Kids- you can't beat 'em!

In the classroom I was interning in, the students had to write a persuasive essay on a controversial topic. Several of the topics were of interest to me, and corporal punishment in schools is one. In SC, it's still legal to use corporal punishment on students. I remember in middle school when they took us on a tour and the asst. principal showed us the paddle he used to hit kids with. You got to sign it after he hit you. Needless to say, it was covered in signatures. And he was so proud. Of course 1) SC is one of about 30 states that still allows CP and 2) It's up to each district whether they want to use it or not, but regardless, should it be used?
First off, corporal punishment is defined as "the use of physical force with the intention of causing a child pain, but not injury, for purposes of correction or control of the child's behavior" (Strauss & Donnelly, 1993, p. 420) Spanking used to be the standard in child rearing, but with more information and more effective ways to discipline, a lot of parents have stopped using spanking to discipline.
On the one hand, there's a lot of research that states that children who receive CP are more prone to violence, depression, and stress; but rebuttals to Strauss and Donnelly state that much of their research is based on abused children, which is a whole different ballgame. I mean, a spanking is different from a beating (some would argue that point) . Not only that, but the research also fails to take into consideration other traits of bad parenting such as neglect, rejection, or simply absence.
But to the point - is it effective; that is, will it stop the student from repeating the behavior? Most studies say no. The problem is the student's actions are not generally explained to the student properly. They say "you did this, now you have to be hit." Ok, so maybe they don't know what they did wrong, or what they did is acceptable in their family, or maybe they don't know alternative ways of dealing with a situation.
Like a kid that gets in a fight - you tell him "you can't fight students, it's wrong to hit, now bend over so I can beat you with this paddle." That doesn't make sense, and it's only reinforcing their view that violence is a way to solve problems. What teachers, administrators, and parents need to do is explain what the student did, why it was wrong or inappropriate and alternate ways of dealing with it. Talking proves much more effective, and not only that but it shows respect for the student as a person, rather than an authoritarian relationship.
However, schools still feel like they need this type of power as a "last resort" to intimidate students, which shouldn't really be their goal in the first place. What really gets me is that in SC, while the school must ask permission before applying CP, if the parent says no, their kid gets kicked out of school. wtf? That's a really fair option.
But on the other hand, a lot of parents still teach their kids "if someone hits you, you hit back" and "an eye for an eye" instead of doing the rational and adult thing and walking away from a situation. Arguments for CP are "they deserve it," it's only used when extremely necessary (that doesn't explain the disproportionate use on African-American males), and using it as an intimidation or embarrassment factor. Well, I think those are rather flimsy arguments, but hey. But I have to admit that even though I was a damn good kid, I got my fair share of spankings and grew up fairly normal and really straight-laced there for a while, no drinking no drugs no sex, but I think it's college that corrupted me, not spankings.
Backing up from the moral issue, as I try to judge things by their effectiveness and assistance to society, if spanking and paddling students or children is not effective in getting them to stop their behavior, and it may cause them to commit more acts of violence, I'd have to say using corporal punishment is the worst form of discipline.