Review Of Documentary Lifers - Essay Example

Documentary Review: Lifers Introduction Society has long grappled with the concept of just punishment and the possibility that individuals can be rehabilitated. As a people, we have a thirst for retribution when someone commits a crime so horrific that society almost deems it as unforgivable (Christie 2007). As a result, many nations and cultures have adapted their justice system to account for this desire by ensuring that violent offenders never see the light of day again. 2. Summary of the Film Much of the public in the United Kingdom is not aware of the harsh reality of receiving a life sentence, and the various implications that this policy has for broader society. To shed some light on this issue, Channel 4 created a series of documentaries a few years ago that highlights and follows some of the prisoners serving what amounts to a life sentence at Gartree prison. The film itself is designed to give viewers a glimpse about the harsh reality of life behind bards, without any possibility of seeing freedom again on the other side. It provides a stark contrast between a society that believes in second changes, with the reality that such opportunities are not afforded to everyone, particularly those who have violated certain societal norms and mores that go against the grain of civilised society (Channel 40d 2012). Through the depiction of various real life inmates, this documentary guides viewers towards a better understanding of the concept of having certain prisoners serve a life sentence, no matter what efforts they may make to better themselves behind bars. In the end, the documentary is masterful of not making a social judgement about the efficacy of the UK’s policy of life imprisonment; rather, it leaves the choice up to the individual viewer as to rather or not the concept is beneficial or harmful to society as a whole. This documentary, by and large, is effective because the prisoner themselves are afforded the opportunity to tell their stories. Some are truly regretful for their actions, while others express a feeling that their lives truly are over, resulting in a no fear attitude that pervades their existence in prison. Some inmates even express a cautious optimism that policies will change in the UK and perhaps one day they will be freed. One inmate even expressed that ‘unexpected things happen’, which is meant to imply that he is working hard to rehabilitate himself in prison so that if the days comes when others consider his possible release, he will be ready. The viewer is left with a feeling that this optimism, however, is fanciful as the number of individuals committed to life sentences continues to increase in the United Kingdom. As a result, the documentary highlights the reality that some in prison work hard to receive their college education, contribute to their own vocational training, and try to live decent and honourable lives behind bars. In the end, however, the viewer sees that this is all for naught, at least in the eyes of society, as there is possible way for these inmates ever to demonstrate these skills outside in full view of society ever again. As such, the film does make the point that one must consider rather or not life sentences are actually worth the cost that society must pay, or if individuals can truly be rehabilitated and then placed back into society to contribute in a positive and effective manner (Ellis 2009). To this end, through the stories that are told, there is much food for thought related to this issue, and there is certainly a cause for discussion and debate within UK society, and perhaps leading over to a review of the system by the judicial system itself at some point in the future. One thing that is for certain is that this is an issue related to law and justice that concerns all civilised countries of the world, not just the United Kingdom, so the conversation regarding this issue is likely to be repeated in halls of justice on a global basis for decades to come. 3. Tie In to Lecture Topics Lifers relates well to many of the lecture topics discussed during term 1. In essence, this is a film devoted to the notions of law and justice. Consider, for example, the Republican Theory of Law and Justice as first presented by Braithwaite and Pettit. This theory is really an argument for restorative justice, which is what the documentary film presents to the viewer as a possible alternative to current UK policy. Braithwaite and Pettit use their theory to discuss a series of possible objectives that should possibly be considered being implemented into the criminal justice system, with a particular focus on the Western view of justice and punishment. In supporting this theory, as discussed in previous lectures, there are three primary considerations to take into account when considering issues related to justice, and rather or not there should be a system of restorative justice implemented more readily into modern society. It is stated, for example, the one of the targets should itself be uncontroversial, particularly in democracies based in Western modern civilisation. This goes on to entail that reality that the target should exclude “any candidate which appeals to a conception of the good - say, a religious view of the point in life - that is radically incapable of commanding consensus in a pluralistic society” (Braithwaite & Pettit 1990, p. 42). In essence, this notion of restorative justice must be taken into consideration when considering the possibility of handing out mandatory life sentences to any individual that might remotely be able to be rehabilitated and one day become a positive contributor to society. It is also important to consider the material presented in class related to punishment and justice in a disciplined society. Since the dawn of man, negative behavior has typically resulted in negative consequences. This process of law and order has been predicated with the conservation of society, enabling mankind to survive and not become extinct, while countless millions of other species over time have ended up in a state of terminal disaster. Society, particular the West, is predicated on a disciplined strutter of mores that determines right from wrong. If a wrong behavior is committed, then there is a certain punishment that must be established in order to provide a sense of justice to the victim, and intimately to society. The word discipline not on implies punishment, but it also serves to establish order (Pettit & Braithwaite 2003). This is an important distinction to make because a civilised society must have both in order to have any hope of continue to progressively move forward in such a way that enables those that wish to conform excel, while ensuring that those individuals who only desire to wreak havoc to languish in a correctional institution until such a time that society deems them worth of reentering. It is this last concept, however, that provides for a contentious debate in modern society related to the extent to which someone should be punished, depending on the offence, before a just restitution is believed to have taken place. 4. Contributions to Issues of Punishment, Justice, and Human Rights The documentary that I discuss in this review deals with the important issue of just punishment and rehabilitation. Important questions are raised related to the efficacy of having a one punishment fits all mentality in terms of imposing mandatory life sentences for certain crimes. As the documentary points out, when society does this, the offenders have little incentive to do anything productive during their time behind bars. They simply become a burden to the state, and to society in general, and are just taking up space until their life is over. The discussion that comes out of this is whether or not society really desires to advocate such a strong policy in regard to mandatory life sentences (Hare 2011). There are certainly many criminals incarcerated today that should never see freedom again, primarily due to the fact that their propensity to become a repeat violent offender upon release is simply too high. To put society at risk because of that is simply too much to bear, even for those that advocate for life sentences. On the other hand, there are many who would argue that some individuals truly can be rehabilitated to the point that they are willing to pay just restitution for their crime, usually by serving time behind bars, and then become valuable contributors to society upon their release. The point is well received that such individuals, if given an opportunity for eventual release, can demonstrate their willingness to conform to the norms of society by working behind bars to better their own lives and begin to learn valuable skill sets, in addition to enhancing their own emotional stability, to show the community that they truly can be a better person if given another opportunity (McCold 2000). This is a precarious position to take, however, because some would argue that such individuals have fooled the justice system and society before, only to return to a life of violent crime immediately upon release. It is certainly a question that will be debated for quite some time, and is directly related to the issues of punishment, justice, and human rights. The question really comes down to an issue of universal human rights. When considering this concept, however, one must consider both the rights of the criminal and the rights of society in general (Roche 2007). The two do not necessarily coincide. Those on the side of mandatory life sentences would claim that is a basic human right for an individual to live a society free from fear and one in which criminals are removed from the general population. On the other side, however, there is the principle of second chances that society has long sense advocated when an error is made. To arbitrarily set a mandatory life sentence for every offender that falls into a certain category, some would, simply sends the wrong message to society. It is a violation of human rights, they would argue, to insist that a person has no propensity to change and be rehabilitated (Sherman & Strang 2007). The precludes the reality that humans do have the capacity to realise their mistakes, make corrections, and move on with their lives in a more a positive and productive manner. Naturally, one must also consider the issue of just punishment. Many in the west argue, for example, that to take the life of another person without cause should result in an equally severe punishment. In countries such as the United Kingdom, where the death sentence is not a possibility, this entails sentencing a person to life behind bars, which is in essence a living death penalty with no possibility of escape (Grice 2009). Repeat violent offenders, thus, would also be treated in this scope as they are seen as not being able to be rehabilitated, have become a dangerous threat to society, and therefore they should no long be allowed to live a free life amongst other law abiding members of the community. As one can see, this documentary provides for a thought provoking discussion, upon which there is really no one discernible and correct answer about what society resolve to do in this area moving forward. 5. Strengths and Limitations of the Documentary The documentary Lifers is highly effective at providing certain points of discussion about a topic that is of critical importance to UK society, and that of any civilised society in general. This is a strength in that real life stories are contained in the documentary. We see individuals that are sentenced to life who truly have no perceived value to society, and who openly confess that they would likely commit crimes if ever released. We also see individuals who are doing their best behind bars to better their lives and prove some type of worth to society, even though they really have no hope of ever being able to live a free life ever again. This is a juxtaposition of sorts that truly grips and captivates the mind of the viewer in consider that justness, or lack thereof, of imposing mandatory life sentences on these individuals. At the same time, this is also a perceived weakness in the documentary in that there are really no solid answers either presented or even proposed. This demonstrates the seriousness with which this issue is debated in society, and the reality that there will likely never be a true consensus about what is a just punishment for the most violent of crimes committed in society in this day and age. While the documentary does open up the topic for intellectual debate and discussion, it stops short of being able to truly provide a psychological and criminology basis for the current sentencing guidelines in place throughout the United Kingdom, and indeed much of the West. Without this, the debate remains just that, a story of real individuals who have committed dastardly acts openly in society, yet who have also been told that their is no sense of restorative justice in the world (Ellis 2009). In essence, these individuals have been told that society at large feel that there is no hope of rehabilitation for these individuals, so they should give up even trying. If this is what society wants to communicate in the long run, then that is fine, but there are simply too many individuals that have a problem with this notion that one punishment truly does fit all individuals who commit a particular type of crime. So, the very strengths that this documentary contains in terms of highlights the topic and giving it a human perspective, is also a weakness in that it simply shows that the issue really is not going to be solved any time soon. 6. Conclusion There are many valid perspectives to the issues presented in this documentary film. One overriding issue, however, is that we must remember that criminals are human beings as well. They have a soul, a capacity to feel, and certainly a propensity to be rehabilitated. At this same time, the human race has long had a need to make certain that their are punitive consequences for behavior that enable society to protect itself from complete and utter destruction. On the surface, these two ideas are diametrically opposed, and this comes to bear on the issues being discussed in Lifers. Society does not take it lightly to put an individual behind bars for the rest of their life, with no possibility of ever being release, because doing so is realistically a death sentence. The person is told that they have no redeeming value to society, so they are forced to live out their remaining days outside the purview of larger human civilisation. At the same time, the financial cost of this policy is enormous, particular in countries such as the United Kingdom where the population of prisons continues to increase under these punitive sentencing guidelines. The cost to society may be even greater, however, as we come to the grips with the reality that we, as a people, have come to the point in our existence where we have given up on many of our brothers and sisters. If we continue to do that on a broad scale, I hesitate to think what will be the results as we begin to question whether or not there is ever truly to be an sense of restorative justice in the world ever again. References Braithwaite, J. and Pettit, P. (1990). Not just deserts: a republican theory of criminal justice. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press. Braithwaite, J. and Pettit, P. (1990). Republicanism and restorative justice: An explanatory and normative connection. In H. Strang & J. Braithwaite [Eds.], Resotrative Justice: Philosophy to Practice. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 145-163. Channel 40d. (2012). Lifers. Retrieved from http://www.channel4.com/programmes/lifers/on-demand. Christie, N. (2007). Conflicts as property. The British Journal of Criminology, 17(1), 1-15. Crawford, A. (2012). The state, community, and restorative justice: heresy, nostalgia and butterfly collecting. In L. Walgrade [Ed.], Resotrative Justice and the Law. Cullompton: Willan, pp. 101-129. Daly, K. (2009). Revisiting the relationship between retributive and restorative justice, Restorative Justice and Civil Society Conference. Australian National University, Canberra. Davidson, D. (2008). Essays on actions and events. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Davis, M. (2009). Punishment theory’s golden half century: A survey of developments from 1957 to 2007. Journal of Ethics, 13, 73-100. Dolinko, D. (2013). Restorative justice and the justification of punishment. Utah Law Review, 2013(1), 319-342. Ellis, A. (2009). War crimes, punishment, and the burden of proof. Res Publica, forthcoming. Grice, H. P. (2009). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, Massachusetts; London: Harvard University Press. Hare, R. M. (2011). Moral thinking: its levels, method, and point. Oxford. McCold, P. (2000). Toward a holistic vision of restorative juvenile justice: A reply to the Maximalist Model. Contemporary Justice Review, 3(4), 357-414. Nagin, D. (2010). Deterrence and incapacitation. In M. Tonry (Ed.), The Handbook of Crime and Punishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 345-368. Pettit, P. & Braithwaite, J. (2003). Not just deserts, even in sentencing. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 4(3), 225-239. Roche, D. (2007). Retribution and restorative justice. In G. Johnstone and D. W. Van Ness [Eds.], Handbook of Restorative Justice. Cullompton: Willan, pp. 75-90. Sherman, L. and Strang, H. (2007). Restorative justice: the evidence. London: Smith Institute. Read More