When Corporal Punishment is Justified

This is something I've been thinking about since I wrote the second entry of my Sex and Right series. I often think of slavery and beating as horribly evil, and I sometimes describe them as being inherrently evil. But I do think slavery is morally justified in some situations (sans the slavery "contract"). And I think that beating can be justified when the victim and perpetrator agree that that's the best punishment.

First, the pragmatic reasons. Some people would really like to get on with their life without being locked in a labor camp, or having a criminal debt looming over their head. Having an alternative to monetary compensation available to the perpetrator would be nice. Also, the cost of keeping prisoners is quite high. I imagine that mere market forces would keep the number and size of prisons quite small. And, people who absolutely do not want to be in prison would not be productive workers, and would live as leaches on the justice system (which is pretty much how prisoners live today).

Now, the rights-based reasons. The whole purpose of justice is to restore complete sovereignty to the victim by "making right" the crime against her. Any act of justice that is carried out has to take into account her will - it is she who has been victimized, and it is she who has rights over the perpetrator. (This gets complicated when she isn't the only victim.) Yes, there is an upward limit to what she can do to the perpetrator. But I don't think there is any downward limit. If she's a pacifist, she can order him released and cancel his debt, or she can declare his debt cancelled from the moment she's victimized. If she's merciful, she can settle for a debt that is much lower than the cost imposed on her by the crime. Or, she can settle for some kind of non-monetary compensation.

I'm actually unsure whether beating the perpetrator without his consent fits above or below the upward limit of what the crime victim can request. But I am sure that if the perpetrator favors getting beaten over having to pay an overwhelming sum of money, and if the victim is willing to accept his welts and yelps as payment in full, then we have an agreement.

I don't see any reason why this shouldn't also apply to civil cases. If someone is found negligent, and they are unwilling or unable to pay monetary damages, and the plaintiff is willing to settle for welts and yelps, then welts and yelps it shall be.