--- In [email protected], I thought that criminals should be given a chance to reform and Will Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> then wrote: >
> > Do you have any evidence that reform actually works? I'm all for > giving someone another chance (dependent on the severity of the > crime), but from what I've read it seems that reform has a very > poor success rate. > > Is there a point when you agree that the re-offender has had > enough chances and are there any crimes that you feel are so > severe that your rule shouldn't apply? > > > > Will > -- I am afraid I don't have any evidence that reform works. Thus, what follows is merely guesswork and opinion. I would think that crime committed due to boredom or because it is seen to be 'cool' (e.g. vandalism, graffiti) could be reduced by teaching the criminals that what they are doing will get them nowhere good and instead will result in punishment. Here, I think that the sort of punishments such as cleaning graffiti, repairing broken fences (or similar) would work quite well. Of course, the police would have to have effective methods of capturing the criminals in order to subject them to this punishment. I would hope that these and similar 'community' punishments would lead to reforming the criminals involved. I am sure there would be some cases in which the offenders would be so stuck into their 'way of life' that they couldn't change and for them then maybe a harsher custodial sentence should be imposed. However, I don't believe that at any stage for these sorts of crimes should death be a punishment. It is in complete disproportion to the damage caused. Then there is crime which is due to 'need' in some way (e.g. a drug habit leading to theft, theft because of extreme hunger etc.) These people are really in need of help. Without taking them out of their problem (drugs, homelessness etc.) then I would agree that there could be no chance of reform. However, if a programme is established which helps these people then their reasons for committing crime have gone and I would hope that they were also 'reformed'. Once again, assuming the level of crime remains around theft or burglary etc. then I don't think that death should ever be a punishment here. After this point, I have difficulty. First, I would like to switch approaches and state that in all cases where the only damage is done to property, there should never be a reason to impose a death penalty. This is due to the proportionality argument: death is a very final punishment and bears no resmblance in weighting to the crime committed. Further, in most cases (excepting those where the property damaged has some sentimental value) the damage done in a property offence can be rectified through monetary means. Thus, the community punishments mentioned above can be very useful here. Now I come to offences against the person (in general violent or sexual offences). These may be committed for various reasons: because they are in some way 'fun' e.g. the horrible culture of 'happy- slapping' that seems to have arisen; because of an emotional overload (someone gets so angry that they lash out) or perhaps due to a revengeful or other planned motive. First, the case of committing violence because it is 'fun'. This, I think is just an example of the next level of anti-social behaviour from property damage and I think must be dealt with harshly hopefully to result in reform through a sort of 'shock-therapy'. E.g. don't be soft if it is a first offence but there was clearly a malicious motive, instead be very harsh in the hope that the person will not re- offend. If the person becomes a persistent re-offender at a level of violence below that which leads to death then I believe that progressively harsher sentences should be imposed possibly culminating in a life prison sentence. Some may argue that it would be easier to just kill the person but if we started killing as punishment for persistent re- offending, I think we would be doing the wrong thing. (I can't really explain my reasons but it just seems that it would be a way of giving up on the person involved and 'ridding our hands' of them when I'd like to think there is always the possibility of reformation. Even where there isn't, I believe a person's life must still have some value worth preserving.) Second, the case of emotional overload. I am not really sure what my approach would be here. As I imagine it, the people involved just go one step too far and, contrary to the above group, would show remorse for what had occurred. I think they would say: 'I didn't mean for it to happen'. Here, I think that re-offending is less likely as it should only occur when such person loses control again. With harsh punishments (and perhaps anger-therapy or other treatment) the possiblity of re- offending, I believe could be further reduced. If a person could not gain control and just kept on re-offending then I think the likelihood is that they cannot be helped and must be separated from society. I would achieve that through custody. I think it would be highly injust to kill a person who had no real control over their actions at the time that they acted and also showed remorse after the event. I am afraid I may have expanded this group to include people who have some sort of mental disorder and are actually incapable of controlling themselves. Whilst I believe that such people should not be killed as punishment (and I believe they would mainly be covered by defences which already exist in our law) I also believe the same (that death shouldn't be a punishment) with regard to the people who are meant to be within this group. That is those who have not made a detailed plan of their actions and just act 'in the moment' and immediately regret it. Lastly, cases in which a person commits planned violence (often revengeful). I do not believe that this person would be capable of reform. They would have used violence as a means to an end and would be prepared to commit violence again in the future to achieve something even if they had been punished for their actions before. Perhaps the only way of dealing with such a person is to put them out of the way permanently. I think this should be done through a custodial sentence for life. Where they have never gone as far as killing then I think a death sentence should be out of the question on proportionality grounds. Even where such a person has committed murder, I don't think I could advocate a death penalty due to the inherent value of a human life (even where it may be thought that such a person doesn't deserve their life) but that is probably my only reason and I realise it may be quite a poor one. I have just realised that I haven't really covered criminals who commit sexual offences. Briefly, I would say that most are capable of being reformed and the death penalty would be inappropriate in most cases. The exception is rape which I find very difficult to deal with. I believe that some rapists (perhaps most) can be reformed so death should not be the penalty for a first offence. However, where there are repeat offences, I believe it would be much more important to understand the motive of the criminal. Where he didn't care at all about his victims (and could be compared to the offender who commits planned violence) then, as above, I think a life prison sentence would be the correct punishment. In all cases, I would allow life sentences to be reduced but only with very stringent monitoring requirements. This would perhaps occur because a person has, in fact, reformed (or at least has seemed to) or, of course, there may be such a necessity due to a lack of prison space. I hope the above has made some sense. I think this is a very difficult issue and I promise that any further replies by myself will be shorter than this one. Regards, Ben
