At some time in history, man discovered a way to keep non-conformists in line: punishment. Anyone caught not keeping the rules of the tribe was punished. Right and wrong was the tribe or the leader saw it. Hence there was not always justice in the meting out of the punishments. Punishments were often meted out on whims and fancies and for reasons that the tribe thought the offender needed to be punished. More often than not, punishment was cruel and inhuman and sometimes there was a lot of sadism involved. Moreover, there was not even semblance of unity. Punishments differed in societies and sometimes at different times in the same society.
Through the centuries came more enlightened men and women who guided our ancestors more humane forms of punishments. When we research into why punishments were meted out, two reasons stand out clearly: retribution and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is where the tribe - in modern language the state or the government - avenges the crime committed by punishing the offender. This follows the old adage of 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'. Thus if a man commits a crime of violence, violence is committed on him by the state. In a country like Singapore, for certain crimes, the criminal is caned. The ultimate retributive punishment is death; for those who cause death - either through murder or, in some countries including ours, through drug trafficking.
Another reason for punishment is rehabilitation. The position taken is that criminals become what they are partly because society has failed them. Here society must take steps to rehabilitate them. Usually this type of punishment involves long prison terms where the offender is counseled and perhaps given new impetus to different live when he comes out of prison. Usually in most countries, both types of punishments are meted out; depending on several factors. These could be the offender and others.
In some countries there seem to be swings to the extreme that all punishments should be rehabilitative and retributive. In countries where punishments are retributive, cruel forms - like amputation of an arm for theft - are practiced. Naturally crime rates in these countries are low. In others, where rehabilitation is the only reason, we find very high crime rates.
This is not to be wondered at, for criminals are quick to take advantage of benevolence. In a certain country for instance, judges sentence young offenders to go on safaris at state expense. The rationale: the offenders will change after the safari. As it has been turned out, the offenders enjoy the safaris and then return to crime just days after their 'punishment'.
Obviously, we are far away from a system that is good for the society and the criminal. This is surprising considering that we have been doing this for five million years - the time man has been on earth. Perhaps when more studies are made we will have solutions to this dilemma.
0 Comments