RETRIBUTION AND DETERRENCE
Caning serves two purposes in today’s criminal justice system. The first less controversial purpose is for retribution for violent crimes, including sexual offences such as rape and molestation.
The second purpose of caning is for deterrence. This is especially so for offences where imprisonment or fines are found to be of insufficient deterrent value.
Former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, when introducing caning for vandalism offences in parliament in 1966, described the punishment as “rather humiliating”, which would deter would-be offenders who were otherwise not afraid of the repercussions.
The same principle was applied for illegal immigration, as such offenders were purportedly happy to be imprisoned as they would be clothed, fed and generally looked after in prison. Mandatory caning was thus imposed for long-term overstayers.
However, this rationale is not without its detractors. Opponents argue that judicial caning is prohibited under international law on the basis that it amounts to torture or is a cruel, inhumane and degrading punishment. This argument has been rejected by the Singapore courts.
It has also been argued that imposing judicial caning may carry unintended consequences. In a letter published on TODAY, activist Jolene Tan argued that caning people who commit serious sexual offences may normalise a culture of violence and entrench the sexist view that men can only be “controlled” through pain.
It may also deter victims of sexual offences from reporting such offences, especially if it was committed by a family member, for fear that the perpetrator would face caning.
Finally, there does not appear to be studies conducted or commissioned by the government on the effectiveness of judicial caning as a deterrent against crime.
Without such a study, there is no empirical data to conclude that other forms of punishment such as imprisonment, fines or community sentences are inadequate in deterring crime.
