Judicial Caning good or bad?



The recent arrest and sentencing of the Swiss national who graffitied an MRT train to several strokes of the cane have aroused some debate about the justifiability of caning as a punishment for this crime. Parallels have been drawn to the caning of Michael Fay in 1995, an incident which raised an international outcry. This time, there seems to be less international controversy, but the situation in Singapore has shifted over the past 15 years to make caning a less accepted norm in Singaporean society. 
Americans has long criticized Singapore for accepting caning as a punishment for a crime. This idea is the foundation of the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which prohibits all forms of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. This is an instrument to which more than 140 countries are party, and which has been signed by a further ten. It reflects the weight of enormous international consensus, uniting the values and sensibilities of a vast range of peoples. Singapore is in a very small minority by refusing even to share formally in its aspirations, even if not all the state parties live up to them. Aside from the treaty, the prohibition of all forms of torture is also one of the few rules of international law which has the status of jus cogens or peremptory norm – in other words, it is so fundamental that no derogation from it is permitted in any circumstances. 
In my personal opinion, I think that caning is justifiable as a punishment for a crime. It acts as a strong deterrent against crimes so that crime rates could be reduced because the people have already been warned by the cruelty of the caning and thus would not dare to commit crime. 
Caning can also allow the criminals to reflect over what they have done wrong as the sustaining pain constantly reminds them of the crime they have committed, thus they would spent a long time reflecting and hopefully turn over a new leaf. The pain can also allow the criminals to realised the severity of their crimes. 
Besides caning, there are also other methods to justify severe punishment. 
Lifelong Jail could be one of the methods. Lifelong Jail can inflict pain to the criminals, however this method would not allow those criminals to turn over a new leaf and this is not what we want. We want the people to reflect over their wrongdoings and start their life afresh, however in this method, they are denied to do so. 
Thus, in conclusion i feel that although there are methods to justify punishment, they are not as effective as using the cane. 

Saturday, July 31, 2010 Posted in | | 0 Comments »

One Responses to "Judicial Caning good or bad?"

Write a comment