The author of the following factual material does not wish his name to be published. Since so little seems to be known about South African Judicial Caning, Stephan Kay thought it was important that this material be published. Please note that this is NOT the story of Stephan Kay's experiences, but of those of a South African man who wishes to be anonymous.
BY AN ANONYMOUS SOUTH AFRICAN MAN, AS TOLD TO STEPHAN KAY, REVISED to include answers to readers' questions (Part 2):
Q. WAS CANING JUSTLY APPLIED?
Judicial CP was not unfairly slanted in favour of 'rich' kids or those with 'good' lawyers. Sure, if a kid was well represented, he might get off on a technicality or because of superior cross-examination, but then, who says he WAS guilty of ANYTHING, anyway?
In the 18 months I was in charge, my experience was definitely that, if a 'well-heeled' kid WAS found guilty of something that deserved a hiding, the tendency, among the Magistrates, was rather to adopt a 'he should have known better' attitude and to send him down for a really good thrashing than the 'poor little rich boy' approach and let him off lightly; I'm not saying that the 'average' or 'poor' or 'un-represented' kids got off more easily on that account, but just that, if a thrashing was 'deserved' because of an offence, the boy got what was coming to him, irrespective of background.
Q. WHAT WERE THE DIFFERENT WAYS OF HITTING WITH THE CANE?
1) The Worst Punishment: 'FOLLOW-THROUGH WHACKS' are full-strength, or at least pretty hard strokes, inflicted with plenty of shoulder and even upper body weight behind them, but which are not aimed at the boy's tail, but as if he wasn't there at all; all his bottom does is to define the lateral limits of the target area, but not its depth. The effect is to produce a long, slashing stroke, which sinks right into both cheeks and can easily peel a strip of skin off each of them as the cane is virtually dragged through the flesh. It is by far the most severe (even cruel) type of 'cut' and was very seldom used and then only on older repeat offenders.
2) The Next Worst: The next worst was almost as painful but nowhere as damaging; that sort involves aiming at an imaginary spot about 6 inches below the surface of the buttocks; it results in the cane's remaining in contact, at maximum pressure, with the skin, for a measurable period. It stings like hell, raises VERY ugly (beautiful?) weals and leaves deep, long-lasting bruises. This was the norm for the older boys, like me at 16, and results in a very painful thrashing and a deeply bruised bum that stayed tender for weeks.
3) The Most Lenient: The most lenient stroke, force remaining equal, is one that is aimed AT the skin, lands there and is lifted at once. It also stings like the devil, especially on a bare bum, and will leave an angry 'tramline' welt, but, unless the kid has a very thin hide, he'll be as right as rain next day, although his tail will stay striped for about a week. We used those on little guys (9 to small 11's), to let them know all about it while it was happening and as a warning for later, but so as not to REALLY hurt them.
Q. HOW WERE THE KIDS HELD DOWN FOR THE CANING?
We never tied the kids down; usually, one constable hung on to his elbows or wrists and another to his ankles. That kept him still and his hands away from his tail. If you're a teen or sub-teen and are surrounded by cops, one of whom has got a nasty cane in his hand, you don't think of 'defending yourself', or doing ANYTHING to irritate them; you just want to get it over; ask me, I KNOW.
Q. WERE THE BOYS EVER CANED NAKED? (AS IN SINGAPORE)
The boys were never stripped naked in any cells I ever heard about or were in and the same applied to 'adult' canings and floggings; it was 'pants off' (underpants, if any, too) for the cane, and bare back but pants on, for the 'cat'. I never saw anyone being flogged with the cat, and only witnessed two 'adult' canings, both of which were far more 'messy' than the juvenile variety, as the 'heavy' cane split the skin of the bare backsides at almost every stroke, much like the 'Rotan' in Singapore.
For ANY caning (adult OR juvenile), the victim had to go bare bum, but took nothing off except what was necessary to get his tail bare; as clothes round knees or ankles were a nuisance, we made them take their lower garments right off. Shirts etc. stayed on and if they were too short to cover their genitals, too bad. Sure, it WAS embarrassing for them, but, then, it was their own fault, wasn't it?
For some boys the most embarrassing part was when they were lying on the bench barer bum waiting to be caned. At that point his shirt was pulled up to the armpits, exposing his backside. So if the boy's shirt had been long enough to cover him up, now he was exposed. A towel was then placed over his lower back to protect his kidneys in case the cane missed the buttocks.
With the boys, everything, taking pants off, the medical check-up and the actual caning, took place in the same cell, so there was not much walking about, and afterwards, all they had to do was go to where they had left their clothes and put them back on when they were ready.
Q. DID ANY OF THE BOYS GET ERECTIONS?
Lots of the boys got erections (again, too bad!) and I, for one, always had one of the towels that were there to be put over their lower backs (if you doubted your aim, which I didn't) under their hips, just in case one of them 'wet himself' or, even, came, while he was being thrashed [which could easily have happened to ME].
Every now and then you saw a kid with a few stripes across his bum go rigid and you knew that he was 'shooting' into the towel. I just let them carry on in peace before completing the caning, as I knew they would hardly feel any 'cuts' they got while having an orgasm. THAT sort of accident, with wee or 'come' running all over the place, is what I would have regarded as embarrassing, not just getting an erection, so the towel, which I never had the benefit of when I 'got it', was an act of kindness to the youngsters, as well as protection against a mess.
If a boy was getting hurt so much that he started to cry, that was when, if he was going to wet himself, he usually did. That was where the towel really came in. However, I never saw a boy who cried also have an erection, or 'come'. Those who DID come while being caned, often didn't even 'have the horn' when it started and were purely responding to the physical stimulation of the _s_e_x_ually sensitive areas near their backsides, without necessarily ever enjoying it or wanting to get more of the same.
Q. WAS THE CANING PUBLIC?
Juvenile canings were SUPPOSED to be 'in private', but, in practice, a few of the Court staff (both male and female), often came along to the cells at about 4 p. m. and the cell staff had no problem about letting them in; I did it myself -- why spoil their fun, as the kids didn't seem to mind. It was actually a sort of insurance policy for them, because, with outside spectators, you are less likely to hit so hard that you cut the bare bums to ribbons than you might if it was just you and the cops who are assisting, present. Once again, of course, the little blighters were so intimidated by then, that I doubt if they would have dared to object!! I certainly wouldn't have, either time I was on the receiving end.
Some of the women rather enjoyed watching the canings. The Afrikaans phrase they used was "Kom ons gaan kyk na die stywe latte en kaal gatte." The 'tune' of the Afrikaans rhyming slang is obvious, but its interpretation is less so; "kom ons gaan kyk na" = "let's go and have a look at"; "die stywe latte" = [lit. 'the stiff sticks'] i. e., 'the erect pricks' [which was very common]; "en kaal gatte" = [lit. 'and the naked holes'] i. e., arseholes, therefore, 'the bare bums'. The naughty implication of the whole thing was thus that these randy young women were saying, of the, often quite mature, teenage boys who were going to be caned, "Come on. Let's go and have a [good] look at [any] stiff _c_o_c_k_s and the [horny] sight of some bare tails being thrashed." These women were getting a free peek at some often very aroused young male flesh, including the always exciting sight of bare bums turning red and getting covered with welts and, sometimes, even making a contact with a boy for some 'kissing better' later on.
Also, a teenage boy naked from the waist down may have been quite aroused seeing a good-looking young woman in the cell looking at his bare equipment.
Q. WHAT WERE CANEABLE OFFENSES?
'Caneable' offences, right across the age spectrum [from 9 to 21], were theft (including shoplifting), rowdyism, swearing in public, almost anything involving damage to property [excluding domestic, of course], resisting arrest [for something else], drug-related offences [very rare in those days except for 'dagga' (marijuana) among the blacks] and the more obvious types of dishonesty.
Q. HOW OLD WERE THE BOYS WHO WERE CANED?
Boys age 9 to 21 could be sentenced to be caned. So some of these 'kids' were pretty big. I somehow just thought of them all as kids, perhaps because they were SOOO vulnerable and I had a sneaking feeling of sympathy with them, but, yes, lots of them were twice my size and could have broken me in two, easily. Fact remains, I was in control and ALL of them were pretty terrified of me at that moment, so, to me, they were just naughty little boys, about to get a _d_a_m_n_ good hiding.
Q. HOW WERE ADULTS PUNISHED?
The 'bare back' bit applied to floggings with the 'cat' (o'nine tails) and, therefore to adults, only. The convict had to take his shirt right off (vest too), so he was naked from waist to shoulders, but his pants etc. stayed on. The flogging was administered across the shoulders and ribs, but I never saw this happen.
Some adults were sentenced to being caned, in which case they also had to go bare bum, and were strapped over a trestle with their naked arses sticking up and out. 'Follow-through' whacks were used, as in Singapore, which always draw blood.
Q. IS CANING A GOOD FORM OF PUNISHMENT?
These days, the 'human rights' of the criminal must be seen to be protected at all costs and bugger those of his poor victims. I still believe that a good thrashing is about the best way society has to indicate its disapproval of a 'bad' boy's actions, but that is NOT politically 'correct' any more, so we chuck them into 'facilities' where they REALLY learn how to be proper criminals!!!
The boys I caned spent a minimum time in jail. The punishment was given quickly (always on the day of the case) and the boy was sent home. The boy was not likely to forget his punishment, but he didn't spend months dwelling on it before receiving it -- it was over almost before he had a chance to think about it. He had just enough time to regret what he had done, and maybe to be sorry that he had done it, and it was all over.
Q. SHOULD THIS TYPE OF CANING BE BROUGHT BACK? DID IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN CONTROLLING YOUTH CRIME?
The answers to the two questions are intertwined. Yes, I do think that juvenile CP should be re-introduced, but more by default than because of any positive reformative or deterrent effect.
The problem is that nobody has been able to come up with ANY constructive alternatives; fine a kid and his father pays it; send him to a reformatory and you put him in a hotbed of crime. At least, MOST boys find the actual act of being thrashed, especially bare bum, both unpleasant and embarrassing. The resulting sore tail and sitting problems can have a short-term deterrent effect, but I'm very much afraid that if a boy is criminally inclined and the necessary degree of temptation recurs, he will 'do it again', as no criminal ever expects to get caught, and the end probably justifies the means, at the time, anyway.
Another problem is that the human brain, wonderful though it is, cannot reconstruct sensations like pain or pleasure. It merely recalls the incident in terms of relative unpleasantness, which is highly subjective. While the cane is actually slicing into a boy's bare bum, he is probably sure that he never wants to feel that sort of agony again. But give him a week or two to get over the soreness, and a bit of adulation from his peers, and the entire episode takes on a far less serious look; after all, it is over, he has survived none the worse, AND he did do what he had to do in the first place.
For the above reasons, I also believe that to be even remotely effective, in the context of normal, healthy and fit pre- and teenage boys, ANY judicial CP MUST be applied to the BARE buttocks; even the slightest degree of protection destroys both the psychological and much of the physical impact of the thrashing and turns the punishment into a semi farce, irrespective of how hard the strokes may be laid on through any form of clothing. I've seen boys get up crying bitterly after a few relatively mild strokes across their bare tails, while others have swaggered away from really hard beatings on the seats of their trousers; of course, both impact and effect vary greatly from boy to boy, which is another reason why generalisations mean nothing.
I know this is an unfashionable view, but I still believe that when the 'bare bum bit' was abolished in 1979, that was the deathknell of juvenile JCP in South Africa. Boys are just too tough for the other method to work. In any event, the whole question is academic, as the 'human rights' and 'anti child abuse' brigades are far too firmly in the saddle for there to be any chance of 'revival' legislation ever being enacted, more's the pity.