Why do we punish?
It seems there is either no intention behind the punishment we dole out as individuals, or as a society, or, we are using the exact same motivation for punishment in all instances. Neither of those options seems to achieve anything.
Examples of punishment I've been thinking about:
1 - Corporal punishment - spanking a child
2 - Ryan Giggs
3 - Teenage killers
Corporal punishment seems to be the one instance of punishment our modern society talks about the most and have pretty much outlawed. I don't entirely agree with it being outlawed, especially to the point of carrying a criminal conviction.
There is clearly a difference between spanking a child in the context of discipline and simply being violent towards your own child. (Perhaps the `context` is what is missing from discussions around several types of punishment.)
In the context of discipline, spanking a child runs its course and becomes ineffectual, sooner for girls than boys it seems, based on my own experience.
I still recall the last time my mom used it on me. I was 13, and after the event, I thanked her. I think that was the signal to her that the tool had outlived the intended purpose, and from now on things would need to be handled differently.
I have 2 girls, and the usefulness of a smack on the backside dwindled quite some time ago.
Looking back on it, I think the usefulness was only ever as a sharp shock to help them snap out of whatever mood they had been in for the last few days.
This was certainly the case when I was a child. My mom would give us enough chances to rectify our behaviour, but at some point we would hit the limit, and then the limit would hit back.
Perhaps the only value in this type of punishment is to teach the lesson that your actions can and will result in reactions or consequences you may not like. A little like a boat floating down a river. Every now and then it would bump up against the riverbank and adjust direction accordingly.
Inflicting pain never seemed to be the intention, but pain is a great teacher, when words have failed several times.
Ryan Giggs is a famous and extremely wealthy footballer. in the 25 years that I have been living in the UK, he was always discussed only in positive terms, along with the other members of `the class of '92`.
Recently though, he was in court for assaulting his girlfriend, both physically and mentally.
The jury failed to reach a verdict and it is set for a new trial next year.
While the trial was in the news every day, and every day would bring more revelations of his behaviour and actions, I thought a lot about what punishment the court might dole out.
Does he go to prison for 12 months, 3 years? Should he just pay a very large fine to the state? Should he pay several million pounds to his now ex-girlfriend?
In their own sense, none of these make sense.
If he goes to prison, what would be the outcome at the end of his sentence, which will make us as a society feel that justice was done, and the punishment fits the crime? Should the punishment fit the crime?
If it was that simple, shouldn't we just get a couple of guys to literally knock some sense into him? This is what he is accused of after all.
If he pays a fine to the state, it sends a signal that if you are wealthy enough, you can pay for your crime with cash. Should the amount of the fine be in proportion to the accused's wealth, then some will not pay at all, as they have nothing to pay with.
What about paying a fine to the accuser? Then we have the same issue as above, but we add into the mix the fact that some increase in false accusations will be made, simply to try and cash in.
It is not easy to find the right solution, but it is worth thinking about.
What do we want to be better or different about the person we are punishing, at the end of the punishment?
If we don't have a good answer to that, then it is not justice, it is vengeance.
Teenage killers seem to be to be the most tragic case here.
There are many examples unfortunately. Most recently, just this week, a 16 year old boy stabbed a 15 year old boy to death outside the school gate.
Does that mean life in prison for the 16 year old? Likely to be maximum 25 years, so at the end of his sentence he will be only a few years younger than I am now.
What possible good is going to come from that?
Yes, there are examples of lives being turned around in prison, but that number is a mere fraction of the lives ruined in prison. How will this 16 year old child become a better grown man, if we send him to prison for the next 25 years?
If you are in a state of mind at 16, which sets you on a path to stab another child to death, something needs to be done. I just don't see how that `something` can be found in the prison system.
In these instances it does seem as if we are collectively saying: We don't know what to do with you, and we don't want to take responsibility for this, we'll just park you somewhere outside of society for as long as we possibly can.
We punish, but the score is not settled.
Murder is an extreme example, but think of something as comparably trivial as `possession with an intent to supply`, or fraud, shoplifting etc...
Once you are found guilty, you have a criminal record. Then you get your sentence and you serve your time.
Once you get out of prison, you still have you criminal record, and life can be very difficult.
Hang on, you served your time, for the crime committed. Why do we, as a society continue to punish you, for years to come, by making it very hard for you to get back on your feet?
Rightly, there are crimes which should simply exclude you from certain professions. But right now, even the slightest stain on your record has the same affect as dunking the whole thing in blood.
As a society we still seem to punish as a form of retribution, but we cloak it in some thin layer of rehabilitation. We just never seem to get to real rehabilitation for the guilty.
What is it we are trying to achieve when punishing someone? That should be the first question, before we decide what the punishment should be.
It seems there is either no intention behind the punishment we dole out as individuals, or as a society, or, we are using the exact same motivation for punishment in all instances. Neither of those options seems to achieve anything.
Examples of punishment I've been thinking about:
1 - Corporal punishment - spanking a child
2 - Ryan Giggs
3 - Teenage killers
Corporal punishment seems to be the one instance of punishment our modern society talks about the most and have pretty much outlawed. I don't entirely agree with it being outlawed, especially to the point of carrying a criminal conviction.
There is clearly a difference between spanking a child in the context of discipline and simply being violent towards your own child. (Perhaps the `context` is what is missing from discussions around several types of punishment.)
In the context of discipline, spanking a child runs its course and becomes ineffectual, sooner for girls than boys it seems, based on my own experience.
I still recall the last time my mom used it on me. I was 13, and after the event, I thanked her. I think that was the signal to her that the tool had outlived the intended purpose, and from now on things would need to be handled differently.
I have 2 girls, and the usefulness of a smack on the backside dwindled quite some time ago.
Looking back on it, I think the usefulness was only ever as a sharp shock to help them snap out of whatever mood they had been in for the last few days.
This was certainly the case when I was a child. My mom would give us enough chances to rectify our behaviour, but at some point we would hit the limit, and then the limit would hit back.
Perhaps the only value in this type of punishment is to teach the lesson that your actions can and will result in reactions or consequences you may not like. A little like a boat floating down a river. Every now and then it would bump up against the riverbank and adjust direction accordingly.
Inflicting pain never seemed to be the intention, but pain is a great teacher, when words have failed several times.
Ryan Giggs is a famous and extremely wealthy footballer. in the 25 years that I have been living in the UK, he was always discussed only in positive terms, along with the other members of `the class of '92`.
Recently though, he was in court for assaulting his girlfriend, both physically and mentally.
The jury failed to reach a verdict and it is set for a new trial next year.
While the trial was in the news every day, and every day would bring more revelations of his behaviour and actions, I thought a lot about what punishment the court might dole out.
Does he go to prison for 12 months, 3 years? Should he just pay a very large fine to the state? Should he pay several million pounds to his now ex-girlfriend?
In their own sense, none of these make sense.
If he goes to prison, what would be the outcome at the end of his sentence, which will make us as a society feel that justice was done, and the punishment fits the crime? Should the punishment fit the crime?
If it was that simple, shouldn't we just get a couple of guys to literally knock some sense into him? This is what he is accused of after all.
If he pays a fine to the state, it sends a signal that if you are wealthy enough, you can pay for your crime with cash. Should the amount of the fine be in proportion to the accused's wealth, then some will not pay at all, as they have nothing to pay with.
What about paying a fine to the accuser? Then we have the same issue as above, but we add into the mix the fact that some increase in false accusations will be made, simply to try and cash in.
It is not easy to find the right solution, but it is worth thinking about.
What do we want to be better or different about the person we are punishing, at the end of the punishment?
If we don't have a good answer to that, then it is not justice, it is vengeance.
Teenage killers seem to be to be the most tragic case here.
There are many examples unfortunately. Most recently, just this week, a 16 year old boy stabbed a 15 year old boy to death outside the school gate.
Does that mean life in prison for the 16 year old? Likely to be maximum 25 years, so at the end of his sentence he will be only a few years younger than I am now.
What possible good is going to come from that?
Yes, there are examples of lives being turned around in prison, but that number is a mere fraction of the lives ruined in prison. How will this 16 year old child become a better grown man, if we send him to prison for the next 25 years?
If you are in a state of mind at 16, which sets you on a path to stab another child to death, something needs to be done. I just don't see how that `something` can be found in the prison system.
In these instances it does seem as if we are collectively saying: We don't know what to do with you, and we don't want to take responsibility for this, we'll just park you somewhere outside of society for as long as we possibly can.
We punish, but the score is not settled.
Murder is an extreme example, but think of something as comparably trivial as `possession with an intent to supply`, or fraud, shoplifting etc...
Once you are found guilty, you have a criminal record. Then you get your sentence and you serve your time.
Once you get out of prison, you still have you criminal record, and life can be very difficult.
Hang on, you served your time, for the crime committed. Why do we, as a society continue to punish you, for years to come, by making it very hard for you to get back on your feet?
Rightly, there are crimes which should simply exclude you from certain professions. But right now, even the slightest stain on your record has the same affect as dunking the whole thing in blood.
As a society we still seem to punish as a form of retribution, but we cloak it in some thin layer of rehabilitation. We just never seem to get to real rehabilitation for the guilty.
What is it we are trying to achieve when punishing someone? That should be the first question, before we decide what the punishment should be.