Research Concept, Proposal or Suggestion


Research Concept, Proposal or Suggestion


for

Graduate Students, Researchers or Those Interested in Reducing Incarceration

Research concept:
In order to determine the acceptability of community traditional judicial corporal punishment in lieu of incarceration, the following research suggestion or proposal is submitted:

Visit a prison or jail in any country and survey a significant number of prisoners regarding their preferences, if they had a preference in any future criminal punishment scenario, between one year in prison or jail versus 40 lashes with a leather whip in the traditional American manner, in public, after all current due process guarantees were provided, displaying to the interviewee at the time of the interview a photo of the whip to be used and applied to the back by a healthy young law enforcement official of average height, weight and upper body strength.  The public judicial corporal punishment would be witnessed and supervised by the sentencing judge and the punishment administered by volunteer law enforcement officials in public.

The survey suggested admits of various flexible parameters, requirements, purposes, methods and levels of complexity.  While this research is obtainable in any nation or region, the United States has the largest incarcerated population and thus one of the greater needs to find incarceration alternatives. Prisoner opinions are under-studied and might vary markedly from more educated populations. 

The interviewee would be informed that:

1.       First aid or medical attention would be administered, if needed or sought, after execution of the sentence, and after receiving such medical treatment as requested, each offender would have the right to stay in secure confinement, with meals provided, during any 2-week period needed for physical or medical recovery from the punishment.   

2.       In the case of aged, small, female, sick and/or disabled prisoners, appropriate reduction in the number of lashes would be made according to the ability of the offender to receive such punishment, so that the physical punishment of all offenders would be as equal as possible.  For example, if an offender weighed 90 pounds instead of 180 pounds, the offender might receive 20 lashes rather than 40, but would be credited with 40 lashes after the administration of just 20 lashes.  This need not be told to prisoners without such obvious or known differences from the average.

3.       For purposes of this study, prisoners would be informed that any future judicial corporal punishment would be optional after all plea bargains, convictions and pre-sentence reports, and after they had legal representation; that is, they could choose to serve one year in prison or jail or they could choose 40 lashes and immediate release.

4.       Public execution of sentences of judicial corporal punishment would be conducted within sight of the courthouse where they pled or were found guilty.  The name of the offender, the offense and the exact punishment would be posted for the public to see.

5.       Any fine or restitution to be paid would not be affected by the choice between serving one year versus accepting judicial corporal punishment.

6.       Once judicial corporal punishment was chosen, parole or probation violations, and additional offenses for the same or similar crime, would also be punished with public judicial corporal punishment in the same manner.

7.       Judicial corporal punishment as set forth in this survey would be substantially similar to the punishment prescribed in the Old Testament of the Bible, Deuteronomy 25:1-3.  All the presidents carved into Mt. Rushmore (Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln & Theodore Roosevelt) favored some use of judicial corporal punishment on citizens both white and black.

8.       This is only a survey.  You will not be allowed to change your sentence or potential sentence in any way.  This survey might play some role in changing the legal system or reducing mass incarceration.

9.       Your answers to this survey will be confidential.

The following information could be obtained from the interviewee:

1.       Some means of identification; the interviewee’s real name would not be used or published [optional]

2.       Current sentence or crime for which arrested

3.       Age

4.       Weight

5.       Race

6.       Age when first arrested

7.       Their brief comments, if any, about:

a.  The idea of punishing offenders with judicial corporal punishment rather than incarcerating them in jail or prison.

b.  Their preferences as to sentences longer or shorter than one year. 

c.  Any other topic they choose.

8.       What is the most number of lashes you would receive to avoid one year in prison or jail? 

Survey requirements:

          1.  Permission to conduct the survey would be required from the wardens, jail supervisors, law enforcement officials, judges or other persons responsible for the prisoners at the time of any survey.

2.       Due to high incidence of illiteracy among prisoners, the survey would be administered with oral questions and oral responses, immediately recorded, while prisoners were confined in cells, behind prison or jail walls, shackled in courtrooms, etc.  The language of the survey would require that it be put in simple language appropriate for understanding by relatively uneducated prisoners.

          3.  The prisoners should be interviewed separately, so that each was not aware of the responses made by the others.  Interviewing prisoners at criminal dockets does not permit this separate treatment, and should be so noted if surveys are undertaken at these dockets or other court appearances.

          4.       The survey would be conducted under generally accepted procedures for psychometric testing and/or opinion polling, with some time limit on the allowable response time.

          5.       Rewards for participating in the survey, such as a candy bar, might be provided.

Expected costs of research or survey:


          This survey can be conducted at very low cost.  The questionnaire completed by the researcher might be put on a single page of paper.  While simple rewards such as candy bars are suggested to obtain full cooperation and participation, the interviews would not normally cost money.  Only obtaining permissions and the time needed to travel and conduct the survey would limit the research.  Complexity of the research and statistical analysis of the results obtained would depend upon the preferences of the researcher. 

Reference:


John Dewar Gleissner, “Prison Overcrowding Cure: Judicial Corporal Punishment of Adults”

Volume 49, Issue 4, The Criminal Law Bulletin (Summer 2013)

Available on Westlaw or by request to author, who admits to a research bias, and who may be contacted at johngleissner@charter.net or 1-205-969-9046

Popular posts from this blog

A "Get Out of Jail Free Card" Will Not Work    Most of America's prison reform advocates only approach the issues from the standpoint of the prisoner-as-victim.  Law enforcement policies under the prevailing liberal view are characterized as the main cause and perpetrator of mass incarceration.  We rarely hear these folks tell us what punishment the guilty should have or how criminals should accept the consequences of their crimes.  Many times they propose drug treatment, Drug Court, therapy, commitment to mental institutions, rehabilitation, "alternative sentences," and the extremely general solutions of fairness, equality, education and "community corrections."  Most critics of mass incarceration focus on the process, not the substance of the problems.     The process is flawed, they say, because of the failed War on Drugs, inadequate indigent defense, excessive prosecutorial power, mandatory sentences, exce...
Read more

Who is Biased Against Prison and Sentencing Reform?

Who is Biased Against Prison and Sentencing Reform? by John Dewar Gleissner More people than you think.   Private prison company bias is a no-brainer.   So is the opposition from labor unions for correctional officers.   Politicians naturally do not wish to appear soft on crime, because otherwise they lose their jobs.   Not many prisoners vote or are in the right place to vote.   Some communities need the jobs prisons provide.   The public is biased about crime generally, and believes crime rates are going up when they are actually going down.   Many want prison to be tough and scary.   Crime victims are not too worried about terrible prison conditions, and who can blame them?   Taxpayers are not inclined to spend money on prisons.   Prison walls and fences naturally block the flow of information, commerce and visitors.   Educated, law-abiding and intelligent people do not have much in common with prisoners, and are thus...
Read more

HOW TO CREATE AMERICAN MANUFACTURING JOBS

"How to Create American Manufacturing Jobs" has been published and released by the Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy , a publication of the University of Tennessee Law School.  Citation: Vol. 9 - Issue 2, Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy 161 (Fall 2013), now available on Westlaw.  For those who do not have access to Westlaw, here is a summary: Right now, 50 states and the federal government (not to mention city and county jails) have total control over every single aspect of prison industries.  Total control must give way to more contractual and trade freedom of action.  The United States could create many manufacturing jobs if they would free employers, prisoners and Departments of Correction to manufacture goods in prison free of almost all government employment laws and regulations, and subject to contracts between willing prisoners and willing private manufacturers, who must also contract with the prison systems for space and other accommodatio...
Read more