On Aug 14, local media reported that a Sessions Court in Muar, Johor, had convicted a 53-year-old man who had pleaded guilty to 19 charges of rape, and 11 charges of sexual assault, against his two daughters.

The court sentenced the accused to 702 years in prison and 234 strokes of the rotan. However, due to legal considerations, the man will only serve 42 years in prison, as the judge ordered all the sentences for rape and sexual assault to run concurrently. He will also receive the maximum legal limit of 24 lashes.

Several questions arise for the purpose of discussion:

• Were the 234 strokes of the rotan meted out by the court excessive or just?
• To what extent is whipping effective, or not effective, in deterring potential future offenders?
• Does whipping deter recidivists (repeat offenders)?

Whipping (rotan), or corporal punishment, for convicted criminal offenders is viewed as a highly controversial practice by most democratic societies.

The strengths and weaknesses must be carefully examined and analysed. Moreover, it is important to note that the use of corporal punishment is generally considered a violation of human rights by many civil society groups and international organisations.

Nonetheless, here are some arguments that will address the strengths and weaknesses of whipping.

One frequently used argument in favour of whipping is that it may act as a deterrent, both general, and specific. In Malaysia, there is no known publicly disclosed study on this subject.

Some proponents (without scientific basis) believe the fear of severe physical pain could discourage potential offenders from committing crimes. These proponents argue that this could contribute to a safer society and reduce crime rates.

Whipping is often considered a lower-cost alternative to lengthy prison sentence. By implementing whipping as a form of punishment, instead of lengthy incarceration, it is argued that significant financial resources can be saved, and prison overcrowding, reduced.

Proponents of whipping also consider it a form of swift punishment. It can be administered shortly after the convicted offender is incarcerated upon conviction. When whipping is meted out shortly after sentencing, it is viewed as swift justice and a sense of closure for victims and their loved ones.

A prevalent argument against whipping is that it is a cruel and inhumane punishment that violates a person’s dignity and rights. Civil society groups and international human rights organisations argue that any form of corporal punishment, including whipping, is a form of torture and should be abolished.

Whipping can lead to abuse and excessive punishment by those administering it, although allowed by law.

In some nations, there have been cases where corporal punishment has resulted in severe injuries, or even death. This raises concerns about endangering the emotional, mental, and physical wellbeing of the convicted offenders.

Critics argue that the use of whipping and/or other forms of corporal punishment may not effectively deter individuals from committing crimes. Addressing the root causes of criminal behaviour, such as education, employment, disoriented families, neighbourhoods, and social support, would be more effective in preventing criminality and reoffending.

Democratic civil societies typically prioritise the protection of human rights and the promotion of individual dignity. Whipping and other forms of corporal punishment is viewed as a violation of these principles, as it involves the intentional infliction of physical, emotional, and mental distress and pain, on a person. This is considered by critics as morally and ethically wrong.

The use of whipping as a punishment for convicted criminal offenders in democratic societies continues to be heavily debated.

While some argue that it may act as a deterrent, the majority of objections stem from its perceived cruelty, potential for abuse, and violation of human rights.

Do we continue to remain silent and be labelled as a nation that is inhumane, or do we, as a ‘Madani’ society, abolish whipping?

Policymakers in this nation must address this matter by engaging a team of experts to investigate the effectiveness of whipping, and its impact on human rights.

This article first appeared on Twentytwo13.