THE CASE AGAINST FLOGGING
[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.] was glad to read your comments on the demand for an inquiry into the question of flogging. The Government have, as you say, dismissed the question as being of no importance. To many people the mere existence of legalized flogging, a barbarous practice condemned by the International Penal and Penitentiary Commission in their Standard Minimum Rules, appears in itself to be a matter of importance. But apart from this, the present situation is far more serious than the Home Secretary admitted. He reassured the House of Commons by saying that floggings numbered less, than 12 on the last five years' average. These figures, however, referred only to floggings for breaches of prison discipline. Judicial floggings are far more frequent, and as Mr. Bernays' request for an inquiry followed the suicide of a man under sentence by a Court of Assize for robbery with violence, the figure was irrelevant as well as misleading. The true average is 40—not 12.
Moreover, the number is not, as Sir John Gilmour stated, decreasing, but increasing to an alarming extent. In 1930 the number of floggings ordered by the Courts was 13 ; in 1932 it was 63. In view of this rapidly increasing use of the " cat," it is surely not unreasonable to demand an inquiry as to whether the punishment serves any useful purpose even as a deterrent.
The whole question of the indecency and immorality of flogging is another matter ; but here also it is time to face the facts however unpalatable they may be. The matter will not be allowed to rest.—I am, Sir, yours, &c., CICELY M. CRAVEN (Hon. Secretary The Howard League for Penal Reform).
Parliament Mansions, Orchard Street, Victoria Street, London, S.117.1.
Previous page
