Throughout this survey one question has appeared repeatedly:
Did the punishment prevent the pupil from committing the offence again?
The answers demonstrate why the effectiveness of corporal punishment cannot be settled by a simple yes or no.
Clear Cases of Deterrence
There are numerous cases in which respondents stated that they did not repeat the offence.
The eleven-year-old pupil punished for talking during silent work at St John’s College in 1971 reported that he did not do so again.
The twelve-year-old caught running along a corridor in 1964 similarly stated that the offence was not repeated.
The boys punished for dangerous play-fighting on a staircase in 1959 apparently learned the particular lesson intended.
Such accounts provide evidence that corporal punishment sometimes achieved its immediate purpose.
Temporary Deterrence
Other cases were less conclusive.
The nine-year-old punished for classroom disruption in 1953 described the punishment as effective only “for a while.”
This distinction is important.
A punishment which prevents misconduct for a week has had an effect.
It has not necessarily produced a permanent change.
Failure
The boarding-school pupil punished repeatedly for talking after lights-out represents the opposite extreme.
He received corporal punishment many times for dormitory offences and regarded it as ineffective.
Repeated punishment without changed behaviour is difficult to describe as successful deterrence.
Losing the Fear
The Lincoln schoolboy whose first substantial punishment occurred in 1956 offers another warning.
After discovering what punishment was actually like, he believed that some of his previous fear disappeared.
He subsequently became a more frequent offender.
Here the deterrent apparently weakened through experience.
What Was Being Deterred?
This brings us again to the distinction between specific and general deterrence.
A boy might never again run in a corridor but later be punished for fighting.
The punishment had deterred running.
It had not transformed him into an entirely obedient pupil.
A Reasonable Finding
The survey therefore supports neither extreme position.
It would be incorrect to say that corporal punishment was always effective.
It would be equally incorrect, on the evidence presented here, to claim that it never deterred misconduct.
Its effectiveness varied according to pupil, offence, circumstances and frequency.
That may be less dramatic than either argument.
It is, however, closer to what the evidence actually shows.
