I am inclined to agree, corporal punishment is often more an effective deterrence and a less costly form of punishment the incarceration. It was once widely practiced and when in practice, there where much fewer prisons. There were common laws such as whipping for many domestic crimes, which are not addressed today, until the most violent acts have been committed.
Most persons would rather take a licking than be incarcerated, unless they at home in prisons ran by blatant gang violence.
Here is some information on the topic:
Criminologist Peter Moskos observes that most of us, if given the choice, would opt to receive ten lashes rather than spend five years in prison. Paradoxically, a significant number of us would condemn corporal punishment as barbaric and inhumane. If imprisonment is a more rational response to criminal behaviour, why would so many rational individuals opt to receive corporal punishment?
Contemporary prisons are the result of a failed utopian experiment. They serve no useful rehabilitative purpose, and exist only to fulfil a common desire to punish deviant behaviour and to segregate criminals from the public at large. Prisons harm inmates and obstruct attempts to reintegrate them into society..... prison only serves exacerbate underlying social, economic and psychological problems that lead to criminality.
Using corporal punishment to reduce or replace custodial sentences would provide an effective way to fulfill the social need to punish criminals, while removing the harmful externalities of mass incarceration. Strictly supervised whipping or caning can adequately and proportionately express society’s anger with the criminal, while avoiding the dangers of long-term incarceration and reinvigorating the use of rehabilitation.
http://dpb.idebate.org/debatabase/debates/law/corporal-punishment-adult-offenders
"The US Supreme Court ruled in 1977 that the spanking or paddling of students by school officials or teachers is lawful, where it has not been explicitly outlawed by local authorities. That decision still stands.
."https://www.google.com/search?q=corporal+punishment&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8ime vack we
Most persons would rather take a licking than be incarcerated, unless they at home in prisons ran by blatant gang violence.
Here is some information on the topic:
Criminologist Peter Moskos observes that most of us, if given the choice, would opt to receive ten lashes rather than spend five years in prison. Paradoxically, a significant number of us would condemn corporal punishment as barbaric and inhumane. If imprisonment is a more rational response to criminal behaviour, why would so many rational individuals opt to receive corporal punishment?
Contemporary prisons are the result of a failed utopian experiment. They serve no useful rehabilitative purpose, and exist only to fulfil a common desire to punish deviant behaviour and to segregate criminals from the public at large. Prisons harm inmates and obstruct attempts to reintegrate them into society..... prison only serves exacerbate underlying social, economic and psychological problems that lead to criminality.
Using corporal punishment to reduce or replace custodial sentences would provide an effective way to fulfill the social need to punish criminals, while removing the harmful externalities of mass incarceration. Strictly supervised whipping or caning can adequately and proportionately express society’s anger with the criminal, while avoiding the dangers of long-term incarceration and reinvigorating the use of rehabilitation.
http://dpb.idebate.org/debatabase/debates/law/corporal-punishment-adult-offenders
"The US Supreme Court ruled in 1977 that the spanking or paddling of students by school officials or teachers is lawful, where it has not been explicitly outlawed by local authorities. That decision still stands.
."https://www.google.com/search?q=corporal+punishment&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8ime vack we
