Caning
Caning is a form of corporal punishment consisting of administering a prescribed number of strikes, known as "strokes," to the offender's body—most commonly the buttocks—with a cane typically fashioned from rattan, a flexible tropical vine.[1] The practice aims to inflict controlled physical pain as a deterrent and retributive measure, distinguishing it from less structured forms of beating by its regulated application and implement.[2] Historically rooted in ancient disciplinary traditions and formalized under British colonial codes in regions like Malaya, caning persists in judicial, reformatory, military, school, and parental settings in select jurisdictions, particularly in Southeast Asia.[3] In Singapore, Malaysia, and Brunei, it is mandatory for over 30 offenses including violent crimes, vandalism, and certain drug violations, applied only to male offenders aged 16 to 50 deemed medically fit, with strokes ranging from 1 to 24 delivered by trained executioners.[2] These countries report among the world's lowest overall crime rates, with proponents attributing partial deterrence to the punishment's severity and certainty, though rigorous causal studies remain scarce and confounded by multifaceted law enforcement strategies.[4][5] The procedure involves securing the offender to a trestle or frame to expose the bare buttocks, using a water-soaked rattan cane approximately 1.2 meters long and 1.3 cm in diameter to ensure pliancy and deep tissue impact, with each stroke spaced to allow recovery under medical supervision.[2] While empirical research on milder physical discipline in children associates it with heightened aggression and poorer long-term outcomes, judicial caning's effects on adult recidivism are less studied, with anecdotal and statistical correlations suggesting short-term incapacitation and psychological aversion but no consensus on enduring behavioral reform.[6][7] Controversies center on its proportionality and human rights implications, yet its retention reflects a policy prioritizing tangible disincentives over rehabilitative ideals amid observed public order benefits.[8]