Corporal Punishment in Detention Centres and Training Centres
22
Section 16 of the Detention Centre Regulations (Chapter 239) and Section 20 of the Training Centre Regulations (Chapter 280) provide for caning male inmates who have committed disciplinary offences. The Correctional
Services Department will review these provisions.
FINANCIAL AND STAFFING IMPLICATIONS
23
The abolition of judicial corporal punishment may slightly increase the penal population, though numbers would be very small and the financial implications insignificant. There are no staffing implications.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
24
The Fight Crime Committee has been consulted and has recommended that judicial corporal punishment be abolished. Paragraphs 7 and 8 summarize surveyed public opinion on the issue.
25
The Judiciary is firmly of the view that caning as the only alternative to a mandatory sentence under section 33 of the Public Ordinance should be abolished. The Chief Justice feels that corporal punishment is not an effective
sentence.
PUBLIC REACTION
26
Corporal punishment in Hong Kong has been a subject of interest to both local and overseas media. Human rights groups, both local and international, and the legal profession are likely to welcome its abolition. But some members of the public might
the public might consider that the removal of judicial corporal punishment represents a softening of the Government's approach to the treatment of criminals, and may therefore object to abolition.
PUBLICITY
27
A press release will be issued to announce that Government has decided to seek
the repeal
repeal of all corporal punishment provisions in Hong Kong Ordinances. It will emphasise that the
the decision to seek abolition of judicial corporal punishment does not represent a Government's attitude towards criminals and alternative sentences, which have both rehabilitative effect, would still be available.
relaxation of that adequate deterrent and