TYPES OF PUNISHMENTS:

CORPOREAL AND INCORPOREAL

DONE BY:
NUHA RAZAK
BCOM LLB
ROLL NO : 20
SLS,CUSAT
INTRODUCTION

The concept of punishment has been an integral part of human societies throughout
history. Punishment is a means of enforcing social norms and laws by penalizing
individuals who violate them. There are many types of punishments, ranging from
physical harm to social and psychological consequences.

Two main categories of punishment are corporeal punishment and incorporeal

punishment. Corporal punishment involves physical harm or pain inflicted on the
offender's body, while incorporeal punishment involves non-physical forms of
punishment that focus on psychological, emotional, and social consequences.

Corporal punishment has been used throughout history and is still used in some countries
today. It can take many forms, including flogging, caning, whipping, and even amputation
or death. The use of corporeal punishment is controversial, with some arguing that it is an
effective deterrent for certain offenses, while others believe that it is barbaric and
inhumane.

In contrast, incorporeal punishment has gained popularity in modern times. This type of
punishment focuses on non-physical consequences, such as fines, community service,
probation, and imprisonment. Incorporeal punishment is seen as a more humane and
flexible approach, with potential advantages such as being less expensive and allowing for
more individualized sentencing.

The effectiveness of these types of punishment depends on various factors, such as the
severity of the offense, the age and mental state of the offender, and the social and cultural
context in which the offense occurred. It is important to carefully consider the advantages
and disadvantages of each type of punishment and to strive for a justice system that is fair,
just, and equitable for all.

This assignment discusses about the above-mentioned types of punishments in detail.

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT. 
From early history it is evident that, punishments were prevalent and people were
subjected to punishments to punish or as part of the punishment for crimes.Physical
punishment is a a kind of punishment that inflicts physical pain on all people. Corporal or
Corporeal punishments are used by authorities for different purposes like disciplining
children and for criminal punishment.

There are many types of corporeal punishments , amongst the death penalty is the gravest
and the top most punishment of them all. With the development of international
humanitarian law, corporeal punishments are highly opposed and regarded as barbaric.
Although many countries support the use of corporeal punishments, many other countries
have prohibited it. The use of death penalty are criticized by many countries and state
gross human rights violations as an argument against it.

What is corporeal punishment?

The literal definition of the term corporeal, which is derived from a latin term “corpus”, is
“human or animal body and the term corporeal punishment is which an adult supervisor
uses some form of physical force to inflict pain or suffering on someone.

Corporal punishments was also used for prisoners and slaves in the olden
times. The provisions of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, 
Dehumanizing or Inhuman Treatment or Punishment do not specifically include pain or su
ffering resulting from "legal punishment". However, a lawful sanction may still contain an
 element of abuse or ill-treatment. In this regard, the prohibition also extends to the
application of corporeal punishment on adults, as enumerated in General Comment No.
20: Prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment
(1992), by the UN Human Rights Committee.
Types of corporeal punishment

Some of the most commonly used methods of corporeal punishment are as follows:

Flagellation or flogging or whipping

Flagellation, or flogging, is a type of corporeal punishment where the victim is repeatedly

hit with continuous blows on his or her body, especially in the back. It is sometimes also
referred to as “whipping” or “caning.” It has been a very common method of corporeal
punishment used as judicial punishment as well as to maintain discipline in schools,
prisons, armies, and homes.

The tools commonly used for flagellation are whips, canes, rods, sticks, straps, lashes, or
other objects. The cat-o’-nine-tails was a whip with nine knotted lashes that was used in
the Royal Navy and British Army, as well as for judicial corporeal punishment in the
United Kingdom. In India, whipping is recognised as a punishment for prisoners
under Section 53 of the Prisons Act of 1894, under the supervision of the Superintendent
or a Medical Officer.

Bastinado, also known as “foot whipping,” is a type of whipping where strokes of a cane
are given to a person’s bare foot sole.

Throughout history, flagellation, especially with lashes or whips, has been associated with
domination and slavery.

Beating

Beating is another form of corporeal punishment usually used for prisoners and to make
children disciplined. In beating, the victim is hit violently. Forms of beating may include
spanking, slapping, pinching, pulling, or heating with any solid object.
Human branding or stigmatisation

Human branding, also known as stigmatisation, is a form of corporeal punishment in

which a visible mark is imprinted on the body of the offender. Historically, this method
has been used on slaves and livestock and in criminal law by various European nations. In
England, human branding was recognised by the Vagabonds Act of 1572, which was later
repealed by an Act of Parliament. It was also a common practice for punishment given by
the early colonial settlers in North America.

Human branding was common in India during the Mughal era, but it was later prohibited.

Blinding
Blinding is a form of historic corporeal punishment that resulted in total or partial loss of
vision. It was often used as corporeal punishment in historical societies like the ancient
Greek, Roman and Byzantine empire etc.

Mutilation
Mutilation as corporeal punishment has been completely discarded due to its barbaric
nature. It is a method of corporeal punishment used to cause intense pain, humiliation, and
permanent damage to body parts. Mutilation was also used as a method of judicial
punishment in England and America until the 17th century.

Amputation
Amputation is the removal of a body part as corporeal punishment for a crime. The use of
amputation as judicial corporeal punishment has been in existence since ancient times.
Ancient Romans and Greeks used to amputate various body parts of offenders. The
practice was also common in ancient Indian judicial punishment. Hands or fingers were
chopped off in cases of theft, depending on the gravity of the offence. For sexual offences
and adultery, male offenders were castrated, and female offenders were subjected to
rhinotomies (amputation of the nose). With time, the practice of amputation as a
punishment was abolished in India. 
Amputation as punishment was practised in England, Denmark, and several other
European countries as well until the 16th century.

Amputation as a mode of judicial corporeal punishment is still used in countries

like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Iran, etc. However, international human
rights groups are trying hard to stop the barbaric practice of amputation.

Stoning
Stoning is a barbaric form of capital punishment that was commonly used to be awarded
to sex offenders and as punishment for adultery during medieval times. The guilty person
was made to stand in a trench with a group of people throwing stones at the person until
he or she experienced a slow and painful death from trauma. 

In 2008, a 13-year-old girl was stoned to death in Somalia for adultery. There are some
reports that stoning as a method of punishment is still being used in Iran.

History and evolution of corporeal punishment

Since ancient times, corporeal punishment has been a fundamental component of human
civilization. Around 2000 BC, tomb raiders in Egypt received physical punishment for
their crimes, which is the first recorded use of corporeal punishment. The use of corporeal
punishment was widespread in ancient Greek and Roman culture. However, some
philosophers and academics opposed the use of corporeal punishment. Written accounts
of pro-corporeal-punishment ideas can be found in the Old Testament. The Bible's book
of Proverbs is sometimes used to encourage or excuse the use of corporeal punishment on
children, according to historian Philip J. Greven Jr. in his 1990 book Spare the child: the
religious roots of punishment and the psychological impact of physical abuse. Both the
Qur'an and the Sunnah mention physical punishment.

Throughout history, corporeal punishment has frequently been used. People in the fifth
century of the Christian era frequently believed that corporeal punishment could protect
them from God's wrath, which was frequently diseases like the plague. The Tang Code of
China established a list of offenses and penalties, including corporeal punishment, in the
sixth century.

During the Spanish Inquisition, when Muslim and Jewish communities were persecuted
under the control of Catholic kings for several centuries, corporeal punishment was a
frequently employed technique.

Protestant figures like Luther, Calvin, and Knox promoted the ideas of rigorous discipline
and punishment for children during the 15th and 16th centuries. The Whipping Act of
1530, enacted in England by King Henry VIII, authorized the use of physical punishment
for minor offenses. The Charter of the Nobility, established by Queen Catherine II in
1785, freed nobility from corporeal punishment.

Ancient Indian legal books including the Dharmasastra, Daaviveka, and Manusmriti,
among others, describe the use of corporeal punishment only when it is necessary to
punish criminal offenses. The Sultanate and Mughal eras in India were also a time when
corporeal punishment was widely used. The Whipping Act of 1909 was enacted by the
British to add whipping to the list of penalties allowed by Section 53 of the Indian Penal
Code.

Evolution

The lobbying for the ban on corporeal punishment, both as a means of child discipline and
as a means of official punishment, increased with the global growth of human rights law.
In the state of Delaware in 1952, the final public whipping as a form of state-mandated
corporeal punishment took place. The same public whipping post was taken down in
1972. The use of corporeal punishment in American jails came to an end when Jackson v.
Bishop, a 1967 court case, for the first time outlawed it in the state of Arkansas.

The Abolition of Whipping Act of 1955 was subsequently passed in India, repealing the
Whipping Act of 1909 in the process. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, was further
amended, and the sentence of whipping was entirely stopped.
Through the Criminal Justice Act of 1948, judicial physical punishment was outlawed in
the United Kingdom. However, prisoners continued to receive corporeal punishment like
flogging. Finally, Section 65 of the Criminal Justice Act of 1967 made it illegal.

The use of corporeal punishment on minors was thereafter prohibited. Poland was the first
nation to forbid physical abuse of children in 1783. When Sweden amended the
Parenthood and Guardianship Code in 1979, it became the first nation to outlaw parental
corporeal punishment.

By 2022, physical punishment of children, including at home, was prohibited in 64

countries worldwide. To begin a global ban on corporeal punishment, 28 more countries
have pledged to amend their existing legislation.

According to End Corporal Punishment, a project under the Global Partnership and Fund
to End Violence Against Children, which was launched in 2016 by the then-UN
Secretary-General, even today, 63 countries in the world still have a ban on corporeal
punishment, and 33 states recognize it as legal.

However, it is still employed in many former British colonies, countries with a majority of
Muslims, and among adherents of Shariah law as a method of sentencing. Flogging and
caning are the most common corporeal punishment methods used by courts today.

In certain former British colonies, such as Singapore, Barbados, Botswana, Brunei,

Swaziland, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Zimbabwe, etc., judicial corporeal punishment is
still used as a sanction.

In the 1995 case of S v. Williams and Ors, the South African Constitutional Court ruled
that it was unlawful to cane male juveniles under the age of 21. The Abolition of Corporal
Punishment Act of 1997 ended corporeal punishment in the legal system.

In 1994, Singapore's use of judicial caning attracted attention on a global scale. In 1994,
an American juvenile named Michael P. Fay was detained and given a four-month prison
term, six cane strikes, and a $3,500 fine. The High Court heard the appeal about the
ruling. Then Chief Justice Yong Pung How later dismissed it.

During the colonial period, the British legal system had considerable influence on
Singaporean legislation pertaining to offenses punishable by caning. In accordance with
the guidelines outlined in Division 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010, the Vandalism
Act of 1966's Section 3 mandates caning as a punishment for vandalism with "not less
than 3 strokes and not more than 8 strokes," as well as a fine of up to $2,000 and a
maximum sentence of three years in prison.

The laws of Malaysia and Brunei, two of Singapore's neighbors, also include the use of
the cane in court. In addition, numerous nations, including the United Arab Emirates,
Qatar, Iran, Nigeria, and the Indonesian province of Aceh, among others, recognize
judicial caning or flogging. Judicial corporeal punishment is largely prevalent in
Afganisthan.

In April 2020, the Supreme Court of Saudi Arabia abolished flogging as judicial corporeal

punishment, though other forms of judicial corporeal punishment, such as amputation, are
still legal.

International conventions against corporeal punishment

Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 7 of the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also prohibit the use of torture and “cruel,
inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment,” but do not specifically mention
corporeal punishment. In the case of George Osbourne v. Jamaica (2000), the UN
Human Rights Committee decided that corporeal punishment awarded to persons accused
of crimes is contrary to Article 7 of the Covenant. 

Article 1 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment defines torture as an act of inflicting ‘severe’ mental or physical
pain with intentions such as obtaining any information or confession, punishing someone
for any offence he has committed or is suspected of having committed or to intimidate or
coerce with the consent of any public official or lawful authority. So it can be concluded
that the application of severe corporeal punishment to prisoners also constitutes torture.

Corporal punishment is prohibited by several international human rights conventions.

The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, also
known as the European Convention on Human Rights, prohibits any kind of torture,
degrading or inhuman treatment or punishment under Article 3.

The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners directly

mention the prohibition of corporeal punishment for prisoners.

Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

The issue of corporeal punishment of children was challenged by the European Court of
Human Rights in 1978 for the first time. The case of A v. the United Kingdom (1998) was
the first case on corporeal punishment brought before the Court. The Court ruled that the
child rights of A, the victim, were violated due to corporeal punishment of caning by his
stepfather under Section 3 of the Convention.

In the cases of Campbell and Cosans v. the United Kingdom (1983) and Costello-Roberts

v. the United Kingdom (1993), corporeal punishment was condemned in state and public
schools, respectively. 

A landmark judgement regarding corporeal punishment was the case of Tyrer v. the
United Kingdom (1978), decided by the European Court of Human Rights. In this case,
Anthony Tyrer, aged 15, was sentenced to three strokes of birch cane by a local juvenile
court due to unlawful assault. The Court held in six to one votes that judicial corporeal
punishment amounted to degrading punishment under Article 3 of the Convention.

Article 17 of the European Social Charter mandates that member states protect children

from all kinds of ill-treatment and that children are entitled to “social, legal, and economic
protection.” The Charter is monitored by the  European Committee of Social Rights
(ECSR).
Critical analysis
It is a known fact that corporeal punishment is still sanctioned by law in many countries.
For criminologists to comprehend why corporeal punishment is still used, they will
benefit from conducting a criminological investigation.

The UN is against the application of corporeal punishment to offenders, including the

death penalty. Similar to this, corporeal punishment of children in both schools and at
home has been outlawed by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. However,
there is a significant disparity between the law prohibiting corporeal punishment and its
actual application. The various cultural, economic, political, and social traits of each
country account for this.

The use of corporeal punishment is legalized and institutionalized in various countries. In

Middle Eastern nations with historically orthodox social and economic systems, it is still
frequently enforced. Additionally, there are certain former British colonies that use
corporeal punishment in court. As in Singapore, colonialism significantly contributed to
the institutionalization of physical punishment in those countries' cultures. One can better
comprehend the context of the predominance of physical punishment in these countries by
researching the socio-cultural history of these practices.
INCORPOREAL PUNISHMENT
Incorporeal punishment is a type of punishment that focuses on non-physical
consequences, such as fines, community service, probation, and imprisonment. This form
of punishment is becoming more popular in modern times, with many arguing that it is
more humane and flexible than physical punishments.

Incorporeal punishments are intended to have an impact on the offender's social,

emotional, and psychological well-being, rather than on their physical body. This type of
punishment seeks to change the offender's behavior by providing consequences that are
intended to discourage them from committing the same offense again in the future.

Incorporeal punishment is often seen as a more appropriate punishment for minor

offenses, and can also be used as an alternative to physical punishments for more serious
crimes. The effectiveness of this type of punishment depends on various factors, such as
the severity of the offense, the age and mental state of the offender, and the social and
cultural context in which the offense occurred.

While incorporeal punishment is becoming more popular, it still has its critics. Some
argue that it can be difficult to measure and enforce, and that it may not be effective in
deterring certain types of offenses.

HISTORICAL ROOTS

Ancient Civilizations:
The concept of incorporeal punishment has roots in ancient civilizations. For example, in
ancient Greece, the practice of ostracism was used as a form of incorporeal punishment.
Ostracism involved the citizens of Athens writing the name of an individual on a piece of
pottery, and the person with the most votes was then exiled from the city for ten years.
This form of punishment served as a way to maintain the balance of power in Athens and
prevent one person from gaining too much influence.
Similarly, in ancient Rome, the concept of infamia was used as a form of incorporeal
punishment. Infamia referred to the loss of social standing and reputation, which could
result from various actions, including criminal behavior or sexual misconduct. The
punishment of infamia was severe, as it meant that the offender was excluded from public
life, could not hold public office, and could not participate in social activities.

Medieval Europe:
In medieval Europe, the concept of incorporeal punishment was closely linked to the
Catholic Church. The practice of excommunication was used as a form of punishment,
whereby an individual was excluded from the church and its sacraments. This was a
severe punishment, as it meant that the offender was cut off from the spiritual community
and was considered an outcast.

Similarly, the practice of shunning was used in medieval Europe as a form of incorporeal
punishment. Shunning involved cutting off an individual from their community, including
their family and friends. This form of punishment was used for a range of offenses,
including adultery and theft.

Modern Era:
In the modern era, incorporeal punishment has evolved to include new forms of
punishment that focus on psychological, emotional, and social consequences. For
example, in the United States, the practice of public shaming has been used as a form of
punishment for minor offenses. This can include being required to wear a sign that
identifies the offender's crime or being required to perform community service.

Another example of modern incorporeal punishment is the practice of cyberbullying.

Cyberbullying involves using electronic communication to harass or intimidate an
individual. This form of punishment can have severe psychological and emotional
consequences and has been associated with depression, anxiety, and even suicide.
Effectiveness of Incorporeal Punishment:
One of the main advantages of incorporeal punishment is that it can be less expensive and
less time-consuming than physical forms of punishment, such as incarceration or fines.
Incorporeal punishment also allows for more flexibility in tailoring punishment to fit the
specific circumstances of the offense. For example, public shaming can be used for minor
offenses, while community service or probation can be used for more serious offenses.

Incorporeal punishment can also be more effective than physical punishment in certain
circumstances. Research has shown that punishments that focus on the offender's internal
motivations and attitudes, rather than just their external behavior, are more effective in
reducing recidivism (Murray, 2009). By focusing on psychological, emotional, and social
consequences, incorporeal punishment has the potential to address the underlying causes
of criminal behavior and reduce the likelihood of reoffending.

Disadvantages of Incorporeal Punishment:

One of the main disadvantages of incorporeal punishment is that it can be difficult to
measure its effectiveness. Unlike physical punishment, which can be quantified in terms
of the length of a sentence or the amount of a fine, incorporeal punishment is more
subjective and can be difficult to evaluate. Additionally, the effects of incorporeal
punishment may not be immediately apparent, and it can be difficult to determine whether
the punishment was responsible for the offender's change in behavior.

Another disadvantage of incorporeal punishment is that it can be more difficult to enforce.

For example, it can be difficult to ensure that an offender completes community service or
adheres to the terms of probation. Additionally, some forms of incorporeal punishment,
such as public shaming or ostracism, can be stigmatizing and may have long-term social
and psychological consequences for the offender.

Effectiveness of Incorporeal Punishment:

The effectiveness of incorporeal punishment is a subject of debate among scholars. Some
argue that it can be effective in deterring individuals from committing crimes and
correcting their behavior. For example, the loss of social standing and reputation can be a
powerful deterrent for some individuals. Research has also shown that incorporeal
punishment can be effective in reducing recidivism when used in conjunction with other
forms of punishment, such as incarceration or probation (Bergen et al., 2016).

However, others argue that incorporeal punishment is ineffective and can even be
harmful. For example, the practice of public shaming can lead to long-term social and
psychological consequences, and cyberbullying can be devastating for the victim's mental
health. Additionally, some argue that incorporeal punishment may not be effective in
deterring certain types of offenders, such as those with antisocial or psychopathic
personalities.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the types of punishments that exist in the justice system are vast and varied.
Corporal punishments involve the physical harm or pain inflicted on the offender's body,
while incorporeal punishments involve non-physical forms of punishment that focus on
psychological, emotional, and social consequences.

Corporal punishment has a long history and has been used in many cultures and societies
throughout time. While some argue that it can be an effective form of punishment for
certain offenses, others believe that it is barbaric and inhumane.

In contrast, incorporeal punishment has gained popularity in modern times due to its
potential advantages, such as being less expensive and more flexible than physical
punishment. However, it also has its disadvantages, such as being difficult to measure and
enforce.
Ultimately, the effectiveness of a punishment depends on the specific circumstances of the
offense and the offender. It is important to consider the potential advantages and
disadvantages of each type of punishment carefully and to tailor punishment to fit the
situation.

As society continues to evolve, so too will the methods used for punishment. It is
important to continually evaluate the effectiveness of different types of punishments and
to strive for a justice system that is fair, just, and equitable for all.

Furthermore, it is important to consider the ethical implications of different types of

punishments. Corporal punishment raises ethical concerns regarding the use of violence
and the dignity of the human person. Incorporeal punishment raises ethical concerns
regarding the potential for psychological harm and the need for accountability and
transparency in its application.

In recent years, there has been a shift towards restorative justice, which focuses on
repairing the harm caused by an offense and promoting healing for all involved.
Restorative justice emphasizes the importance of offender accountability, victim
empowerment, and community involvement in the justice process. This approach can
involve both corporeal and incorporeal punishments, but places a greater emphasis on
rehabilitation and reconciliation than on punishment.

Overall, the types of punishments used in the justice system are constantly evolving and
must be evaluated based on their effectiveness, ethical implications, and alignment with
the principles of justice and human dignity. It is important to strive for a justice system
that is fair, equitable, and compassionate for all involved, including victims, offenders,
and the broader community.
References

Ipleaders: corporeal punishments

Pate, M. and Gould, L.A. (2012) Corporal punishment around the world. Santa Barbara Calif.:
Praeger.

Greven, P.J. (1990) Spare the child: The religious roots of punishment and the psychological
impact of physical abuse. New York: A.A. Knopf. 

Moen, O.M. (2020) JUDICIAL CORPORAL PUNISHMENT, Journal of Ethics and Social
Philosophy.

Leonard P. Edwards, Corporal Punishment and the Legal System, 36 Santa Clara L. Rev. 983
(1996