John Boyle O’Reilly Mugshot: Not the father of criminals
In the process of battling my way back to health (read: wholesale slaughter of bacteria), there was little time left to read up on various online blogs & news. Picture my surprise then, when upon my return to the great virtual indoors *muharhar* I came across an article seriously advocating the return to physical punishments. In, brace yourself, the Chronicle of Higher Education, no less. Flogging, to be precise. As barbaric as this appears to be, what had me transfixed was the argument — the discussion of imprisonment vs. rehabilitation, shaming vs. integration, punishment vs. justice vs. atonement… I am sure you will recall the discussion we had in class about the extent to which our contemporary judiciary is still in debt to Victorian prison reforms and discussions pertaining to Australian transportation. I remember saying how we still had no answers to the conundrums plaguing “the system” then, and I am sure some of you thought me pessimistic or downright cynical. Well, then brace yourself when you read the arguments put forth there, because they seem to just reiterate good old Victorian staples. For the record: No. I do not believe, stripping an offender in public, tying them down and lashing them bloody is likely to deter offenders, help their reintegration into society, or, indeed improve their willingness to accept said society’s norms. From the scarred-back regiment of the “Steelbacks” to repeat offenders in Norfolk Island, flogging welds men together, no doubt. You may just not like the outcome.
Ps — No idea what’s with this return of Victoriana, but here’s the criminal classes, yet again: an article in the Sydney Morning Herald about how the likelihood of criminal offence increases in children of criminals. Not because criminals might make bad parents, or bad rolemodels, or otherwise fail their children. No, it’s genes, they say.
