Physical punishment is a useful deterrent against prisoners breaking prison rules. Since their freedom is already gone and their date of release may seem distant (or non-existent), there is very little else with which to keep them in line with the rules.

I think society has gotten really wimpy through time. Why can't we act more like our fist century ancestors and give prisoners 40 lashings? :)

There are always alternative punishments that can be used in prison like solitary confinement, the removal of privileges, extension of sentence and so on. So there really is no need.

Mistreatment of prisoners is particularly open to excessive abuse from prison supervisors who seek to maintain order through a climate of fear.

Think of the short term inmates as well. What kind of beating rules would there be? How could any of them truly be justified? I say throwin' them in solitary sounds like just a good idea as any other!

not really. hard labor and death are much better ways to make someone wish they'd never done it.

No, and it doesn't matter if you're inside or out. In prison, as DaWolfman pointed out there are privileges that can be taken away. There's no need for physical force when locked up even in an uprising. Seal them off, allow nothing but bread and juice or water to pass through, disable the toilets and whatever else have you.

On the outside, must they always aim for the head or chest? Are knees and shooting arms or hands not good enough? If it must come to that there are many other ways to deal with a criminal.

Physical force is never OK. Well, in certain circumstances where it's your life or his... what would you choose? In the case of them being a criminal and you using force for that reason alone that could make them act out worse.

Imprisonment is physical force. The distinction that criminals are prisoners is redundant. The real question is, why are people being imprisoned for committing crimes in the first place? Most people do not agree to abide by laws and punishments arbitrarily decided for breaking those laws, it's just inflicted on them. Why do some people have the "right" to use physical force, and others do not? If it's wrong, then it's wrong for everyone.

I suppose, it overall, depends what they're in prison for. If the prisoner is using physical force on the prison staff, then by all means, the guards (or whoever) shall have the right to use physical force to restrain them. And in some ways, people do believe that to give someone the same sort of punishment they've given, "may" teach the perpetrator the lesson. But overall, it's not entirely justifiable. However, I'd like to point out that I don't think prisons are really for the punishment of the criminals as much as they are about the safety of the public. Because in some ways, prison isn't the worst place in the world to some criminals. Some people really LOVE to be locked in a room by them self. I'm one of them; being alone is bliss for me. Sure, it's only great for so long if you have nothing to do in the room, but criminals do get the privilege of books these days, at the very least.

I think that might be torture, and torture is banned.

I think.

I'm not sure what the question is asking. Does it have anything to do with physically forcing people into prison as punishment? Is it hand cuffing people? What exactly do you mean by punishment by physical force?

Please don't up/down vote me so that I can edit this when the question is explained.