Should corporal punishment be allowed?

Corporal punishment offers no restitution

Question: Should corporal punishment be allowed?
Position‹2 of 3›: No, corporal punishment is bad
Argument‹3 of 6›: Corporal punishment offers no restitution

Part of the punitive process is to offer restitution to victims. This stage is absent in methods of corporal punishment.

The argument

The most effective punishments have a restitutive aspect to them. The restitutive process is important to get the transgressor to acknowledge that their actions had a detrimental impact on the lives of others. Corporal punishment has no restitutive factor. It does nothing for the individual or the community wronged by the infraction or transgression. Unlike community service or fines, which offer some collective benefit, corporal punishment fails to compensate the victims affected.

Context

Restitution is an important part of the punitive process. Corporal punishment offers no form of restitution to the victim or the community that suffered.

Premises

[P1]The most effective punishments are restitutive, getting the transgressor to acknowledge the harm they caused others. [P2] Corporal punishment has no restitutive factor and does nothing for the individual or community wronged. [P3] Unlike community service or fines, which offer some collective benefit, it fails to compensate the victims. [C] Therefore, because corporal punishment offers no restitution, corporal punishment is bad.

Counter-arguments

We do not have to make amends to a victim in order for a punishment to be effective. Many crimes are victimless crimes in the sense that there is no victim for the offender to offer restitution to. These offenders are still able to learn from their crimes and be rehabilitated. Therefore, restitution is not an essential component of the punitive process.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Restitution is not an important part of the punitive process.