Of course, a very good argument against chopping bits off is that there are folk out there who have been born without or have lost bits for other reasons, and it would be very unfair on them for people to think they might be criminals.
Sorry, I think I was trying so hard to 'think outside the box' that I completely forgot what was in the box.
But maybe something like lashes might work (although it'd only be a bit of transient pain rather than a permanent reminder)?
The point I was really interested in is why people don't think that psychological punishments can be harsher than physical ones.
Perhaps a better example to take would be methods of disciplining kids.
I understand that there may be some statistical evidence that children who are physically punished may be more likely to be use violence on others when they grow up.
Okay, but has anyone looked into whether kids who are psycho-socially punished may be more likely to use psycho-social techniques on others when they grow up.
The whole arguement that we shouldn't smack kids rests on the premise that psycho-social techniques are in some way better than physical ones.
But as I argued in and earlier message, there is probably always a point at which most people would opt for a physical punishment of magnitude x rather than the psycho-social one of magnitude y.
When I was a kid I got the occasional smacking and I ask got the occasional 'time out on the naughty step' sort of psycho-social disciplining. I can honestly say that I hated both.
I really don't see the logic behind some people's assertions that physical disciplining is utterly wrong and psycho-social disciplining is right.
Can someone explain this too me? I am puzzled.