Lesson video

Hello, my name is Mrs. Rawbone, and I'm your RS teacher today.

We are going to be looking at "The Treatment of Criminals: Corporal Punishment." In today's lesson, you will be able to explain ethical arguments about corporal punishment.

Some key words we'll be using are "corporal punishment," "dignity," and "human rights." Corporal punishment is punishment in which physical pain is inflicted on the criminal.

Dignity is the worth and value of each human life.

Human rights are the rights a person should be entitled to simply because they are a human being, for example, education, fair treatment, et cetera.

So in today's lesson, we're going to be looking at corporal punishment and at issues surrounding corporal punishment.

Let's get started on corporal punishment.

The word "corporal" comes from Latin.

It comes from a word, likely "corporalis," meaning "of the body," which comes from "corpus," meaning "body." Corporal punishment is punishment in which physical pain is inflicted on the criminal, so, inflicted on the body.

Common forms include flogging, which is beating with a whip or stick.

It is usually applied to offences like theft, vandalism, or public disorder.

Some countries use it as a legal part of formal justice systems, and others ban it as a human rights abuse.

Let's check your understanding.

What is corporal punishment? Take a moment, pause the video, write down your definition, and then come back when you are ready to check.

So, well done if you put that it is punishment in which physical pain is inflicted on the criminal.

Corporal punishment is becoming less common.

In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights said that no one should face cruel or degrading punishment.

Between 1967 and 1981, countries like the UK ended the use of caning and whipping in courts.

So, corporal punishment was ended.

By 1981, it was banned across all of Europe.

In 1979, Sweden became the first country to make corporal punishment of children illegal at home and in school.

In 1997, South Africa bans corporal punishment in schools and courts, although not at home.

In 2020, Saudi Arabia announces the end of flogging, which is beating with a whip or a stick, in criminal courts, though there are reports that say it still happens.

Today, over one hundred countries allow corporal punishment in the home.

Some allow it in schools, and around 30 to 35 permit it as a punishment for crime.

Some countries use judicial corporal punishment as part of their legal system, so that means using it as a punishment for crime.

It can involve measures such as caning or whipping, and this depends on the country's laws and legal framework.

Judicial corporal punishment is currently permitted in about 30 to 35 countries, including, amongst others, Singapore, Iran, Malaysia, Nigeria, Afghanistan, and Barbados.

Here are the examples of places where it's still permitted.

Judicial corporal punishment has been abolished in many parts of the world, including, amongst others, the United States, all European countries, Canada, Australia, South Africa, and Brazil.

And you can see that indicated in the lighter lilac-colored dots on the map.

The law on corporal punishment of children also varies around the world.

In some places it's permitted, in some places it's partially allowed, and in others it's prohibited.

Nigeria and Indonesia both allow corporal punishment at home and in school, and there are very few legal restrictions on this.

In the U.

S.

, corporal punishment is banned in most states, but it's legal in some, and it's permitted in the home in all states.

So that means corporal punishment in school is actually allowed in some states in the U.

S.

, but in most European countries, including Sweden, Germany, and Ireland, they've banned corporal punishment of children in homes and schools.

The UK allows mild physical punishment in the home, so punishment such as smacking, as long as it does not leave a mark, but it bans it in all schools.

So, where would you put UK law on this continuum? Have a think.

Pause the video, turn and talk to someone nearby, or you can talk to me, and then come back when you are ready to move on.

Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment." So many people, therefore, argue that corporal punishment breaches human rights.

It causes physical pain and emotional suffering, which is a cruel and inhuman treatment.

It can be humiliating or degrading, especially when done in public or as a form of control, and it often targets vulnerable groups like children or prisoners, raising concerns about dignity and fairness.

As well as thinking about whether corporal punishment violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there are other questions to consider.

Does it change people's behaviour? Is it effective? What emotional impact could it have? Is it better than other types of punishment and other approaches? Does it damage trust in authority? What message does it give about punishment? Zoe is an atheist, and she's been asked about her view in relation to corporal punishment of children.

Zoe says, "I believe children should never be hit, whether at home or at school.

Corporal punishment teaches them to become fearful, and it doesn't help them learn.

It also damages a child's confidence and trust in adults.

That's why I support the work of Save the Children.

They help change laws around the world to protect children and provide education for parents and teachers on better ways to guide behaviour." So, how does Zoe put her views on the corporal punishment of children into practise? Pause the video.

Have a look at what she said.

Turn and talk to someone nearby if you can, or you can talk to me, and then come back when you're ready to move on.

So, you might have noticed that Zoe supports the charity Save the Children.

Brandon is a humanist, and he's also been asked about his views, this time on judicial corporal punishment.

So that means for crime.

Brandon says, "I believe in upholding human dignity and opposing all forms of cruel treatment.

Judicial corporal punishment violates Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that no one should be subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment.

I support Amnesty International's campaigns to end these practises, as they go against the values of justice, fairness, and respect for all people." So, how does this tie in with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Pause the video.

Have a look at what Brandon said again.

Turn and talk to someone nearby, or you can talk to me, and then come back when you are ready to move on.

You might have noticed that Article 5 states, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment." Someone's view on corporal punishment is likely to be affected by the importance they place on each aim of punishment.

So, deterrence.

Well, someone who supports deterrence might also support corporal punishment because they'd see it as a strong warning to others.

It's valued because it's got a deterrent effect.

But you could also question how effective it really is as a deterrent.

Does it really reduce crime? Does it really put people off? If justice is the main focus or aim of punishment, then someone might be cautious, because justice involves fairness and proportionality.

Maybe corporal punishment would be unjust if it's degrading, excessive, or inconsistently applied.

Protection.

Well, if punishment is about protection, they might support it because they might believe it removes the threat quickly.

But on the other hand, someone might prefer a long-term solution like imprisonment or rehabilitation because it's more effective.

Reformation.

Well, if someone supports reformation, they're probably likely to oppose corporal punishment, because the focus is on pain and fear rather than helping someone change or understand their behaviour.

Retribution.

Retribution is about payback.

So, someone who supports retribution might support corporal punishment because it could be seen as giving offenders what they deserve, especially if they caused harm.

Which aim of punishment is most likely being prioritised by someone who supports corporal punishment as giving offenders what they deserve? Is it A, deterrence; B, reformation; or C, retribution? Take a moment, pause if you need to, jot down your answer, and then come back when you're ready to move on.

So, well done if you put "retribution," which means payback.

For task A on corporal punishment, I'd like you to decide if each statement is an argument for or against corporal punishment, then explain why someone might hold that view.

The first statement: "It causes emotional and physical harm." Secondly: "It does not help the offender change." Thirdly: "It gives people what they deserve." Fourthly: "It violates human rights." And fifthly, "It deters others from crime." So, is it an argument for or against? And why might someone think this? Pause the video, take your time to write about each of those statements, and then come back when you are ready to see what you could have said.

You could have said for, it causes emotional and physical harm.

This is an argument against.

Corporal punishment physically harms the body and also causes emotional harm by making the person feel afraid.

For the statement, "It does not help the offender change," this is also an argument against.

Pain could make someone focus on avoiding suffering, not really about thinking what they've done wrong.

For the third point, "It gives people what they deserve," this seems to be an argument for.

Justice requires the offender to suffer in return for the suffering they caused.

For the false statement, "It violates human rights," this could be seen as an argument against because causing physical pain is a cruel punishment, and it breaks Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

And finally, "It deters others from crime." This is an argument for because it suggests the fear of pain or public shame might discourage others from committing similar crimes.

So well done if you managed to show how those statements could be used in a discussion about corporal punishment.

For the second part of our lesson, we're going to be looking at some of those issues surrounding corporal punishment.

Neil is a humanist, and he's explaining his view on corporal punishment.

Neil says, "I believe moral decisions should be based on reason, evidence, and concern for human well-being.

Corporal punishment causes physical and emotional harm that cannot be morally justified.

Its use by the state degrades human dignity, abuses the state's power, and may encourage violent attitudes in society.

It also fails to support justice and rehabilitation." So, which five issues does Neil raise? Pause the video.

Have a really good look at the issues raised by Neil in his statement.

Come back when you are ready to see what those issues are.

Neil gave five reasons why corporal punishment cannot be justified.

He said, firstly, corporal punishment causes physical and emotional harm.

He then says its use by the state degrades human dignity.

He moved on to say it abuses the state's power.

Then he said it may encourage violence in society.

And finally, he said it fails to support justice and rehabilitation.

So, Neil's a defence barrister.

He works with people who've committed serious crimes.

How might this have influenced his views on corporal punishment? Pause the video, turn and talk to someone nearby if you can, or you can talk to me, and then come back when you're ready to move on.

Corporal punishment violates Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The use of corporal punishment inflicts pain and causes humiliation.

This means that the person is degraded and their dignity is lost.

Is this statement true or false? Corporal punishment causes humiliation, but this is not considered a breach of human rights if it's part of a legal sentence.

So take a moment, think about your answer.

Also, have a think about why it's true or false.

Come back when you're ready to check.

Well done if you put false.

But why is it false? Well, Article 5 protects against degrading treatment regardless of legal context.

So, another issue with corporal punishment is that legalising it abuses the state's power.

The state exists to protect citizens, to uphold justice, to defend human dignity.

But corporal punishment means inflicting physical harm using violence to punish and causing humiliation.

So the two are in conflict with each other.

They're a contradiction.

The state cannot protect dignity while using violence against the people it claims to protect.

Let's check your understanding.

Give one way in which it could be argued that corporal punishment is an abuse of the state's power.

Pause the video.

Have a think about your answer, jot it down, and then come back when you're ready to check.

You could have said any one of the following: it uses violence instead of protecting people; it causes humiliation, not dignity; it contradicts the state's role to protect; it harms the people it claims to protect; or it breaks the state's duty to defend dignity.

Well done if you got any of those examples.

Another issue is that corporal punishment risks normalising violence.

So if the state uses violence to punish crime, offenders may learn that violence is an acceptable way to deal with wrongdoing.

They may copy this behaviour and use violence in their own lives, and this, in turn, would lead to more violence in society.

Let's check your understanding.

What are the missing words? Corporal punishment can create a cycle that normalises violence.

It starts when the state uses.

force to punish crime.

Offenders learn that violence is.

They may go on to use violence themselves.

Take a moment, pause the video, jot down what you think the gaps are, and then come back when you're ready to check your answer.

So well done if you put, when the state uses physical force, and offenders learn that violence is acceptable.

Corporal punishment undermines reform and rehabilitation.

So this is another issue surrounding it.

Corporal punishment leads to emotional and physical pain, including fear and resentment.

And physical and emotional pain can prevent people from being open to change and learning from their mistakes.

This means reform and rehabilitation are less likely.

So, give one way in which corporal punishment might make reform and rehabilitation less likely.

Pause the video.

Have a think about your answer.

Come back when you're ready to see what you could have said.

You could have said any one of the following: it creates fear instead of encouraging reflection, it causes resentment which reduces trust it focuses on pain rather than helping someone change, it makes people more defensive instead of accepting responsibility.

So well done if you mentioned any one of those.

For task B, here is a full evaluation statement about corporal punishment: "Corporal punishment can never be justified." Evaluate this statement.

In your answer, you should give reasoned arguments in support of this statement, should give reasoned arguments to support a different point of view, Should refer to religious arguments, may refer to non-religious arguments, and should reach a justified conclusion.

I'd like you to write a paragraph.

Reasoned arguments on support.

Include the following points.

Firstly, it is a violation of human dignity.

Secondly, it's an abuse of power.

And thirdly, it risks normalising violence.

So take your time.

Pause the video.

Write your paragraph, and then come back when you're ready to see what you could have written.

You could have said, "Corporal punishment can never be justified because it deliberately inflicts pain, which many see as a violation of human dignity.

It treats people as objects to be hurt rather than individuals with rights, even when they have committed a crime.

There's also a serious risk of abuse of power, especially in justice systems without strong safeguards where punishments can be applied excessively or unequally.

Furthermore, corporal punishment may normalise violence by teaching that using physical force is an acceptable way to deal with wrongdoing.

This can lead offenders to repeat the same behaviour in society, increasing the very violence the punishment aims to reduce." So that's just an example, but well done if you managed to put forward a reasoned argument in support of the statement.

In today's lesson, we have learned that corporal punishment involves deliberately causing physical pain, and it is still used in some homes, schools, and legal systems. Many believe it violates Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which bans cruel or degrading punishment, as it causes pain, humiliation, and it undermines dignity.

Opponents argue it harms physical and emotional well-being and makes reform less likely.

Supporters see it as retribution or deterrence, believing it gives offenders what they deserve or discourages others.

Critics say it normalises violence, encourages fear, and teaches that physical force is acceptable.

Well done for all of your hard work this lesson.

Thank you for working with me today.