One Man's Ideas on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Women

While I was on a tour of historic sites in old New Castle, Delaware, a couple years ago, there was a picture of a whipping post. It was last used in Delaware in 1952, on a man convicted of beating his wife, as I recall. I commented to the tour guide that maybe they shouldn’t have stopped that practice. She responded that I’d be surprised at how many people said that exact same thing. But, you know what, I’m really not.

I’ve known many acquaintances as well as close friends who have suffered physical abuse at the hands of men. I cannot wrap my brain around the evil that exists in a, thankfully, small minority of men who fail to see any wrong in using their greater strength and size to intimidate and physically or sexually abuse those weaker than themselves.

A few weeks ago, Hube had posted about Philly’s pitcher Brett Myers allegedly striking his wife in public. I commented there:

Obviously it’s innocent until proven guilty, but women don’t generally end up crying on street corners with their faces all swollen, claiming their husbands hit them and having witnesses back them up.

What’s most troublesome about this is that this is most assuredly not the first time he’s struck her. Abusers tend to do their abuse privately. Men know they aren’t
supposed to hit women and are not generally stupid enough to do it in public where they can be identified.

Therefore, he most likely has a hot temper and has already broken the taboo against striking women & wife beating.

And if a man hits his wife once, almost invariable he will do so again within five years.

Aside: Delaware used to have a whipping post until about the 50s where men who beat their wives would be whipped. Personally, I have no idea why they stopped that practice.

Apparently, it was that aside that caught the attention of one of Hube’s readers. I received an email from him which I thought worth sharing. Please feel free to discuss the merits or lack thereof of the case as he presents it. I, for one, have seen enough to know that some men have no fear of jail time or police, and need something else to serve as a deterrent to crime against women. Any ideas you can bring to this debate are welcome.

Dear Anna:

I value your comment on the Delaware whipping post. I often think that there is not enough discussion of this topic. I find that many people are in favor of it when they topic is raised. More consciousness-raising of this time-honored, cost effective,
and effective form of correction may be needed.

I see the lash, cane, or leather strap as a good, strong deterrent for men and teenaged boys who physically or sexually abuse women (and for those who are showing themselves to be career criminals who are not deterred by prison alone). Most sex crimes (including date rape, the most common form of rape) against women are committed by young, sexually focused males 16-24 years of age who need a strong deterrent, who could be reformed by such decisive correction early in life, and are physically robust enough to endure such discipline.

I have some admiration of the Singaporean justice system which provides mandatory caning for males, starting at 16 years of age, who are convicted of sexually offending against women. Even those who engage in nonconsensual sexual touching receive a minor caning. I see this as promoting respect for women and stopping problems before they escalate. Because most nations that still employ the lash are developing nations, I like how Singapore shows us that a nation can be modern and still have provision for flogging. And as most people know, the amount
of sex crime is very low and repeating such a crime after having been caned
across the bare backside for it is almost unheard of.

Some women from Singapore educated me on some good reasons for flogging males only, and I have come to see some merit in this. My reasons are as follows:

-it is probably not good for men to get the idea that it is ever okay for a woman to be beaten.
-the male body is better suited to with stand the rigors of corporal punishment.
-males are more likely to commit crimes that deserve flogging.
-exempting women elevates the status of women.
-the pro-woman element to flogging is compromised if women also have to fear
receiving it


Look at this example. Even circus lions can be kept tame and safe when they know there is a whip available that can be used on them. The desire to avoid pain affects the behavior of all mammals. As a man myself, I can tell you the fear of being lashed would keep me in line much more so than would just the fear of going to jail. People think that society has evolved beyond the need for the lash, but have all men evolved beyond the need for this?

If whipping were in use, a man wanting to assault a woman would know he would
also get hurt just like when a man decides not to attack a man whom he thinks can hurt him back badly. Also men need to know that assaulting a woman will not be even close to worth it and he will deeply regret it. Men motivated by sexual
impulses to do forced sex or sexual contact need to know that the pain of the
punishment will far outweigh any pleasure derived from the crime.

I often think we could live in a better society if women felt safer around men and men were safer for women to be around. I also wish for women to feel that justice is
done, that sex crime is blamed on the offender, that rape is taken seriously, and that women are valued by society. I see whipping as helping to achieve these ends and to demonstrate these things -- even when it is trusted men who abuse women, as is often the case.

Whipping also in some ways fits as a consequence for rape. The abuser is stripped down, tied down, and whipped. He would have some sense of what it is like to feel
pain, fear, humiliation, vulnerability, and a helplessness to resist.

I should also state that boys and men sentenced to receive corporal punishment should receive counseling beforehand and afterwards in order to help them find
meaning and growth from the experience rather than bitterness or resentment. Such punishment should be given to reform the offenders not done out of vengeance or hatred. Of course mentally ill offenders should not be whipped, but should
be put in custody while they receive treatment. Whipping should be reserved for the many guys who knew what they were doing, knew it was wrong, and were able to control themselves but chose not to do so. And of course, whipping should occur in addition to a prison term and be administered as humanely as possible with an aim to ensuring no excesses in its use.