Prison is worse and is a more effective deterrent than caning

Lately on Twitter/X there has been a lot of discussion about caning. Singapore, the posterchild of caning, is held up as a role model of criminal justice reform by using caning, which the U.S. also ought to adopt. It sounds good in theory and seems to have worked for Singapore.

Such as:

And:

Such Twitter debates also presuppose a sort of false dichotomy in which a country much choose between caning or prison, but this has never been the case in reality. Singapore does have prisons and capital punishment for more serious offenses. Singapore has a prison population of 9,500 out of a population of 6 million, which on a per capita basis is average among developed countries.

As I argued in 2023, I don’t think corporal punishment is an effective deterrent. I believe caning, despite being acutely painful, is less effective as a deterrent or at stopping crime compared to prisons. I think @cremieuxrecueil is also wrong. As bad as caning is, prison is worse. Prison not only involves physical abuse, but also the psychological one, whereas caning is mostly physical. Also, medium and high-security prisons in the U.S. not uncommonly have a lot of physical violence, either by staff or other prisoners. Look how many times Bernie Madoff was beaten up in prison, and it’s not like he fit the profile of a gangbanger.

It is also argued that caning is more humane despite being exceedingly painful (somehow, pro-caning advocates don’t consider this contradictory). But it’s not like gangsters are not already habituated to pain–you think scars and tattoos are merely for cosmetic effect? Is it more painful than being knifed or shot at? This is why hardened criminals are not going to be deterred by caning. The initiation rites to join a gang are painful for a reason. Other criminals will simply see caning as a cost of doing business.

@nurijanian is right; to the hardened or habitual criminal, caning is just a pitstop or temporary inconvenience:

But many years in prison is far worse, as it incurs a permanent cost, that being irreplaceable time away from remunerative criminal activities. Regarding the pro-caning argument that prisons create hardened criminals, this is mitigated by longer sentences, such as harsh recidivism laws as seen in the U.S. (e.g. three strikes). The problem with the U.K. and other countries is they don’t put reoffending criminals away long enough.

I am of the opinion deterrence is extremely effective, but because it’s unseen and harder to track then actual crimes, one may be inclined to discount it, as its effects are unseen. Same for mass incarceration; prevented crimes are unseen. Look what happens during disasters or power outages…there is rioting and looting, because suddenly the deterrence factor stops. But for a deterrent to be effective, the punishment or downside must be much worse than the upside of crime. This seems self-evident; otherwise, it ceases to deter. What makes the U.S. criminal justice system uniquely bad almost makes it ‘work’, in a sense. When people say prison is inhumane, I’m thinking, yes, that is how it works. The badness is a feature.

But I find the argument of caning being a more effective deterrent compared to prisons unconvincing. Caning is quick and painful, but when the main argument against prison is that it’s time-consuming and thus inhumane–this is also why it’s effective as a punishment. The people making the argument against prisons over caning inadvertently are making the case for why prison works better as punishment in the first place. They are stating their own preferences. But prison is not a consumer good; it’s punishment.

Consider what makes the U.S. criminal justice effective as a deterrent and bad at the same time, is the process, which is why it’s called a system, as it implies a long process that is all-consuming of one’s life. After being arrested and placed in the car, which is the only expedient thing about the U.S. criminal justice system, the arrestee is booked and then transferred in and out of jails and courts, all of which entails a lot of waiting. This takes months or even years before the actual sentencing. Then probation and having a criminal record that follows you everywhere. One never has a chance to ever truly ‘exit’ the criminal justice system, unlike the finitude of caning. I’m sure if put to a poll, without hesitation a supermajority of current and ex-cons would choose the caning over long and violent prison sentences and diesel therapy, which I guess answers the question of which is worse.

I’m sure SBF, who is on year one of a 25-year sentence, if given a choice would choose caning. Or Ross Ulbricht, who was sentenced to “two two life terms plus 40 years” (for extra measure, I suppose, if he is reincarnated or something). But hey, that is too obvious. Caning is worse! I sometimes get the impression that a lot of rationalist or academic Twitter discourse is about trying to show how things which appear obvious are wrong, as a sort of intellectual exercise. Sometimes the intuitive choice is actually the correct one–no need for the mental gymnastics. Some may retort “caning is permanent or leaves disfigurement” . Yeah, because SBF who was obese and known for his disheveled solvently appearance was also an aspiring Calvin Klein model before his arrest. Or again, about gang members, they already have disfiguring scars and tattoos. Also, a prison sentence can also inflict long-term physical and psychological trauma.

One can argue that long sentences are less effective owing to squandered human capital and fewer opportunities for rehabilitation, but with over 300 million people and historically low labor force participation rates, it’s not like there is a labor shortage in America of non-criminals. Nor does it cost much money to warehouse many people for a long time. Despite mass incarceration, prison spending is surprisingly very small relative to other spending, at just a fraction of a percent of total federal and state budgets. It’s not like prisoners are being housed at the Ritz-Carlton or something. Prison spending is one of the few areas of government spending in which costs are actually kept under control and itemized instead of allowed to balloon without accountability.

To wit, El Salvador, despite obviously being a much poorer country than the U.S., has an incarceration rate of 3x that of the U.S. after embarking on a mass incarceration program, ending its otherwise intractable gang problem seemingly overnight when other measures failed. Not only could El Salvador afford this despite being much poorer than the U.S., the reduced crime had an economic tailwind, mitigating the cost and then some.

So why does caning seemingly work for Singapore? As mentioned above, Singapore does not only rely on caning. Second, perhaps it is of some effectiveness as a deterrent for youthful offenders, before they have a chance to become habituated or hardened to crime. Or maybe it’s cheaper than having to add more prisons and staff in spite of being suboptimal as a deterrent. A criminal justice system that works for one country does not necessarily work for others. Perhaps American sensibilities find corporal punishment unsightly and prefer putting criminals away–out of sight, out of mind.

There is some confusion of causality. It’s not that caning made Singapore more economically successful or safer, but that Singapore has different demographics and culture compared to America. America’s criminal justice system may appear less effective owing to America’s particularly unfavorable demographics, high rates of gun ownership (when those guns enter the hands of the wrong people), or America being a low-trust society–not that the system does not work. Americans tolerate each other, but we feel little commonality or sense of community with each other, existing in our own little cultural or ‘SES bubbles’. If anything, given the above factors, it’s remarkable there isn’t more crime in America.

It’s similar to school quality: Having smarter students typically implies better schools as shown by test scores and proficiency, irrespective of budgets, teachers, or pedagogical approach. Thus, in assessing America’s criminal justice system, the counterfactual must be considered; if demographics were changed, would criminality also change. Being that criminals are people, it must.

Overall, I sort of get the impression that advocates of caning are arguing for the type of punishment that they would choose if they had a choice, being more humane and preferrable to long prison sentences. But this is not how punishment works! The loss of control is part of the punishment. The criminal does not get to make that choice (except perhaps if entering into a guilty plea). And for deterrence to work, the punishment must be sufficiently bad. And I don’t think caning meets that criteria compared to prisons.