SWEDEN
DEBATE • A well-functioning legal system has both carrot and stick. Today's Sweden only has – figuratively speaking – the carrot. I suggest we - literally - add the whip.

A good punishment meets certain requirements. Among other things, it should encourage improvement, not harm the criminal more than necessary, and preferably also be cheap. Prison fails on all counts. It encourages continued crime, harms both the criminal and society, and is insanely expensive.

Caning painful, which is good as evolution has carved into our genes that pain should be avoided. Something similar does not exist when it comes to prison, which is psychologically difficult to connect with the crime. Nor does caning separate the criminal from law-abiding society for years, placing them in a circle of acquaintances that can best be compared to a criminal university.

Some claim that whipping people is brutal. Of course they are right - it is precisely this brutality that makes the punishment effective. But it is easy to adjust this brutality if, contrary to expectations, it were excessive. A hundred lashes is brutal, but one lash is not. Corporal punishment can be tailored to the person and crime with endless variations, from the laughably light to the totally inhumane. It wouldn't be difficult to place us somewhere between a snap on the nose and running over people with an armored car.

The easiest way to adjust the brutality of punishment is to let the criminals choose. Let's say a person is sentenced to a year in prison. This person can then be offered to exchange this prison term for whipping. If it turns out that he prefers prison, well, no harm done. If the person prefers the whip, that is their choice. Depending on the prisoners' choices, it would not be difficult to calculate how much a whip is worth measured in prison time. In this way, we can also increase the flexibility of the penal system, as through a combination of caning, imprisonment and fines we can reach all of Sweden's criminals, from first-time offenders to the most hardened.

Corporal punishment should be carried out in public. That way, everyone can see that justice is being done, which is not the case in prison. That this is not done today is perhaps the biggest violation of the principle of openness and Swedish legal certainty. The humiliation that the public entails can well be included in the punishment. Many crimes, such as the new gang crime, have primarily social rather than financial motives. It is "cool" to be a gangster. Public flogging would allow the public and potential recruits to see (again literally) the underbelly of gangster life.

The reason why we do not already whip criminals today is emotional. It just feels wrong to cause suffering. It is good that we have such a barrier, as it explains why most people are not criminals. But there is much in this world that feels wrong but is still right. We should not delude ourselves that today's imprisonment causes less suffering than caning, both for the criminal and the public. The criminal suffers in prison, causes his victims suffering when he is released again, and the resources we pay for prison places could be put to much better use.

Unfortunately, too many are willing to inflict any suffering, as long as they don't have to see it themselves. Prisons are not humane, they only hide and spread cruelty. Not seen, not found, we reason. Sticking your head in the sand is short-sighted and cowardly.