Print this post Print this post

In Defense of Flogging

FLogging2,772 words

Peter Moskos
In Defense of Flogging
New York: Basic Books, 2011

Are you a coward? Did you drop out of nursing school because taking a blood sample would “violate the patient’s bodily integrity?” Then In Defense of Flogging is not for you. If, on the other hand, you intend to make America great again, Peter Moskos’ book is a good place to start. Whether Moskos intended this or not, his book is a valuable contribution towards a future alt-right criminal justice policy.

As the title implies, this book defends corporal punishment, specifically the lash. Moskos proposes this as an alternative to incarceration which in his view, given the harsh reality of prison, most offenders would freely choose. As he noted in an interview, many have bemoaned the ills of incarceration in books few people read, but he hoped to break out of this pattern by presenting a real alternative. Unfortunately, no candidate for office has included his suggestions in their platform as yet, but this is not for lack of merit.

Thankfully, Moskos is quite explicit about what he is advocating. This means not only proposing rules as to the circumstances of the flogging, but describing the procedure itself. Malaysia currently practices flogging, so he cites the testimony of a New Zealander who had the misfortune of being convicted of heroin possession in that country:

I got six. It’s just incredible pain. More like a burning — like someone sticking an iron on your bum. . . . Afterwards my bum looked like a side of beef. There was three lines of raw skin with blood oozing out. . . . You can’t sleep and can only walk like a duck. Your whole backside is three or four times bigger — swollen, black and blue. I made a full recovery within a month and am left with only slight scarring. (10)

In Singapore, flogging is done with a wooden rod, and the offender often goes into shock after four blows. A doctor is however available to treat the wounds, which Moskos approves of.

Despite the topic, the phrase “bleeding heart” comes to mind more than once while reading this text. To the author’s credit, he does admit that blacks have higher rates of crime than whites, particularly violent crime, and that this contributes to their higher incarceration rate. He does not blame crime entirely on external circumstances, admitting that “crime is often an act of free will” (27) and, contrary to the theory that crime comes from desperate poverty, that “not so many people steal bread these days” (70).

However, there is still a great deal of hand-wringing concerning racial disparities in the criminal justice system, as well as the “circumstances that contribute to crime.” Moskos believes for some reason that “To ask that the chances of a person being caught and punished for any given crime be roughly equal, regardless of race, would seem reasonable” (70). He even complains about slavery.

The above are peripheral issues, though, and do not detract from the substance of the book, which is a set of arguments in the direction the reader might have guessed from the title. These are mainly presented as a contrast with the prison system which essentially replaced flogging beginning in the late 18th century, and the author briefly covers the origins of the new and more “enlightened” system.

What is now known as the classical school of criminology is based on the ideas of Cesare Beccaria, an Italian philosopher and politician. In the 1764 Essay on Crimes and Punishments, he proposed that criminals are acting on their own free will and responding to incentives, rather than simply being possessed by the devil as the popular superstitions of the time held. His response to this was of course to give the criminal incentives, particularly negative incentives, to avoid crime. This attitude towards judicial punishment is now known as deterrence, and contributed to the development of the penitentiary in Britain and the United States.

The penitentiary was originally intended not only as a deterrent to crime but as a place to do penance, along with hard labor. A British Calvinist named John Howard, disgusted by the conditions prevalent in jails in the 1770s, first developed the idea of putting prisoners into individual cells. His belief was that solitary confinement provided the opportunity for a prisoner to be cured of his criminality through the intervention of the Almighty.

The first penitentiary in the United States was commissioned in 1790 by the state of Pennsylvania. The impetus came from the Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons, established three years previously by the Founding Father Benjamin Rush. In accordance with their recommendations, flogging was abolished in the same set of criminal code reforms which established the new institution. Many in this era believed that they were replacing a “barbarous” British system with one more suited to “a new country, simple manners, and a popular form of government” (37).

Unlike the existing jails, the penitentiary segregated prisoners by various characteristics including race and gender, as well as prohibited alcohol. Partly this was an attempt to protect the inmates’ health, both physical and moral; as with the penitentiary in England, such institutions in the New World were ostensibly for the prisoner’s own good.

On the topic of naïve attitudes toward human nature, Moskos draws parallels between prison and communism. The author judges both as having “in [their] idealism a certain enduring appeal,” especially to those who know little of the relevant reality, but characterizes the prison system as an escaped monster like that of Dr. Frankenstein, one which needs to be destroyed (102).
Among the many legitimate objections to the penitentiary is that it is not actually less cruel than corporal punishment. It takes away far more of the offender’s life, often a matter of years rather than the minutes necessary for a flogging. Aside from the issue of the abuses that inmates manage to inflict on each other, cruelty by the authorities in prisons was noticeable early on. In Pennsylvania at Walnut Street, the first American penitentiary, a doctor’s report from 1811 refers to starvation as a deliberate punishment.

Moskos gets at the issue of skewed moral priorities in those who would condemn flogging as immoral, particularly while condoning prison: “Opposition to flogging often seems to come not from a desire to protect the person being flogged but from a more selfish desire to protect the punisher” (147-148). In other words, the issue is feeling morally superior to corporal punishment and wanting to protect oneself from the loss of that feeling. The contemporary use of long-term solitary confinement is a good example of this; it causes more serious psychological harm than a simple beating would, but is still more permissible than so much as smacking an offender.

As for the common justifications for prison, Moskos is not alone in not thinking much of deterrence. Although he does not admit the racial differences in time preference, Moskos does grant that criminals tend to have little concern for consequences. The idea that criminals can be deterred from crime by the threat of future punishment “depends on a certain level of rational thought and long-term comprehension,” but there is “little evidence that most criminals consider possible punishment before committing a crime,” as they do not expect to be caught. (29)

The author is similarly unimpressed by the idea that prison serves to rehabilitate offenders. Support for this view comes for example from Professor Robert Martinson’s 1974 article in Public Interest,What Works?” which essentially agreed with the 1973 Presidential Advisory Commission conclusion that “[t]he prison, the reformatory and the jail have achieved only a shocking level of failure” (15).

As Moskos puts it, “If we were to grade prisons” at the functions they purportedly serve — “rehabilitiation, incapacitation, and punishment/deterrence — the only good grade comes from incapacitation: Here prisons get a gold star.” (89) Prison does indeed keep people reliably within the walls of an institution, at least if we discount parole or other circumstances of early release.

Despite this language, Moskos does not seem to agree with the view of incapacitation advanced by the late political scientist James Q. Wilson. Wilson, also known for the broken windows theory of policing, argues in his 1975 work Thinking About Crime that even if it does not serve to deter crime, incarceration still holds down the crime rate in that it prevents criminals from committing crimes for the duration of their sentence. As evidence against this theory, Moskos cites statistics suggesting that crime rates can continue rising while incarceration rates rise, for example in New York City.

Moskos does of course admit that certain individuals are very dangerous and will be less so behind bars. However, he apparently considers crimes short of murder, terrorism, and pedophilia to not be serious enough to warrant incarceration. As he puts it, “[p]edophiles, psychopathic killers, and terrorists immediately come to mind” as people who “may indeed need to be kept away from us as along as they are alive” (92). But the vast majority of inmates are in his view “mediocre people,” albeit often repeat offenders.

Regarding exactly how many people fit the “monster” description, he seems to think it is less than ten percent of the current prison population; “that number is probably closer to Japan’s incarceration rate of 60 [per 100,000] than America’s 750” (108).

Moskos grants that the need for criminal justice is partly a matter of retribution. He refers to a hypothetical device which would suddenly cure the criminal of his antisocial inclinations. Crime victims, he admits, would justifiably not be satisfied with such a device; even though it would remove the threat from the offender, it could not provide a feeling of justice because there would be no punishment involved. Flogging does not suffer from this flaw.

Punishment “must by definition hurt in some way,” and of course flogging fits the bill here (114). The author goes on to argue that some of his students profess their gratitude to being subject to corporal punishment growing up, in that it helped them stay away from an antisocial lifestyle or even an early death. In this sense apparently punishment can indeed deter crime.

According to the author’s anecdotal report, not only was corporal punishment used by police in the not-so-distant past, it was also offered as an option which many offenders would freely take over jail. Although the idea here is not flogging but something less dramatic, Moskos implies support for this as well, and understandably so. For any who do believe in deterrence, Moskos adds that “Compared to court, police punishment can be quicker, more proportionate, and even more consistent,” which are the same three factors cited by Beccaria as key to effective deterrence (122).

In connection with this, he makes a point similar to one noted recently by the German police chief Tania Kambouri concerning the need to make very clear that the police are in charge. Allowing signs of disrespect to go unanswered risks inviting serious attacks. Moskos is a former police officer himself, and testifies that during his time walking the beat in Baltimore, “I knew . . . An unanswered threat one day is a potentital threat every day to come. Passivity invites danger and can get you killed, and so police officers have to adopt a ‘hit him back’ mentality” (117). This is much more difficult when no cheap and immediate means of punishment is allowed.

Unfortunately, the eugenic argument for prison is not covered here. We have all heard of strange sexual behaviors being practiced in prison, but procreation is not often one of them. On the other hand, criminals on the outside are notorious for reckless reproduction. These men are often the sons of criminal fathers, so it follows that the fewer sons they have, the fewer offenders there will be. This is similar to something which has already been argued by economist Stephen Levitt, although in connection with something more dramatic than prison, namely abortion, which is beyond the scope of this article.

This argument might also explain why higher incarceration rates are not immediately followed by lower crime. A convict’s sons do not of course come out of the womb committing crimes, so his not having any will not have any effect right away. Generally, offenders are not getting in serious enough trouble to contribute to the crime rate until at least the age of puberty, and more likely their mid-teens. To expect a 15-year gap between a jump in incarceration rates and a reduction in crime rates, then, would be reasonable.

Unfortunately, Moskos does not consider the possibility of anything approximating sterilization, not even of those he considers real-life Hannibal Lecters. As an aspect of eugenics, such policies are widely considered unthinkable thanks to a desperate desire to have nothing in common with a German political party from the 1930s and ’40s. However, the policy has a history in the US, not only during the early 20th century, when fascism was popular among many Americans, but more recently as well.

An organization called Project Prevention, originally founded in 1997 in California, has demonstrated how negative eugenics can still be conducted in the current year. Despite charges of “racism,” the organization has provided voluntary long-term birth control to approximately 6,000 drug users and alcoholics, people deemed to be unfit to care for children. Most are white women, but many blacks and some of other races have been involved as well.

The organization notes that their efforts are “unlike incarceration . . . extremely cost effective,” at only $300 per patient for a one-time procedure. Considering the costs imposed on society by children born into this type of situation, including those for drug treatment, hospitalization, foster care, and the criminal justice system, this is a great success. A similar program aimed at single mothers in Colorado, although unrelated to drug abuse, has also had impressive results.

One more argument is that flogging is less impersonal than prison, making it more difficult to become desensitized or indifferent to. This distinguishes it from prison in making it less likely to be overused. This also distinguishes it from proposed alternate methods of corporal punishment such as electric shocks or anything else administered by means of a machine.

Along similar lines, flogging is “honest, inexpensive, and easy to understand” (114).

The honesty element is in line with the alt-Right meme of the red pill, the acceptance of a harsh truth rather than a pleasant lie such as the “rehabilitative” power or greater humanity of prison.

Flogging was traditionally public and thus more transparent, while prison is a private punishment. Not many ever visit a prison, let alone see any of the more unpleasant occurrences inside one. Contrary to the founding myth of the penitentiary as something more humane than corporal punishment, the abuses in this environment include high rates of rape. This is something which would certainly never be accepted as an explicit part of a criminal sentence, even in the “barbaric” 18th century.

The author’s proposed flogging system, though, would involve semi-public events. Along with representatives of the court, victims and their families as well as offenders’ families would be allowed to witness the whipping in person, and the punishment would be exactly what the court ordered.

Corporal punishment is obviously very cheap, especially in comparison to incarceration. The book goes into the massive costs of the current system, which it is unlikely that any reader would deny. The estimates the author cites suggest that incarceration costs vary “from a low of $13,000 per prisoner per [year] in Louisiana to $70,000 in New York City.” The national average is given as $26,000, and of course, as is so often pointed out, we have a higher proportion of inmates than any other nation in the world. Costs for flogging are not explicitly estimated here, but they would be limited to the costs for the equipment and the brief labor of the personnel involved, including a few law enforcement officers and a doctor.

The proposal here is one of voluntary flogging; the offender would need to choose this punishment over incarceration. Almost everyone would do so, assuming they understand what is implied in a prison sentence, but still getting consent would be important to overcome certain objections, such as the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

Rather than deterrence and rehabilitation, policies focused on retribution and the safety of law-abiding citizens would be more in line with our values. An alt-right administration might push for the reinstatement of flogging and a move away from prison for less dangerous convicts, in combination with some kind of negative eugenics program to protect future generations. The “penitentiary” is a long outdated institution based on religious views which hardly anyone today still holds. Policies based on a more red-pilled view are long overdue.


This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , . Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  1. jef Costello
    Posted June 21, 2016 at 9:14 am | Permalink

    George Ryley Scott’s book The History of Corporal Punishment gives the primary reason why flogging was eventually abolished in the West: criminals feared the punishment so much they would often commit greater crimes to avoid it. For example, a robber, knowing that if he were apprehended he would be flogged, might kill witnesses. Of course, the sort of flogging Scott describes was very different. Criminals could be sentenced to hundreds of lashes. After awhile, the whip would literally strip the flesh from their backs, exposing raw muscle and leaving them with hideous scars. The worst part is that the flogging would sometimes be halted by a doctor after, say, 200 of 500 strokes were administered. The prisoner would be given medical treatment and allowed to heal — then he would be sent back to receive the remaining 300 lashes! Understandably, most criminals were terrified of the punishment and would go to any lengths to avoid it. As to the 4-6 lashes mentioned here, I am skeptical whether it is likely to deter criminals. Ultimately, it seems that there is very little that deters them, isn’t it? Not the threat of death or incarceration. Even under the flogging system just described crime flourished. Perhaps the only solution is to expand the death penalty for more offenses — not to deter crime, but to get rid of criminals.

    • wsigma
      Posted June 21, 2016 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

      In a White ethnostate we would have one set of values to worry about, and can really concern ourselves about justice and miscarriages of justice however we choose to punish criminals. But in the current mess, which is what the author of the book seems to be advocating, I think lowering the threshold for the death penalty and introducing torture (which is what flogging is after all) is not beyond the pale for blacks only. A one-size-fits-all legal and punishment framework just doesn’t work. The section that mentioned race, inspired me to write this down:

    • Matthias
      Posted June 21, 2016 at 9:50 pm | Permalink

      “Even under the flogging system just described crime flourished. Perhaps the only solution is to expand the death penalty for more offenses — not to deter crime, but to get rid of criminals.”

      That was tried in many places before (e.g. China), with insatisfactory results along the line of “If I get killed for stealing a car anyway, why not take some cops with me. Gonna rape that girl, too, because I’ll be dead this way or that.”

      Capital punishment should be reserved for capital offenses. For those repeat offenders – why not some form of nerve-stapling?

  2. Dr ExCathedra
    Posted June 21, 2016 at 10:43 am | Permalink

    Newman’s 1980’s work, advocating electric shock, is here:

  3. Matt Turner
    Posted June 21, 2016 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    This book sounds like something I’ve considered writing myself.
    I’ve long maintained that corporal punishment should be reinstated.
    Prison serves as a breeding ground for crime. Many of Americas largest criminal gangs began as prison gangs. And incarceration is also seen as a rite of passage by many in the underclass.
    Prison time gives one prestige on the street in a way that a flogging wouldn’t.

    What modern crime-and-justice theoreticians fail to understand is that criminals are not motivated by the same things as non-criminals.
    The typical criminal – the repeat offender – doesn’t have much to lose. His family, such as it is, is probably already on some sort of government assistance. He probably isn’t going to be buying a house anytime soon, and his job, if he has one, is of a lowly nature. Combine this with low-impulse control, venal characteristics and no real attachment to the broader society and you have someone who is not going to be particularly afraid of going to prison.

    Of course no one likes being in prison, but for the underclass prison is not as devastating as it would be to someone of the middle to upper class.

    In the meantime, prisons act as a revolving door. Criminal type commits crime, goes to prison, hangs with other criminals, gets out, re-offends.
    Nothing has been solved, he has learned no lesson, and the cost is great. Meanwhile he has made himself less employable, made contacts and/or accrued debts with criminal gangs, and now has a higher status on the street.

    What flogging would or wouldn’t do to correct these problems is up for debate.
    But it would be cheaper, be less damaging both families and employment, and wouldn’t be as “praiseworthy” as “doin’ time”.

    • Mr Reynard
      Posted June 21, 2016 at 11:49 pm | Permalink

      Quote: What flogging would or wouldn’t do to correct these problems is up for debate.??
      The first offense let say 20 lashes & release the perpetrator with a warning, next time it will be 40 lashes …. I don’t think that there will be many re-offenders after ??

  4. Matt Grey
    Posted June 22, 2016 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

    You must be joking. I really enjoy reading the great intellectually stimulating material provided hear at Counter-Currents. But to promote something as barbaric as this is a step in the wrong direction. BTW “Voluntary” flogging would just be the thin end of the wedge.

  5. Stronza
    Posted June 22, 2016 at 6:17 pm | Permalink

    Flogging is humiliating unless it’s freely chosen as an alternative to incarceration and the convicted knows exactly what he’s in for. It is not a good idea to seriously humiliate someone in a calculated way. They will have their revenge, you can be sure of it.

    Some years ago, a doctor did tests on an entire prison population and found that every last one of the men had serious glandular (hormonal) issues. Apparently, this causes unusual aggression and a nothing-to-lose outlook. I read this in a book which I think I still have somewhere.

    Anyway, I think that productive, useful, unpaid hard labor is the way to go. Not make-work projects. It is better than being beaten by a sociopath, which is what the official government floggers are. After 10 hours of pushing barrows of cement, by way of example, there’ll be no energy left for attacking other prisoners. Back to your cell for a simple meal, and sleep.

  6. Posted June 28, 2016 at 3:22 am | Permalink

    Many of the pro-flogging arguments presented here have been self-evident to me for years. Flogging is really the only effective punishment for illegal aliens. Such a policy would save many innocent lives.

  7. Jaego
    Posted June 29, 2016 at 12:54 am | Permalink

    Yes, bring back public hanging too. It’s far quicker and therefore less painful than the injection method. And for some of the spectators, it may serve as a deterrent. The squeamish mentality betrays us here: we want something “nice” like injection, that seems medical and humane, but is actually less so and also fails in that it isn’t a public deterrent. Also bringing it back with a thumb in the eye to political correctness and the so called Civil Right Movement. Ah, one can dream.

    Obviously I mean the trap door method that breaks the neck and not the cruel suffocation method. The Guillotine method would work too, but that has a Leftist history that we don’t want to vivify.

    What about bringing back the Duel as well? As Mr Covington says, there are certain kinds of harassment that the police cannot remedy, but perhaps can be by the Duel or the threat thereof. It’s just an extension and regulation of the adage, “An armed society is a polite society.”

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    White Identity Politics

    The World in Flames

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    Venus and Her Thugs


    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics


    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles


    The Node

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Gold in the Furnace