This is an open letter for those whofeel like sending me hate mail...


        Although the vast majority of my mail is extremely supportive, 
    every once in a while, some of you feel compelled to send e-mails 
    which accuse me of everything up to and sometimes even including 
    being a female Marque de Sade or nazi.  I have to assume that quite 
    a few of those who don't write me feel the same way; but, just don't 
    bother to express their opinion.  Since some of the issues which are 
    raised would have some validity, if they applied, I've decided to put 
    together this page for you.  Also, those who support my ideas might 
    find it useful for countering some of the same reactions, which they 
    might encounter when discussing these views with their friends and 
    acquaintances...

        Before I get into a discussion about some of the more commonly 
    raised objections, I would like to state that I am most definitely 
    NOT a sadist, in any sense of the word.  While I'm at it, I'm not 
    any sort of fan of the nazis (or, any similar groups), either. What 
    I AM is a pragmatist who has known enough former offenders, inmates, 
    and crime victims over the years to be able to view all of this in 
    much the same way that a dentist or physical therapist views the 
    forms of pain which are an inherent aspect of their fields.  As 
    strange as it may sound to some of you, my goal is to ultimately 
    REDUCE the amount of pain which people go through, rather than any 
    sort of joy in inflicting it.  In a utopian world, none of this 
    would be necessary; but, we all have to live in the real world, 
    instead.  Some of you may not be as well versed in just what that 
    "real world" consists of; but, perhaps you'll find this page to be 
    something of "an education..."

        A common objection is that using pain as a punishment is "cruel" 
    or "barbaric."  In comparison to much of what happens to people who 
    are in prison, at the hands of other inmates, this assertion really 
    is absurd; but, probably based upon a lack of understanding of all 
    which occurs to people while they are in prison (especially to those 
    who would be the least deserving of any mistreatment.)  Those of you 
    who raise this objection would be horrified by the following: "Let's 
    sentence people, especially the least violent of the offenders, to be 
    routinely raped, have their teeth knocked out so that they could more 
    easily be forced to perform oral sex acts.  If they try to resist, 
    let's knock out a few more teeth, break a few ribs, rearrange their 
    nose a bit, etc...  If they show any identification with to the staff, 
    let's beat them within an inch of their lives, maybe stab them with a 
    homemade knife, just to make sure that others don't commit this type 
    of betrayal...  While we're at it, let's strip away most of what they 
    might have had out in the free world and make darned sure that it's 
    extremely hard for them to rebuild a life when they get out..."  This 
    sounds FAR worse than what we're advocating; right? Unfortunately, 
    that's pretty well what most people face when they enter prison.  The 
    only way they can defend against such mistreatment is to very quickly 
    become violent themselves and / or seek refuge with one of the prison 
    based gangs.  
        This leads into the next objection which is commonly presented; 
    but, first, I'd like to point out that under the system we advocate, 
    the inmate has absolutely no contact with any other inmate after they 
    are sentenced.  Even though the punishment they face is unpleasant, it 
    occurs under tightly controlled circumstances and nothing beyond their 
    sentence will happen to them.  If they happen to make things worse for 
    themselves, by choosing to try to fight, it's only in a very specific 
    way, which they have had prior warning about and which they cause to 
    occur through their own actions (being strapped down onto a gurney, 
    instead of being relatively upright on the usual inclined frame which 
    is commonly used.)  Even if they are being sent to an in-patient 
    treatment program for substance abuse, most will be hope in plenty of 
    time to be able to salvage their family relationships, educations and / 
    or jobs, personal property, etc.

        The next most common protest I get is that of: "Violence breeds 
    violence!"  While I agree that this is true, I disagree with the 
    opinion that this proposed system is violent.  The term "violence" 
    implies an intent to harm, which is entirely absent in this plan.  
    Going back to my earlier analogy, only a fool would (seriously) 
    argue that a dentist pulling a tooth or doing a root canal was 
    being, in any way, "violent," even though these procedures cause 
    a lot of pain for the person who is undergoing them.  An equally 
    appropriate analogy I commonly use in training staff is that of a 
    situation where you are hiking with a friend in the mountains, miles 
    from nowhere.  Your friend falls and his or her leg is broken.  You 
    have the choice between leaving them to try to go get help or setting 
    and splinting the leg so that you can help them get to safety.  If you 
    leave them, you run the risk that they'll become "dinner" for one of 
    the local bears or mountain lions.  If you set the leg, with no form 
    of anesthesia available, and help them to get back to civilization, 
    they'll go through one heck of a lot of pain in the process...  Where 
    some of us differ is that we find the idea of leaving this person to 
    "the forces of nature" unthinkable; and, as the result of that, would 
    proceed to set the leg, regardless of any screams of pain or demands 
    that we stop.  Others of you would be so "soft hearted" that the local 
    wild critters would enjoy themselves a tasty meal and a full belly, 
    compliments of your friend...
        Just for the sake of this discussion, though, let's redefine the 
    term "violence" to include any sort of intentional infliction of pain.  
    Even using this definition, the results of this proposed system would 
    be far less "violent" than is the present one.  As pointed out in the 
    previous discussion, prisons are inherently violent places, with the 
    more predatory inmates victimizing any which they perceive as being 
    "weak" or otherwise vulnerable.  The fact that these elements were 
    not specifically mandated in the sentence is irrelevant; but, that 
    leads into the next objection...

        The next most common objection which is raised goes along 
    the lines of a theory that the use of corporal sentencing somehow 
    "lowers" a society to the same level as the people whom they are 
    attempting to deal with.  Given the fact that we don't live in a 
    world where we don't need any laws, it's necessary to impose 
    consequences for breaking the laws which we see fit to enact.  For 
    any such consequences to be effective, they must be sufficiently 
    undesirable to make the behaviors for which they're imposed seem 
    less attractive than what they, otherwise, would be.  Just because 
    we currently use a system which allows most people to feel as if 
    "their hands are clean," does NOT mean that they really are...  To 
    support a system in which people are routinely and capriciously 
    abused by other inmates and / or one which does little to prevent 
    crime is to support ALL which occurs as the result of that system.  
    An analogy which I use in my book is that of a person who has an 
    unwanted pet which they can't find another home for.  They're too 
    "soft-hearted" to take this pet to the vet or the pound to have it 
    put to sleep; so, they take it way out into the country, let it out, 
    and drive away -- comfortable in their fantasy about some farmer 
    taking the animal in and it enjoying a good life full of romps in 
    the fields.  Mean while, the abandoned pet is stuck with the reality 
    of a situation which is anything BUT pretty...  Those of you who've 
    spent any time in the country don't need to be told what happens to 
    them; but, for the benefit of those people who've never gotten off 
    the highway which runs between metropolitan areas, here are a few 
    of the details...  The strongest of the dogs will generally wind 
    up joining packs of similarly abandoned or feral dogs.  Diseases 
    are rampant and what little they get to eat comes from hunting in 
    packs, which will commonly include both local small livestock and 
    weaker abandoned pets.  Rather than "taking them in," most farmers 
    will just shoot them on sight.  If they're lucky, the farmer's a 
    good shot; if they aren't, they wind up suffering a lengthy death 
    from infection or starvation, assuming that they aren't eaten by 
    the others first...  I don't care how many sofas they've shredded, 
    how hard they were to housebreak, or even how many times they tried 
    to bite the mailman, no animal deserves such a fate.  At the risk of 
    sounding crass, I can think of a few humans who would; but, for the 
    most part, they aren't the ones we're addressing at this point.  I 
    doubt seriously that any of you would feel that the person who dumped 
    this animal didn't bear the full weight of responsibility for every-
    thing which subsequently happened to it; but, many who would support 
    that point strongly fail to see that a society who places its non-
    violent offenders into an environment where they are virtually certain 
    to be preyed upon has no "cleaner hands" than does the aforementioned 
    pet owner.  In both situations, unwanted behavior is responded to with 
    consequences which were far worse than the alternative, just so there 
    could be some fantasy of mitigated responsibility...
        Taking the pet analogy one step further, let's consider a case in 
    which a pet does bite the mailman...  Of course np one would argue that 
    both the pet and its human counterpart were both to blame; but, this 
    principle seems to get lost when the situation becomes one of the 
    victim being, instead, some citizen who has just had their car stolen, 
    a shop owner who's going under because of the high rate of shoplifting, 
    the victim of a drunk driver, etc.  When a society fails to deal with 
    its criminals in an effective manner, it must share a portion of the 
    moral responsibility for the victims which result from that lack of 
    effectiveness.

         Another common argument is that we should seek to rehabilitate, 
    rather than to punish.  While I'm adamant that rehabilitation is 
    absolutely essential; without consequences for the unwanted behavior, 
    it's an exercise in futility.  People don't change without a darned 
    good incentive to do so.  Short of the ludicrous idea of of paying 
    these people the cost of incarceration to stay out of trouble (yes, 
    this has actually been suggested to me, a number of times!), having 
    very unpleasant consequences in place for actions which we deem to 
    be criminal is the only way of limiting those actions.  While the 
    former might even work with a tiny percentage, the latter works with 
    many more people and doesn't have the disadvantage of encouraging 
    others to become involved in that behavior.
        The best rehab. program in the world amounts to flushing money 
    down the toilet if the person has no interest in changing.  This 
    unfortunate fact has put many such programs in danger of losing 
    their funding.  The trend today is moving in the direction of just 
    "incapacitation" of the offender; and, given the current success 
    rates of many prison based programs, the substitution of corporal 
    sentencing might very well be the last realistic hope for many of 
    these programs.  Not only would it make them FAR more effective, 
    as the result of making these people a lot more motivated to fully 
    utilize them; but, a significant amount of money could be diverted 
    into them, as the result of the much shorter amount of time which 
    these people would spend in custody.

        Sometimes, a person concedes to all of the previous points; 
    but, still feels a lot of resistance.  When this happens, it's 
    not unusual for them to abandon their facade' of concern for 
    the offender and launch into a tirade which amounts to admitting 
    that they really couldn't care less what actually happens to them, 
    as long as they don't have to be a party to it; or, equally as 
    unrealistic, that we should just, somehow, "fix" the prisons.  
    Anything short of a totally "locked down," isolated environment 
    would fail to prevent inmates from being preyed upon by fellow 
    inmates and eliminate the prison sub-culture, of which that is 
    a component.  Not only would this be extremely expensive; but, 
    if used for significant periods of time, would result in a lot 
    of folks "going off the deep end."  The improvements in the 
    classification systems, which have occurred in recent years, 
    have helped to some extent; but, they fail to do much to break 
    down the upside down social structure which is an inherent aspect 
    of prisons and which is a major component in prisons amounting to 
    "higher educational institutions of learning bigger and better 
    techniques for crime."



What follows is copied from the page directedtoward attornies ans judges;  but, it's alsorelevant here; so, I've included it...

     1) This form of sentencing can be carried out in a limited
         amount of time, allowing the offender to retain his or
         her job.  The expedites the payment of restitution to
         the victim, reduces the burden upon the taxpayer both
         in terms of a reduced cost of punishment and a reduced
         likelihood of having to support the offender's family 
         while he or she is incarcerated.
     2) There is only minimal impact upon the offender's family
         situation.  If the person is a single parent, it is far 
         more likely that (s)he will be able to find someone to 
         care for any dependent children, for the few days which 
         this form of sentencing requires, than it would be if 
         they were to be away for months, or even years.
     3) The victim, if one exists, may be present while the
         corporal portion of the sentence is being carried out --
         permitting more of a sense of closure to the crime
         than that which is possible if the offender were sent
         to prison.