105)
A-With every one of them; I always did. It is always the custom in every gaol and it must be on the records.
Q―Did you give a certificate when you were asked whether a man in your opinion was fit for a flogging and also just before he was brought out for a flogging that at the time for the flogging he was fit for it?
A-I said he was fit for a flogging and I was present. I was always present at every flogging so that I was personally responsible.
Q-Do you think a rattan is a proper instrument to use upon a Chinaman? an instrument that a Chinaman can bear?
Is it
A-As far as my experience goes there is nothing you cannot use improperly, but if flogging takes place under proper supervision there is no reason at all why it should not be proper, and if you only allow a man to use the rattan in a proper way. If he uses it in a mild way he does nothing; he must bring it down hard to make any impression at all.
If he works it round his head, as I have seen, it is absurd, as he makes a deepseated contusion even if he does not do any injury outside to the skin. In all flogging cases the thing is to be regulated by experience.
Q-Do I take you to say that abrasions usually accompany a severe flogging, say, of more than twelve strokes ?
A-Yes.
Q-But that abscesses are of very rare occurrence ?
A—Oh, very rare, or should be.
Q-Well, in your experience they were rare ?
A-In my experience they have been very rare.
Q-Would you fix any interval between the first and the second flogging, or between the second and the third flogging of the same man?
A-I would not flog a Chinaman until the wound is thoroughly well healed and the contusions have disappeared.
Q-You would not flog a Chinaman for the second time until the marks of the contused wounds had disappeared ?
A-No. You always see the mark of the rattan, but the man is perfectly well as far as he ever will be. Scars are left but no scabs.
Q-Do you think it would be better to limit the time between the imposing of two floggings?
A-Well, you cannot very
well
put a limit.
In one case it is a severe flogging and in another case it is not. At the same time I do not think I would use flogging, even six strokes, for every little thing that turns up--talking and trifling offences in the Gaol. It appears to me that complaints are made very often to show zealous supervision on the part of the overlooking officers.
He
Q-It is rather a serious thing to say that if a warder does not bring forward reports he is looked upon as incompetent. Have you any foundation for that statement? A-I do not say that. appears to get the credit of being a smart man. I mean to say this, that flogging should be for serious offences of Gaol discipline. In India it is the sole punishment for petty thefts, &c. A man gets six or ten strokes and he goes away and he gets no further punishment; but in the Gaols you would not think of giving floggings for every trivial offence. They only gave flogging for what were considere: serious offences. If there is a mutiny, or an attack upon a warder, there is no doubt you would have to adopt severe measures or the prisoners would not be made to understand.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.