I do not want someone who was sentenced to 5 years in prison to be able to chose 10 lashes, precisely because it's a much, much more lenient punishment.

What the hell do you even have to DO to get sentenced to 5 years in prison these days, anyway? You could probably kill seventy people and the most you would get is a two year suspended sentence and a community supervision order.

Of course, I'm writing this from a British perspective. Maybe the American system is actually more effectual. I certainly wish we were bitching about prison sentencing being "too harsh" over here.

This man makes a very compelling point here.  He says that flogging is, if anything, less inhumane than our current prison system and possibly the only way to solve our prison overpopulation issues.

I would submit that the man almost completely misses all major points he's trying to address. Like, not even in the same ballpark.

For one thing, the first reason that you have 2.3 million inmates is that minor drug-related charges carry prison sentences. To the tune that, IIRC, half or two thirds of your in-mates are sitting out a drug-related offense. Which means that the only way to even begin solving your prison overpopulation issues is to stop that stupid, misguided, bullshit War on Some Drugs. Fat chance of that, I know, given that in the last month alone courts in two states (KY and IL, IIRC) basically did away with your Fourth Amendment rights in the name of that War, but there it is. (He does make that point in passing, only to dismiss it in the same breath. Why?)

Secondly, the US justice system is incredibly punitive, racist and classist. Introducing corporeal punishment wouldn't fix a bit about that.

Thirdly, he bemoans the high cost of prisons and touts flogging as cheaper and more humane. Well, he might do well to look at cultures where flogging was actually practiced routinely, like the 17th or 18th century British navy, to see how it actually stacks up: Lashes don't simply stack and his argument that "If you want someone to receive more punishment, you give more lashes." is bullshit. Anything more than about 35 lashes was frequently enough to cause the penitent to die. Which is why sentences carrying higher numbers of lashes had to be spaced out over months to allow the person to heal up in the mean time. How is that less cruel than prison? Also, as he writes himself, "Even if these wounds were attended to immediately, a full recovery could take weeks or months." so people would need medical treatment, sometimes extensive medical treatment, after the punishment, or in between punishments. Is that really that much cheaper than prison?

And finally, who is to do the punishing? The offended party or their closest relatives? Professional floggers? And who will see to the mental health of those people?

Tamsin, I think you've hit it.  I've now read it twice, once in the print version of the magazine and once just after I posted it.  Given the super neo-liberal nature of that particular publication, I am more and more convinced he wanted to demonstrate exactly how ridiculous things have gotten when flogging in fact seems less inhumane than what we're currently doing.