One issue that has always puzzled me both in my own school experience and in the that of several friends is the role ( or non role) of official school witnesses in canings. There are on this site I know a number of stands in which the role is mentioned, but it would be interesting to discover whether the matter was ever thought through or used widely in the school systems here and abroad. To my knowledge only the US seems to have widespread use of this as a routine matter.

What triggered my interest was the following. In my last school (independent boarding and day boys) , as I have described elsewhere there was a clear policy of centralisation of all caning. It was restricted to Head, Deputy and three ' senior duty masters'. As far as we can determine this organisation came into force in around 1963/4, when at the same time Prefects lost the right to cane or slipper, along with other significant changes. These changes produced a strangely ' legalistic process ' and probably arose because the head at the time had an academic background in law and history.

The new centralised policy was quite advanced for its day. There was a rudimentary appeal mechanism a mechanism in which the boy could handle himself, or ask for help from a a friend ( normally either his form rep , or the Chair of that Council , but could be anybody, I guess) who would accompany him and help him make an appeal on evidence. The new Head kept this aspect of the system , I suppose as an ex army man , who lived and breathed Queens regulations it made sense to him.

Then there was the idea of a school witness. Very different from Dr. D's system of making the appellant master a witness, this was a simple regulation that all canings should be independently witnessed by a member of staff. Frankly in our experience this just didn't happen. There was a column in the punishment register for this, but in my days it was normally blank Our understanding is that originally there were two purposes. In many cases the punishment was given at the request of another member of staff who doesn't cane. The Head who instigated the system, unlike his successor, was none too keen on the cane and seems to have wanted to ensure that no one could sentence, and not see sentence carried out. His successor had no such scruples. The second reason was to protect the school from any accusations. There was always an independent person to step in in case things went awry. This was important as the punishments were now all in private., not in class.

Finally as I mentioned elsewhere before receiving the punishment you had to sign that you consented. If you refused , you would not be caned , but suspended. A modified version of this was used , in the 70's, as I have discussed on another site to deal with the issue of the sixth form. The 'legalistic head', it seems to me had covered all, or most of the bases.



The advantage of the buddy system was that , particularly if you took a senior student with a position of authority, who knew the Head/Deputy, they were not intimidated when presenting your defence, whereas if you are a student who has never been in trouble and may not know the characters involved can be overawed into failing to acquit yourself as well as they could. .In reverse the Head /deputy knew the buddy , and provided they trust them, was more likely to take seriously the defence offered. . . ( even if as a politico like me when you entered the room you would be met with ...I should have guessed, you again!) .

But this leaves the witnesses. In my own case , having been caned twice ,, in the 70's ,I never had a witness. The first occasion, the Deputy Head who I saw said to me did I want to do the paperwork first , or get the punishment over with? , I said the latter, and as she prepared simply said she felt we trusted each other, so presumably I didn't want a witness.... as I was very apprehensive, all I wanted was it done with , not to discuss the finer points of the system. ..The second time the Head never raised the issue. .My friends had similar experiences.......and certainly no staff member who had sent someone for a caning normally turned up, thus frustrating the previous head's good intentions....

So how did others find it ? Were there any of you out there in schools where witnesses were compulsory? Or could you choose? Did it make any difference ? Did anyone else come across an appeal system?.If so did it work, or was it window dressing? Or was it just at the whim of the staff.

Please let us know....whether you were schooled here in the UK or elsewhere.

A most interesting anecdote, Research Assistant 2. The Headmaster would of course make the comment in the knowledge that he was fortunate his teacher had not fallen into a faint at the mere sight a a cane as the fair sex are wont to do. Unless of course they are prof.n's deputy head who was not averse to administering it or the female posters here who have been caned and survived!

On the subject of witnesses, I incline towards the widow dressing side of prof.n's equation. The only time I can see any point of a witness per se is the case of a female witness where a girl is being corporeally punished by a male. However, whilst I am an advocate of corporal punishment up to perhaps the mid teens I do not believe that now the case of a female being punished by a male should ever arise. Modern mores, at least in the Western World, are such that it simply should not be permitted, regardless of the sexual equality situation.

There are of course other situations where witnesses may arise. Prof.n mentions a requirement for a teacher who does not carry out corporal punishment themselves but refers a pupil for corporal punishment to witness that punishment. I cannot see any requirement for that at all. I don't think it was ever the norm in, for instance, English schools where pupils were frequently sent to the Head or Deputy Head to be caned. If the referring teacher could punish but declines to do so for reasons of conscience, then making them watch the punishment is scarcely likely to alter their view!

The system at Doctor Dominum's School has the possibility of witnesses in certain circumstances for what seem to me to be sound reasons. He has described the system here several times. In essence, and my apologies Doctor Dominum if I have this wrong, a boy who is to be caned has certain staff members to whom he may appeal against the punishment. If the appeal is turned down the person turning down the appeal is required to witness the punishment, essentially to formally confirm their agreement with it and to confirm that it is in accordance with the case as they understood it when rejecting the appeal. Within the context of a very formal and documented punishment regime I do not doubt that this witness system serves a useful purpose.

It is the case at that school that boys may be caned by a female teacher, with possibly a female witness. This caused me some disquiet. Clearly the problems are not the same as the situation of male staff punishing a female pupil, but possibly a problem all the same. Doctor Dominum and I had a lengthy exchange on this and he convinced me that my doubts were groundless. However, as noted I do not think the opposite situation should be permitted in a corporal punishment regime now, with or without a female witness.

At my school, a grammar, canings were almost always done in front of a witness. If the headmaster was doing the caning this would normally be the deputy head, or if the deputy were dishing it out it would be another teacher.

The headmaster would though vary his policy as regards other pupils witnessing the caning, probably depending on how many boys were to be caned. I was only caned by the headmaster once and though there were four of us we each got it individually out of sight of the other three. There were cases of boys being caned in front of each other though and I can only think this was to speed the process up.

In the lower school ( first and second years) the head of lower school did not actually have his own office and used to cane boys in a classroom and though there was normally a witness he did not stick by this rule. Again I think this was to speed up the process as he did not want boys hanging around waiting for a witness to turn up.

Both the deputy head and the lower school head caned on the bottom, the headmaster always caned on the hand. Just my luck that I was caned on the hand rather than the bottom, I know which I would have preferred.

Slippering were a much more casual affair and given in front of the class, and about half a dozen teachers used to hand these out, including a quite attractive female teacher who slippered me once, in front of her class of younger pupils.Much more fun than the cane.

Thanks for the replies.

The attitude of male staff to female is very interesting. I can't somehow see Miss F coming over all faint,at the sight of a cane , she would have been more likely to offer to help out!

I know in that she was rather unusual, mainly, I think, because of moving between two educational systems. In the States at that time ( and we are talking about Texas) she would have had no compunction about paddling either sex . The recorded paddlings in the state in the 1970's for example were huge numbers compared to today, ....and that ignored 'classroom' paddlings ( ie those not done by or for administration) which were not properly recorded. According to her you could at least double the official estimates.....

But when she worked temporarily at my school as I have written elsewhere, boys had a choice to opt to be caned by a male member of staff., and quite a few took that up, after all she was not seen as a soft option by any means! Any faint hope that my good relationship with her out of school would help me escape the worst disappeared with her last words before my caning commenced........ 'I hope you're ready, : this really is going to hurt' .In the girls school they were stuck with her no choice!!

As to witnesses, I think this was intended just for staff protection, but the litigious culture had not yet taken hold.. Had STOPP been more active in the area, doubtless witnesses would have come back into fashion! I think Another Lurker may have sightly underestimated the head who brought in the witness scheme in the school.

Why? As caning was restricted to five staff, all others, whether they approved of caning or not, only had the option to refer upwards. As I understand it , and you must bear in mind the man was years before my time, the Head's idea was this. A caning in his mind was a pretty unpleasant business, certainly one of any severity. He didn't believe someone should sentence a boy to this fate, and then walk away without having at least to see the effect of their decision. It didn't really affect those who chose not to cane, they mostly didn't refer upwards, or if they did with a note marked , 'Do not cane'. This is how Miss F had many of her arguments, if as boy was sent to her she would consider a recommendation, but would always make her own judgement, after discussing it with the boy, which often meant caning where that was not requested or vice versa. .It was not , as was suggested by some in the school at the time , a lottery, far more a question of rules and consequences, but firmly her rules, : her consequences.

This leads me to a final point, normally if the deputy head had been absent for a long period, the next most senior staff member, the so-called head of common room, would have acted up. It just so happened that this individual was already a house master, and the only one who refused , on moral grounds, to have anything to do with corporal punishment of any variety. He was a really nice genuine man, who in his then current role was taken advantage of over and over again, so totally unsuitable for the conduct role of the deputy head....He would have been defending boys who were sent to him, not dealing with them! The other three house masters, were already the duty masters with the authority to cane in any case, so appointing him, would have meant that a more junior member of staff would have had to assume his punishment role. This was seen as the first step on the slippery slope back to a universal staff right to cane.