Judicial caning: justifiable deterrent or barbaric punishment

This is a video of the result of Olver Flicker's vandalism.

Recently, Oliver Flicker, a Swiss, was sentenced to a few strokes of canes under the charge of trespassing and vandalising an MRT train. This is an extremely brutal way to punish someone who did not cause any harm to any life.

Oliver Flicker indeed committed a crime that would distort Singapore's image to foreigners. He should have asked for permission in advance before carrying out his illegal activities , which might not subject him to breaking the law. Some would not find it artistic.Besides, this is an act that is endangering his own life even if the train is at rest in the wee hours.But this is not justifiable.

The court that lay Flicker's sentence is not just as he was not the only one that vandalise the train. There was another person who had already left Singapore. He should be extradited to be tried in the same court as Oliver Flicker and charged in the name of justice if Singapore really wants to exhibit its fairness to the public.

Being fined is definitely justifiable for the cost to clean off the graffiti Oliver has done while imprisonment for a short term is moderately justifiable too for spoiling the country image. But I must reprimand that caning is pays no respect to human rights , especially in the case of vandalising. It's far too harsh a punishment for just vandalising a part of a train. It's not a serious crime such as murder, physical assault, permanently crippling someone, drugs trafficking or the defamation of a country that has to be strictly dealt with.

Caning would have drastic effects on a person both mentally and physically. While caning, the person skin would split and blood would flow. If the cane is lucky enough as to lash the same spot, the person would have lasting severe injuries and pain even if antiseptic cream is applied, which I feel is inadequate. On the mental part, humiliation is inevitable. But this might affect one who has a family, especially one that that has been widely propagated such as this case of Oliver Fricker. He would have to endure the pain for a short while and encounter few problems in his daily life such as feeling pain while sitting or not able to drive a car. Even before caning, there were cases where people committed suicide merely to avoid it. This would also affect those who have families or parents to look after. Confucius once said that when a child gets hurt, not only it affects the child himself or herself but the parents who would feel a worse pain in the heart. Thus, the court should not sentence Oliver Fricker to be caned even if it's just a few strokes. Singapore should also consider the future intentions of Oliver when he returns to his country. He, as a foreigner, might start abusing the borderless internet and insult or criticise Singapore as harshly as the way Singapore laid the caning on him when Singapore could do nothing but to request for an extradition of him which might not be so welcomed in the Western especially after what Singapore has done which gave it a undesirable reputation.The weigh of the crime commited , which did not even cause any pain to anyone, and the weigh of the caning sentence, which would cause inexplicable pain to the sufferer, does not correspond to each other.

If Oliver Fricker is eventually caned, then he should not only be applied antiseptic cream to his wound but also given more medical care and regular health check-ups till he is confirmed healthy and normal. If he needs help to face his own future due to humiliation, Singapore, as a well developed country, has the responsibility to guide him through.

There are always alternative and more effective methods to prevent vandalism other than the law. Oliver has only committed the crime for the first time and should be given a chance. He could be counselled. He could be told to clean up the MRT train by his bare hands and have a taste of his own vandalism. He could be prohibited to use the the trains or deprived of privileges for a short period of time.Besides, walls could be covered up with strong absorbents so that when someone vandalises it , rainwater could wash away or diffuse the sprays.

Still, I agree with Singapore that vandalism is a wrong act and we should never vandalise public facilities of a country as they require much effort to build and preserve.