The law is meant to protect us, yet there has been much criticism that it is too lenient. Does the law in fact act in the public interest? As a deterrent? Make our world a safer place?
Most people would say NO! I remember reading just recently, an uninsured, no license driver, of a stolen vehicle knocked over and killed a toddler. He got 3 months imprisonment! Is that justice?
However, this creates the argument: Is it justice that we really want or is it revenge? When we think about people being "punished" for their crimes what do we want? A safer society or repayment to the offender for his crimes. An "eye for an eye" some may say.
Do we want a deterrent or punishment?
Whereas our legal system does not allow "like for like" punishments, many victims and their families feel that this treatment is deserved. Does that mean those people not affected by crime can make the best judgement for punishments?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Courts are about justice, not revenge, about righting a wrong and paying back a debt back to society/victim.
Revenge in my opinion is what the US system does with its death penalty - it does not benefit anyone, the criminal will not be able to repay his /her debt to society, clearly the act is malicious in that its only benefit is to make the victims relatives feel better.
If you want to punish a criminal bring in condoned and regulated torture. If you think I'm being daft consider that boxing would otherwise be underground if banned and not regulated - we'd just be doing the same in prisons for those criminals who have committed particularly evil crimes and are showing no remorse. This would both educate the individual (treated like a misbehaving child) and provide some relief for the victims relatives. To those people who state it is a breach of human rights - what would be fairer - death or punishment (where if later proved innocent or they benefit society could be stopped)? Remember these people get in prison by taking away other peoples' rights.
Concentrating on prison and the rehabilitation of offenders. Is the current process working? Is the criminal paying his debt to society?
Many may argue that prison is too easy and does not deter criminsal from re-offending. After all in prison they have TVs, set meals, and can even work towards qualifications. Is prison too easy or is it benefitting society by re-shaping offenders?
The idea of torture though goes against Human Rights, as does the death penalty, and what happens if someone is wrongly convicted how can we put it right again?
I remember reading that in some cultures, if someone stole they had a finger removed as a deterrent. This sounds more of a deterrent than allowing a prisoner "the good life" in prison. Maybe such deterrents should be inflicted but at a smaller scale.
Others may argue that the purpose of convicting offenders is to rehabillitate them rather than punish them. The trouble is how you do this. I don't think prison is the answer, offenders should be paying back to the community and learning to behave rather than being placed in a prison which seems the "easy" option and goes no way towards educating them. With more in the news about criminals who are on probation and those who have been released from prison re-offending, it is clear that these methods are not working.
I think the idea of torture is a good one. Offenders need to realise what harm they have done to their victims and society, not be herded into prisons which give them a better standard of life than those who give to society but don't have the money to have a good life.
I believe the punishment should fit the crime.
Maybe we should offer offenders more support.
They must have something wrong mentally to act the way they do and we should be looking to the root of the problem and find a way to stop it happening rather than siting back and doing nothing. We may well talk about deterrence but we don't talk about preventing it to start with.
Post a Comment