not necessarily pro caning, but if you've never visited Singapore and Malaysia, where they are relatively strict, and then visited basically all of the places around them, it's a shocking difference. To paraphrase Chris Rock - I'm not SAYING we should be caning, but we should be caning.

I think the type of crime needs to be answered in kind. Someone who does pre-meditated physical harm to others needs physical harm done to them in return. They can either learn from it or learn to fear the punishment.

Other crimes - like financial crimes, crimes due to negligence, etc I'm fine with prison time. That's actually a worse penalty to someone who is not used to a life of hard crime.

agsalaska said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

We don't need to be canning people in the US.

We have a constitution that protects us from cruel and u usual punishment. That absolutely falls in that category.

Supporting that stuff is not right wing or hard right or conservative. It is just nonsense. I find it very unfortunate that people that support this kind of **** tend to align themselves with Republicans

---

We are a weak society and how we have devolved is proof that the status quo is not working. If we fix our culture, then you would have a point but our government is so big and essentially thrives off of a degrading culture.

---

Just know that you are no better than a Democrat who also wants to throw out the constitution.

Sad what has happened to some of yall.

---

Lighten up Francis from your ivory tower.

You want the status quo of no improvement but at least no ones backside gets scarred. That very "timeout" instead of spanking mindset is exactly what has made our society so weak.

I want our culture to improve and if means harsh criminals get the rod then so be it.

---

At no point did I say I wanted the status quo. Now you are just putting words in my mouth. You can do better than that.

---

Conservative is about preserving culture in a sense, ultimately through government and personal responsibility. Libertarianism or Constitutionalism is about preserving limited government as the Constitution was originally intended.

Increased punishment for criminals as a means of preserving culture absolutely does align with conservativism, but would deviate from Libertarianism and Constitutionalism.

Maybe that's the difference in what you were referring to in your initial post before you jumped on all of us degenerates.... I don't mean to poke, but you did come out swinging right out of the gate .

---

Fair. But respecting the constitution is a must. And beating people with canes is just not an acceptable punishment in the US. There are plenty of other answers to the problems that we have. We do not have to tear up the constitution to do it. That's how Democrats think. That was my point.

---

If a majority of people agree that caning (as an example) is not cruel and unusual...is it really cruel and unusual? Or do you get to define that?

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

I'm looking forward to the post calling someone defending the constitution a concerned moderate.

---

What's cruel and unusual?

At the time of the writing of the constitution, hanging was a common method used for the death penalty. Shoot, the guillotine in France was designed as a "less cruel" version of beheading.

We've gone from public hangings to being afraid that a death row inmate may feel a little pain from the lethal injection drugs.

So I ask again...what's cruel and unusual?

Is solitary confinement cruel and unusual?

Is locking someone up with other hardened criminals cruel and unusual?

---

My community college poli sci instructor said the key was cruel AND unusual. Punishment for a crime is by definition cruel, else it wouldn't be punishment. It just can't be unusual. Caning would probably be classified as unusual in this country,

We've gotten so soft that they aren't even allowed to take the local prisoners out, where I live, to pick up trash on the highways anymore. The highways around here used to be pretty clean with the prisoners picking up trash regularly and the highway department following afterwards shredding. Now the highway department just shreds twice a year without picking up the trash and our local highways look like crap. What i heard is that it was some BS about it being cruel having prisoners picking up trash out in the heat.

More freedom means less security. More security means less freedom.

Take your pick.

agsalaska said:

---

We don't need to be canning people in the US.

We have a constitution that protects us from cruel and u usual punishment. That absolutely falls in that category.

Supporting that stuff is not right wing or hard right or conservative. It is just nonsense. I find it very unfortunate that people that support this kind of **** tend to align themselves with Republicans

---

I don't think it goes far enough...

Rapists and Child Predators should have their reproductives forfeited, as they are a liability to society (and future gene pools / progeny). Further, people want exceptions for rape on abortions, go to the source and prevent the rape in the first place (disincentive for rape and no chance for repeat offenders if they don't have their tackle).

Drug Dealers sell death to society. They should consume their wares.

Murderers (epecially those that are caught provably, red-handed, or confess) should get immediate death penalty to be carried out within 1 month.

Arsonists should be burned at the stake.

Aggravated assault, felony assault, wife-beaters should be caned publicly.

agsalaska said:

---

Supporting cruel and unusual punishment makes you no better than a progressive who wants to eliminate the electoral college. It is a founding principal of this country.

If you don't like the current system fix it. I agree. What we do now is a waist of time. But let's not rip up the constitution in the process.

---

"Waist" of time...

Cruel and Unusual is relative. I would consider torture and a long drawn out dispensement of justice (like waiting 20-30 years to be put to death) cruel and unusual.

Corporal Punishment is justified, swift, proven to work, a good deterrent, and common sense.

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

More freedom means less security. More security means less freedom.

Take your pick.

---

How is this relevant to the conversation?

Caning someone as punishment for committing a crime doesn't make me less free but it may provide me more security.

I don't get your point.

agsalaska said:

---

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

I'm looking forward to the post calling someone defending the constitution a concerned moderate.

---

What's cruel and unusual?

At the time of the writing of the constitution, hanging was a common method used for the death penalty. Shoot, the guillotine in France was designed as a "less cruel" version of beheading.

We've gone from public hangings to being afraid that a death row inmate may feel a little pain from the lethal injection drugs.

So I ask again...what's cruel and unusual?

Is solitary confinement cruel and unusual?

Is locking someone up with other hardened criminals cruel and unusual?

---

There an endless amount of literature and court decisions around what is and is not considered cruel and unusual in the US. For the most part physical punishments(canning) is considered cruel, while psychological punishmen(isolation) is sometimes not considered cruel. It is also generally considered an individual punishment, not collective.

Yes some things have changed since the founders but the basic principles have not.

I suggest anyone who is truly interested in it should do some further reading on the subject.

---

It's completely subjective, regardless of who is doing the assessment. What wasn't, now is, and can become OK again in the future.

I don't need to read on it because the argument is completely specious.

Urban Ag said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

More freedom means less security. More security means less freedom.

Take your pick.

---

How is this relevant to the conversation?


Caning someone as punishment for committing a crime doesn't make me less free but it may provide me more security.

I don't get your point.

---

Your handing over to the government the decision to whether or not you are tied to a rack with you pants pulled down to your ankles and beaten on the ass with a cane… all for spitting gum on the sidewalk.

But yeah, that doesn't make you less free. For a bunch of people who claim to despise government intervention in their lives it's hilarious to see them be cheerleaders for this level of government over reach. Then again, it's not as if hypocrisy is a rare creature on F16.

agsalaska said:

---

We don't need to be canning people in the US.

We have a constitution that protects us from cruel and u usual punishment. That absolutely falls in that category.

Supporting that stuff is not right wing or hard right or conservative. It is just nonsense. I find it very unfortunate that people that support this kind of **** tend to align themselves with Republicans

---

I see you support the status quo. Taking a few licks is not cruel and unusual.

agsalaska said:

---

Supporting cruel and unusual punishment makes you no better than a progressive who wants to eliminate the electoral college. It is a founding principal of this country.

If you don't like the current system fix it. I agree. What we do now is a waist of time. But let's not rip up the constitution in the process.

---

Caning isn't cruel or unusual. The people who coined it were flogging people on the regular.

You're soft.

Brother Shamus said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

We don't need to be canning people in the US.

We have a constitution that protects us from cruel and u usual punishment. That absolutely falls in that category.

Supporting that stuff is not right wing or hard right or conservative. It is just nonsense. I find it very unfortunate that people that support this kind of **** tend to align themselves with Republicans

---

I see you support the status quo. Taking a few licks is not cruel and unusual.

---

Caning is not akin to the "licks" one may have taken in school back in the day at the hands of the vice principals paddle. Caning is pretty damn vicious and normally leads to a stay in the hospital.

But if the government decides we need it then I guess we should support it. Government knows best, right?

Disgusting...but at least he was wearing a mask and keeping him "safe".

I'm in favor of it being used for Bill of Rights violations, as they're "fundamental rights" that enjoy the highest scrutiny, so customary limitations on punishment levels to deter violations shouldn't apply.

In other words, it would serve as an important motivator to get the MSM back in line AND prompt government officials to tread lightly; further, make it a "Pay Per View" event to restore victims financially & pay down the debt with the remainder.

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

More freedom means less security. More security means less freedom.

Take your pick.

---

We already know the political left wants to take away as many freedoms as possible.

We now have more and more on the political right wanting to do the same.

I disagree that it is cruel or unusual when it is an effective national standard in a first world nation.

It or things very much like it were also a standard naval and military punishment for centuries

agsalaska said:

---

We have a constitution that protects us from cruel and u usual punishment.

---

This response is not a disagreement with what agsalaska stated....

How do we determine what it cruel and what is unusual punishment.

"Cruel" is subjective without a clear and concise statutory definition. Being locked up can be considered cruel. Death can absolutely be considered cruel.

"Unusual" only exists due to rarity uf use. Caneing is not unusual in some countries.

Singapore also has a shame-based culture, much like most other Asian countries.

While physical abuse might be a deterrent, most of their citizens are more terrified of being labeled as a criminal and dishonorable to their community. It's just a way different mentality than western countries.

agsalaska said:

---

We don't need to be canning people in the US.

We have a constitution that protects us from cruel and u usual punishment. That absolutely falls in that category.

Supporting that stuff is not right wing or hard right or conservative. It is just nonsense. I find it very unfortunate that people that support this kind of **** tend to align themselves with Republicans

---

Caning is not cruel or unusual.

OTOH: It is psychological torture to be locked up for 30 days with sociopaths and it can do lasting damage through the attendant sexual and physical abuse. THAT is cruel and unusual.

Gig em G said:

---

Singapore also has a shame-based culture, much like most other Asian countries.

While physical abuse might be a deterrent, most of their citizens are more terrified of being labeled as a criminal and dishonorable to their community. It's just a way different mentality than western countries.

---

We could always tattoo something like "LOSER", "CRIMINAL", or "PEDOPHILE" to their foreheads!

Quote:

---

Justice Brennan (USSC) concurring wrote, "There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is 'cruel and unusual'."

• The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity", especially torture.
• "A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion." (Furman v. Georgia temporarily suspended capital punishment for this reason.)
• "A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."
• "A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary."

And he added: "The function of these principles, after all, is simply to provide [the] means by which a court can determine whether [the] challenged punishment comports with human dignity. They are, therefore, interrelated, and, in most cases, it will be their convergence that will justify the conclusion that a punishment is 'cruel and unusual.' The test, then, will ordinarily be a cumulative one: if a punishment is unusually severe, if there is a strong probability that it is inflicted arbitrarily, if it is substantially rejected by contemporary society, and if there is no reason to believe that it serves any penal purpose more effectively than some less severe punishment, then the continued infliction of that punishment violates the command of the Clause that the State may not inflict inhuman and uncivilized punishments upon those convicted of crimes."

Continuing, he wrote that he expected that no state would pass a law obviously violating any one of these principles, so court decisions regarding the Eighth Amendment would involve a "cumulative" analysis of the implication of each of the four principles. In this way, the United States Supreme Court "set the standard that a punishment would be cruel and unusual [if] it was too severe for the crime, [if] it was arbitrary, if it offended society's sense of justice, or if it was not more effective than a less severe penalty."

---

Caning is severe but not too severe for certain crimes
Caning is not arbitrary, there could easily be a list of crimes deemed worth of its application
It's obvious from this thread that "society" doesn't reject it; at best it's likely a 50/50 nationwide
What lesser forms of punishment have proven as effective with respect to deterrence and recidivism? Prison time? NO; Fines? NO

The problem with our society is that we think of corporal punishment as an outrage, as torture. It's not: it imposes a known penalty for crimes which would otherwise be punished by curtailed, expensive jail or prison sentences. That's different from arbitrarily applied physical torture, which has lasting physical and psychological effects. We could also use public stocks for minor crimes, such as vandalism or petty theft. Such public shaming, especially of juvenile offenders would have a greater deterrent effect: nobody (sane) wants to be publicly shamed.

I think cruel and unusual really means...

is this something you had to spend time contemplating to make it as bad as you could.

For example, hanging a prisoner over cut off bamboo and allowing it to grow slowly back though his body over time.

Caning is simply spanking on steroids. Not cruel and unusual at all. "Lets whip his ass. Ok what with? A cane!"

Also, nice to know our founders violated their own constitution per agsalaska. Learn something everyday on here.

Urban Ag said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

More freedom means less security. More security means less freedom.

Take your pick.

---

How is this relevant to the conversation?

Caning someone as punishment for committing a crime doesn't make me less free but it may provide me more security.

I don't get your point.

---

Panzer is correct.
You think the government will stop at caning?

Singapore is beautiful, but it is NOT a free country. It is practically a dictatorship. You follow the rules, if you don't you are deported. Their COVID restrictions were absolutely brutal. Think of Singapore as an uber nanny state. If you are ok with that, and many are, then it's great.

Its the wrong place if you have any independent mindset.

agsalaska said:

---

We have a constitution that protects us from cruel and u usual punishment. That absolutely falls in that category.

---

BS. The people who wrote it and governed under it didn't think so. From that authority of authorities, Wikipedia:

American colonies judicially punished in a variety of forms, including whipping, stocks, the pillory and the ducking stool. In the 17th and 18th centuries, whipping posts were considered indispensable in American and English towns. Starting in 1776, George Washington strongly advocated and utilized judicial corporal punishment in the Continental Army, with due process protection, obtaining in 1776 authority from the Continental Congress to impose 100 lashes, more than the previous limit of 39. In his 1778 Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments, Thomas Jefferson provided up to 15 lashes for individuals pretending to witchcraft or prophecy, at the jury's discretion; castration for men guilty of rape, polygamy or sodomy, and a minimum half-inch hole bored in the nose cartilage of women convicted of those sex crimes. In 1781, Washington requested legal authority from the Continental Congress to impose up to 500 lashes, as there was still a punishment gap between 100 lashes and the death penalty. The Founders believed whipping and other forms of corporal punishment effectively promoted pro-social and discouraged anti-social behavior. Two later presidents, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, advocated judicial corporal punishment as punishment for wife-beating.

In the United States, judicial flogging was last used in 1952 in Delaware when a wife-beater got 20 lashes. In Delaware, the criminal code permitted floggings until 1972. One of the major objections to judicial corporal punishment in the United States was that it was unpleasant to administer.

For those interested, Dan Carlin (Hardcore History) did a podcast episode called "Painfotainment" that explored some of these issues. Overcast link below:

https://overcast.fm/+AAG0A3LAZvg

Gig em G said:

---

Singapore also has a shame-based culture, much like most other Asian countries.

While physical abuse might be a deterrent, most of their citizens are more terrified of being labeled as a criminal and dishonorable to their community. It's just a way different mentality than western countries.

---

Japan's unique mixture of Buddhist and Shinto religious influences is also responsible for their culture that values cleanliness, politeness, and civic duty. It would be impossible to duplicate here, no matter what form of punishment we used.

Hungry Ojos said:

---

My only hang up to legal caning would be fear of the left regaining control and unlawfully wielding it against political enemies for the slightest, or even made up infractions.

Because they absolutely would.

---

Exactly. Crazy to me that some of y'all would trust the government we have today to carry out this kind of punishment fairly. Do you think every single person who has been caned in Singapore actually deserved that punishment? Should those who were wrongly incarcerated after Jan. 6th have also endured public caning? I don't think so. We undoubtedly need criminal law reform in this country, but expanding the ability of the government to physically harm citizens is not the solution.