Punishment


By Andrew Field – Follow on Twitter
Flickr_Andrew_XI
During the last few weeks we have seen some outrage expressed for and against punishment of offenders following the recent riots in the United Kingdom. Hackles and emotions have been raised and evidently there is quite a lobby against cruel, brutal, inhuman and degrading treatment of offenders
, understandably so. Punishment, per se, by its nature, can be and is perceived as cruel, particularly if you are on the receiving end of it. It is described as something which is painful, a penalty. Enlightened society has moved on from the archaic forms of punishment involving death and whipping of offenders, yet some countries persist with these. Some religions believe violent retribution is God given, echoes of ‘an eye for an eye’.

What is the purpose of punishment and are there alternatives? For punishment to be effective it needs to be unpleasant or dreadful and be imposed by a lawful authority. The theory is that punishment of offenders, if sufficiently harsh, will prevent further offending, although prisons are full of second offenders; it tells the victim that the offender’s actions were not acceptable; it discourages others, debatable; it protects others from dishonest or dangerous people; allows restitution; and gives the general populous a reasonable understanding of what is and is not socially acceptable.

The first issue which needs to be addressed in a discussion of this nature is: to punish or not to punish offenders. Some who argue against current forms of punishment, which includes imprisonment, tend to suggest they are all cruel and degrading and alternatives need to be found. Imprisonment does nothing to advance the offender, is a heavy burden on the tax-payer and turns criminals into helpless social outcasts. Some suggest it does not reduce crime. Given the removal of violent punishment, with which most agree, the sole and most widely used form of punishment remains imprisonment. To do away with our prisons would be tantamount to removal of punishment from our society.

As an aside, crime figures in the United States suggest the murder, rape and robbery rates have fallen to a 48 year low (Mail & Guardian – September 2011). Analysis of crime per capita rates in many states show a dramatic decline. Sociologists have come up with scores of reasons for this trend, but the more widely accepted conclusions are those which identify with the imposition of harsher prison sentences since the late 1970’s. Conversely, and to be expected, the United States has suffered a correlating increase in prison populations, interning 2,3 million of its population in the fight against crime. This has kept a large population of criminals off the streets and, apparently, has reduced crime.

Primarily our justice systems are concerned with incapacitating criminals; deterring others who may be tempted to commit similar crime; occasionally offering restitution to victims thus restoring the status quo ante; in certain societies, allowing retribution; and occasionally rehabilitation. There are strong arguments for and against these five elements of justice delivery. Not all are punishments in the true sense. Only two of these offer anything for the victim, one, retribution, has violent connotations. Some will argue punishment of the offender gives the victim some closure.

The principle alternatives to capital, corporal and incarcerative punishment follow two broad forms: restorative justice, which attempts to create some accountability and healing between victim and offender, a case of ‘I am sorry, here is your money back’; and transformative justice, which is a little longer term and concerns itself with going back to causative issues, or conditions that nurtured unlawful activity, and that were catalytic in igniting crime in a community.

Restorative justice may heal a few wounds, but this is hardly punishment for the hardened or habitual criminal. It is tantamount to a good telling off and a ‘say you are sorry’. Transformative justice is desperately needed in most communities, but not as an alternative to punishmental justice. Some argue that doing away with prisons and converting the budgets to transformative justice programmes, which may include diversion of funds towards education, health and/or improved social upkeep programmes. The problem with transformative justice is that it is a ‘closing the stable door after the horse has bolted’. It really provides for future generations with social issues which will be unique to their times.

A short while ago I made a comment about the old ways of handling criminals, deportation to the colonies, a favourite of the French and the English, and the glorious results achieved in Australia! Of course we no longer have colonies, and I guess my suggestions about the moon raised a few eyebrows and provided for a few rants. I have also raised the issue of conscription, something which most will find awfully distasteful, but only if applied to the general, law abiding public.

Conscription also has connotations of military involvement, but that need not be. Conscription actually provides several crime fighting solutions. Inherent in this if made a punishment would be: it could enable removal of criminals from their communities (incapacitation); it could provide vocational training (rehabilitation); it would provide a means for restitution; might be seen as a form of retribution, if holiday camp fever can be avoided; and may even offer opportunities for restorative justice. Conscription as a punishment could isolate offenders to our public service organizations (like hospitals) with smart tagging or electronic monitoring, or on the front lines of the latest conflict zone, in either an humanitarian or military support roll. Such exposure would be an invaluable character builder.

In the mean time, society is stuck with its prisons, and one should not expect much change there soon because, clearly, prison is a solution which appears to work, albeit a heavy burden on state coffers and a questionable issue of inhumanity. The American experience suggests stiffer and harsher penalties for the prison system to work, something many will find abhorrent. Clearly, some need to take heed of the American system if it is really working and stop caring about how offenders feel about their punishment.

Visit Andrew’s Simply Wild Photography photo blog… you will not regret doing so!

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Punishment

  1. The basic concept should be: you do something bad and something legally bad will happen to you. Punishment should not primarily be about deterrence – though that might be a happy by-product. The concept of punishment should simply be to deliver an unpleasant legal consequence to individuals who have committed illegal acts. The ultimate sanction is, of course, death. A very good thing too for murderers such as Peter Sutcliffe (the ‘Yorkshire Ripper’) whose crimes display no mitigating circumstances whatsoever. What is the advantage of retaining someone like that for ‘life’ in prison? None whatsoever! The UK would certainly be a better place without the fashionable emphasis on restorative and transformational justice. What is needed is a penal system that matches the sanction to the gravity of the crime, and one in which the rights and interests of the victim are given at least equal weighting with those of the criminal. End of rant!

  2. It amuses me when I hear that Rape and Murder are down by 48%, that is no good if you or a friend or relative is a victim. If we castrate Rapists and hang murderers that is just two types who will not offend again, so lets look at Robbers and Muggers etc. Chop off a hand or an arm and see if they offend again. Harsh, perhaps, it is, but it is the only way crime will be greatly reduced. In the UK one of the James Bulger killers is back in jail for porno offences and there are many others like the failed asylum seeker who killed a child whilst driving after being banned got three months and they will not deport him as he got some local girl pregnant a few years ago, doesn’t live with her, mind you. I really do not want to know any more, the whole Justice system has gone to pot.
    Rod Wilson.

  3. I must fundamentally disagree with an earlier respondent. Yes punisment should be about deterrence….the French Foriegn Legion, I believe, had a phase for it…..”Pour encouragee les autres”, and I think their discipline was pretty good!
    The other primary function of imprisonment is to take wrong doers out of circulation…I don’t think many people reoffend whilst they are inside?
    We, as a society, need to stop saying “Oh dear, why has this person offended, how can we help them?”. We need to start saying “This behaviour is not acceptable and we will take you out of circulation if you do it!”
    I do however totally agree with the sentiment that there are some perpetrators that society should not have to maintain in relative comfort for the rest of their natural lives. There are some crimes that require society to use the ultimate method of taking somebody out of circulation.

  4. Some good points raised both in your post and in the comments.

    If the British Police had used sufficient force and I mean using real guns with real bullets to stop the rioters, the consequences would have been a handful of dead or injured rioters, very little damage to property and no huge financial losses to law-abiding citizens and businesses. The riots would have ended quickly, almost certainly not spread to other cities and as a result there would have been far fewer arrested criminals to deal with.

    It is a sad reflection that a country that once ruled the greatest empire the world has known can no longer protect its own citizens. (Canada suffered the same failure on a smaller scale in Vancouver in June) Brought down by political correctness and the emergence of the nanny state.

    As a tax payer, I object to my tax dollars financing an increasing prison population, but I recognize that some criminals must remain incarcerated or be executed. For non-violent or non-habitual criminals though, some form of house arrest, fines and conscription (not necessarily military) would seem more appropriate and less of a drain on the economy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s