No Comment, Six Questions — July 21, 2011, 1:59 pm

In Defense of Flogging: Six Questions for Peter Moskos

Peter Moskos, a former Baltimore policeman who now serves as a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City, is disgusted with the nation’s prison system. His novel solution: bring back flogging. He argues that the tactic could help reduce the prison population, the recidivism that jail breeds, and the cost of running the world’s most expensive and least effective prison system. I put six questions to Professor Moskos about his new book, In Defense of Flogging:

1. You make a case for flogging as a substitute for confinement. Explain what form flogging would take and how, in your model, it would be factored into sentencing?

moskos_peter_zora_oneill

I propose giving a choice for people to receive a flogging in lieu of jail or prison time. My goal is to be more humane. Given the choice between ten lashes and five years in prison, who wouldn’t choose the lash? I know I would. Because flogging would happen only with the consent of the flogged, it would be hard to argue that it’s too cruel to consider. If the choice were so bad, nobody would choose it.

I think one lash for every six months of potential incarceration is a fair deal. Some people say flogging isn’t harsh enough. Others say it may be too soft — though I really hope we haven’t reached the point in our society where whipping is considered too light a punishment.

The actual flogging would be done as it is in Singapore and Malaysia, where it involves tying a person down, spread-eagled, on a large structure, pulling down his or her pants, and flogging the bare behind with a rattan cane. Make no mistake: it’s painful and bloody. It’s not a gentle spanking. But the process is over in a few minutes. Then a doctor can tend to the wounds and the person can go home.

I think merely presenting the choice helps us question the purpose of prison, and suggests how destructive incarceration is for the individual and society. It’s worse than flogging.

2. In 1850, Herman Melville wrote: “We assert that flogging in the navy is opposed to the essential dignity of man, which no legislator has a right to violate; that it is oppressive, and glaringly unequal in its operations; that it is utterly repugnant to the spirit of our democratic institutions; indeed, that it involves a lingering trait of the worst times of a barbarous feudal aristocracy; in a word, we denounce it as religiously, morally, and immutably wrong.” Soon afterward, the publisher of Harper’s sent a copy of Melville’s screed to every member of Congress, which subsequently banned naval flogging. What did Melville and Harper’s get wrong?

The problem — and our shame — is that prisons, though never designed for this purpose, have become the only way we punish. In an ironic twist, we designed the prison system to replace flogging. The penitentiary was supposed to be a kinder and gentler sentence, one geared to personal salvation, less crime, and a better life for all. It was, in short, intended to serve the function of a reformatron. Needless to say, it didn’t work….

Before we had prisons, harsh confinement was used alongside corporal punishment. But such incarceration generally had another purpose, such as holding a person until trial, or until a debt was paid. Confinement was a means to an end: People weren’t sentenced to confinement; they were held until something else could happen.

—From In Defense of Flogging. Reprinted by permission of Basic Books, © 2011 Peter Moskos.

Keep in mind that Melville was focused specifically on flogging aboard Navy ships, because they were free from judicial oversight. After Congress banned naval flogging, the practice continued as criminal punishment for another hundred years. Today, most of Melville’s arguments against punishment — that it is arbitrary, ineffective, and unequally applied to rich and poor — would be better applied to prison.

Certainly Melville believed that flogging was morally abhorrent, and he may have been right. But nowadays flogging is the lesser of two evils. I’m not so much pro-flogging as pro-choice. How else are we going to reduce our prison population by 85 percent? That’s what we would need to do to get back in line with the rest of the civilized world.

I can only hope the current publisher of Harper’s will send a copy of my anti-prison screed to every member of Congress today. I’m no Melville, so I doubt my book would cause lawmakers to ban anything. But banning prison, except for the most dangerous recidivists, is precisely what we need to consider.

3. You give physicians a role in the process, saying that no one should be flogged unless a doctor has confirmed that he is up to taking the lashes. But doesn’t this put a participating physician in an ethical quandary? Most medical ethicists now agree, for instance, that attending and supervising an execution by injection is inconsistent with a doctor’s ethical duties.

One obvious difference is that flogging is not a death sentence. And unlike at an execution by lethal injection, the doctor at a flogging would not potentially be participating in the punishment. A better analogy would be a physician’s presence at a boxing match. If somebody consents to being battered, the least a doctor can do is tend to the wounds. While this role may not suit all physicians, some are happy to do the work.

I think most ethicists would have a tough time defending the status quo of incarceration. And yet doctors continue to treat prisoners (as they should) — in the process perpetuating a penitentiary system that, at least in California, is unconstitutional precisely because of its horrible medical care. Calls for improving prison conditions, while essential, tend to miss the big picture. We really need to be working toward the abolition of this horribly peculiar institution. But to succeed, we will need alternative forms of punishment.

4. Some claim that increased incarceration has contributed to a drop in crime. If that’s so, and if the prison population were to decrease as much as you propose, wouldn’t the public be jeopardized?

Flogging is indeed very harsh, but it’s not torture — not unless all corporal punishment is defined as torture. Indeed, to conflate flogging with torture does a grave disservice to the understanding of both. It is not only the physical act that defines torture but also the context, the psychological underpinnings, the lack of consent, and the open-ended potential. The US government has tortured people with euphemistically named “enhanced interrogation techniques.” This torture is not so much a punishment as a means to an end. This is not flogging.

—From In Defense of Flogging. Reprinted by permission of Basic Books, © 2011 Peter Moskos.

Let’s debunk the notion that the drop in crime is due to incarceration. In truth, there is very little correlation between incarceration and the crime rate. Between 1970 and 1990 the total prison population in the U.S. rose by a million, and crime rose, too. Since then we’ve locked up another million, and crime has gone down. Is there something special about that second million? Were they the only ones who were “real criminals”? Did we simply get it wrong with the first 1.3 million we locked up? If so, can we let them out?

This mess was not inevitable. We have seven times as many prisoners today as we did in 1970. We certainly do not have seven times as many criminals. Incarceration is less an effect of crime than of longer sentences and the war on drugs. Have we still not learned the lessons of prohibition?

We have more prisoners than soldiers, and more prison guards than U.S. Marines. We have more prisoners — by rate and number — than any other country in the history of the world: more than Stalin had at the height of the Soviet Gulag, and more than China has now. And China has a billion more people than we do! Something has gone terribly wrong.

I agree that some offenders usually need to be locked up — pedophiles, terrorists, serial rapists, murderers — but there aren’t very many of these people. And they need to be incarcerated because we have reason to fear them. For most other crimes, flogging would be better. Arresting a drug dealer, for instance, does not reduce drug use. It simply creates a job opening.

Incarceration can actually increase crime. We know that the children of incarcerated parents — and we’re dealing with well over a million such children — are more likely to become criminals. We also know that people who do time are more likely to commit crimes when they get out, and that 95 percent of prisoners are released. I believe crime has decreased not because of our massive level of incarceration, but despite it.

This gets to the core issue of prisons: they fail at their basic mission of “curing” the criminal. We need to abandon the utopian ideal that prison is good for the soul. What could be a worse environment for rehabilitation than years of confinement surrounded by a bunch of criminals?

We need to give criminals the resources they need to lead non-criminal lives. But giving housing, jobs, education, and health care to ex-convicts is a tough sell, especially when we don’t even give these essentials to non-criminals.

Without rehabilitation — which most prisons don’t even pretend to attempt — we’re left asking the basic question “Why prison?” The answer is always deterrence and punishment. Well, there’s no reason to think flogging would be any less of a deterrent than incarceration. And prisons don’t punish well, at least not relative to the amount we spend on them. Could we not spend the current $30,000 per year per prisoner more productively?

Admittedly there may be other, better ways to punish — methods that involve neither prison nor flogging. I certainly hope so. But as it stands, we’re stuck with prisons because we lack alternatives. Harsh as it may be, flogging is more humane, less destructive, and much cheaper than what we have now.

5. You propose flogging as an antidote to the prison industry. To what extent do you believe the decision to create and expand the for-profit prison industry has influenced the current bizarre dynamic, in which violent crime continues to fall but the prison population continues to grow?

Private prisons are a small but conspicuous sign of everything that has gone wrong. Ironically, they also fail at their basic mission of saving money. Sometimes they cost a bit less than government-run facilities, but this is usually because they hold lower-risk criminals, or immigrants who may not be criminals at all. Their profits come from paying lower wages. If one were to take the profits of the largest private-prison company and divide them among its workers, its guards would be making union wages.

These companies maximize shareholder profits via literal human bondage. This is a legacy of slavery, and it’s wrong. They also often build prisons with an “if you build it they will come” philosophy. In a calculated and immoral attempt to increase incarceration, they have even lobbied for, and in some cases actually drafted, “get tough” laws in various states. The Arizona anti-immigration bill comes to mind. On the plus side, because private prisons operate on a contract basis and hire non-union labor, they can be much easier to close. But generally they find ways to fill their bunks.

These private prisons are just one cog in the greater prison–industrial complex. States without private prisons usually have stronger correctional officers’ unions, which equate prisoners with job security. Try closing a prison and watch the resistance.

It’s to our shame that we’ve let prisons become a government-run make-work program. Personally, I have nothing against jobs programs — think of all the good the WPA did in the 1930s and 1940s. But back then we paid workers to build productive infrastructure. Now we pay poor rural whites to guard poor urban blacks.

6. Do you think flogging, as you recommend it, would withstand scrutiny under the U.S. Constitution, particularly in view of Justice Antonin Scalia’s suggestion in a 1988 address that he would oppose it?

moskos-in_defense

There’s little that scares me more than the thought of being to the right of Antonin Scalia! But I actually agree with him on this one. Sentencing criminals to flogging would violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment (though right now the practice is not prohibited, because the Court has never explicitly banned it). My purpose, however, is not to defend flogging. It’s to offer it as an option. And it’s hard to see how such a choice could be unconstitutional. With consent, an accused person could waive his rights in a plea agreement, in exactly the same way that those in the docket can wave their constitutional right to trial by jury.

The real shame is that incarceration hasn’t been banned by the Court. Nothing could be crueler. I only hope I live to see the day it is defined as unusual.

Share
Single Page

More from Scott Horton:

Conversation August 5, 2016, 12:08 pm

Lincoln’s Party

Sidney Blumenthal on the origins of the Republican Party, the fallout from Clinton’s emails, and his new biography of Abraham Lincoln

Conversation March 30, 2016, 3:44 pm

Burn Pits

Joseph Hickman discusses his new book, The Burn Pits, which tells the story of thousands of U.S. soldiers who, after returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, have developed rare cancers and respiratory diseases.

Context, No Comment August 28, 2015, 12:16 pm

Beltway Secrecy

In five easy lessons

Get access to 168 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

November 2018

Rebirth of a Nation

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Tragedy of Ted Cruz

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Combustion Engines·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

On any given day last summer, the smoke-choked skies over Missoula, Montana, swarmed with an average of twenty-eight helicopters and eighteen fixed-wing craft, a blitz waged against Lolo Peak, Rice Ridge, and ninety-six other wildfires in the Lolo National Forest. On the ground, forty or fifty twenty-person handcrews were deployed, alongside hundreds of fire engines and bulldozers. In the battle against Rice Ridge alone, the Air Force, handcrews, loggers, dozers, parachutists, flacks, forecasters, and cooks amounted to some nine hundred people.

Rice Ridge was what is known as a mega-fire, a recently coined term for blazes that cover more than 100,000 acres. The West has always known forest fires, of course, but for much of the past century, they rarely got any bigger than 10,000 acres. No more. In 1988, a 250,000-acre anomaly, Canyon Creek, burned for months, roaring across a forty-mile stretch of Montana’s Bob Marshall Wilderness in a single night. A few decades on, that anomaly is becoming the norm. Rice Ridge, for its part, swept through 160,000 acres.

At this scale, the firefighting operation is run by an incident management team, a group of about thirty specialists drawn from a mix of state and federal agencies and trained in fields ranging from aviation to weather forecasting and accounting to public information. The management teams are ranked according to experience and ability, from type 3 (the least skilled) to type 1 (the most). The fiercest fires are assigned to type 1s. Teams take the name of their incident commander, the field general, and some of those names become recognizable, even illustrious, in the wildfire-fighting community. One such name is that of Greg Poncin, who is to fire commanders what Wyatt Earp was to federal marshals.

Smoke from the Lolo Peak fire (detail) © Laura Verhaeghe
Article
Rebirth of a Nation·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Donald Trump’s presidency signals a profound but inchoate realignment of American politics. On the one hand, his administration may represent the consolidation of minority control by a Republican-dominated Senate under the leadership of a president who came to office after losing the popular vote by almost 3 million ballots. Such an imbalance of power could lead to a second civil war—indeed, the nation’s first and only great fraternal conflagration was sparked off in part for precisely this reason. On the other hand, Trump’s reign may be merely an interregnum, in which the old white power structure of the Republican Party is dying and a new oppositional coalition struggles to be born.

Illustration by Taylor Callery (detail)
Article
Blood Money·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Over the past three years, the city of South Tucson, Arizona, a largely Latino enclave nestled inside metropolitan Tucson, came close to abolishing its fire and police departments. It did sell off the library and cut back fire-truck crews from four to three people—whereupon two thirds of the fire department quit—and slashed the police force to just sixteen employees. “We’re a small city, just one square mile, surrounded by a larger city,” the finance director, Lourdes Aguirre, explained to me. “We have small-town dollars and big-city problems.”

Illustration by John Ritter (detail)
Article
The Tragedy of Ted Cruz·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

When I saw Ted Cruz speak, in early August, it was at Underwood’s Cafeteria in Brownwood. He was on a weeklong swing through rural central Texas, hitting small towns and military bases that ensured him friendly, if not always entirely enthusiastic, crowds. In Brownwood, some in the audience of two hundred were still nibbling on peach cobbler as Cruz began with an anecdote about his win in a charity basketball game against ABC’s late-night host Jimmy Kimmel. They rewarded him with smug chuckles when he pointed out that “Hollywood celebrities” would be hurting over the defeat “for the next fifty years.” His pitch for votes was still an off-the-rack Tea Party platform, complete with warnings about the menace of creeping progressivism, delivered at a slightly mechanical pace but with lots of punch. The woman next to me remarked, “This is the fire in the gut! Like he had the first time!” referring to Cruz’s successful long-shot run in the 2011 Texas Republican Senate primary. And it’s true—the speech was exactly like one Cruz would have delivered in 2011, right down to one specific detail: he never mentioned Donald Trump by name.

Cruz recited almost verbatim the same things Trump lists as the administration’s accomplishments: the new tax legislation, reduced African-American unemployment, repeal of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, and Neil Gorsuch’s appointment to the Supreme Court. But, in a mirror image of those in the #Resistance who refuse to ennoble Trump with the title “president,” Cruz only called him that.

Photograph of Ted Cruz © Ben Helton (detail)
Article
Wrong Object·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

H

e is a nondescript man.

I’d never used that adjective about a client. Not until this one. My seventeenth. He’d requested an evening time and came Tuesdays at six-thirty. For months he didn’t tell me what he did.

The first session I said what I often said to begin: How can I help you?

I still think of what I do as a helping profession. And I liked the way the phrase echoed down my years; in my first job I’d been a salesgirl at a department store counter.

I want to work on my marriage, he said. I’m the problem.

His complaint was familiar. But I preferred a self-critical patient to a blamer.

It’s me, he said. My wife is a thoroughly good person.

Yawn, I thought, but said, Tell me more.

I don’t feel what I should for her.

What do you feel?

Photograph © Joseph S. Giacalone (detail)

Chance that a homeless-shelter resident in a major U.S. city holds a full- or part-time job:

1 in 5

Turkey hunting was deemed most dangerous for hunters, though deer hunting is more deadly.

The unresolved midterms; Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III replaced; the debut of the world’s first AI television anchor

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Happiness Is a Worn Gun

By

Illustration by Stan Fellows

Illustration by Stan Fellows

“Nowadays, most states let just about anybody who wants a concealed-handgun permit have one; in seventeen states, you don’t even have to be a resident. Nobody knows exactly how many Americans carry guns, because not all states release their numbers, and even if they did, not all permit holders carry all the time. But it’s safe to assume that as many as 6 million Americans are walking around with firearms under their clothes.”

Subscribe Today