This may be one of my spicier opinions but I think we should have caning for some crimes. Fines and incarceration both have collateral damage, if the person punished is responsible for anyone. Fines are regressive. Incarceration has a host of well known problems.
But, unfortunately, a sufficiently dangerous person does need to be physically put away. Being held against your will may well do wonders for people you threaten.
Isn't the problem that carrot only works if it is bigger than their criminal carrot and the stick only works if it is bigger than their own sticks?
If you cane someone who was brought up with violence, it can reinforce the idea that only the strongest wins. On the other hand, trying to be nice to them won't work if they want the $100K they make from drug dealing.
The sad fact is that nothing works perfectly, but at least we can strive to make it consistent, which is probably the biggest problem in most penal systems.
>It's not particularly spicy, but it has absolutely no evidence to support its effectiveness, either as a deterrent or as rehabiliitation.
A strong claim. A few minutes of searching found no strong evidence for or against its effectiveness, or that is superior or inferior to incarceration. Much more seems to have been written about the morality and public opinion of the practice (e.g. [1, 2]). It is known that corporal punishment of children causes developmental harms, but this does not extend naturally to adults.
But, unfortunately, a sufficiently dangerous person does need to be physically put away. Being held against your will may well do wonders for people you threaten.