Approaches to Crime and Punishment - Assignment Example

Running Head: Approaches to.... Topic: Approaches to crime and punishment Word count:2073 Order 426874 Topic: Approaches to crime and punishment Cesare Beccaria: (1738-1794)Thank you for inviting me to initiate this discussion on the subject of “Approaches to Crime and Punishment.” I appreciate your goodwill! I have a note before me sent by an anonymous researcher on the same subject. It is titled, “Reformed turn Reformers,” and contains interesting observations. Things have changed, perhaps irrevocably, relating to the subject of crime and punishments, especially the capital punishment. This note will serve as the launching pad for our arguments on crime and punishment. So, shall we proceed with our mini-symposium? May I request Lombroso for a quick reading of the note? Lombroso(1835-1909): Thank you Mr. Beccaria. Here I do: When a criminal is nagged and abused, condemned and ostracized by society, he turns into a viler and bitter individual. Heartfelt care and concern, an understanding approach, and tender regard for his feelings are necessary prerequisites to heal his inner wounds. Coupled with this, we need to learn to forgive and forget his past in order to help him build a new identity. The inner core of every human being is essentially divine, even of the worst villain condemned to die. With hardened attitudes, these prisoners upon release, turn more violent perpetrators of crime. Thus, it is necessary that the inmates be afforded an opportunity of changing themselves from within. As for the capital punishment, it must be abolished once for all as it has no place in the civilized society. Durkheim: (1858-1917): A thoughtful note. What do you say Beccaria? Would you like to throw fresh light on your criminal justice theories in the light of observations in the note? Reformation of the criminals and the criminal justice system have always been your favorite issues for discussion. Lombroso (interjects): Thats correct. You once questioned the discretionary powers of the judges and using personal connections to secure lighter sentences and capital punishment. Durkheim: You said capital punishment? My friends, we all know that Beccaria “ had offered the first sustained critique of capital punishment, calling it both inhumane and ineffective in preventing crime.”(Lombroso at el.2006,404) Time has proved you right. “When the United States Justice Department recently released statistics showing that the number of death sentences imposed in 2003 had hit a 30-year low, it deepened a debate over societys ultimate punishment, fueling a controversy that has simmered from statehouses to courtrooms for years.”(Whats behind....) Beccaria: Yes, I did. But Lombroso went a step further. “In early editions of Criminal Man, he (Lombroso) hesitates to endorse the death penalty, which was unpopular in Italy and abolished by the Italian criminal code of 1889. But by the final edition of Criminal Man, Lombroso endorses a limited use of capital punishment, arguing that it plays a natural role in the Darwinian struggle for existence and is necessary to defend society from the most vicious born criminals.”(Lombroso, et al.2006,404) I agree with two philosophers theories: social contract and utility. Lombroso: Beccaria has a point there. Dont you think so Durkheim? As mentioned in the note, Beccaria had described and pushed the point of reforming the criminal justice system. As for social contract, his stand that punishment as justified only to defend the social contract of citizens and to make sure that all individuals followed this standard. As for utility, he held that the method of punishment selected should be the one that helps the society. This being the position, imposition of death penalty seems unthinkable, as by awarding such a serious punishment to the individual, the chances of ones reformation are totally wiped out.The current thinking on the subject of capital punishment is thought-provoking. "I dont think [the decline in death sentences] signals a massive sea change in the publics perception of the death penalty," says Marquis, a board member of the National District Attorneys Association, "but rather a recognition by prosecutors and ultimately by juries that the punishment should be reserved for the worst of the worst."(Whats behind....) Durkheim: Perfect. Beccarias views have stood the test of time. As Breathnach rightly points out, “What is there in common between punishment and offense? They seem to be two heterogeneous things coupled artificially. But this is because we do not see the middle term that links them, that makes a bridge from one to the other: the sentiment evoked by the offense and from which the penalty results, the feeling that it is the result of the act and the essence of punishment.”( 2002, 33) To be frank, the right to take ones life can only be exercised by the one who has the capacity to give life. The one who has wherewithal to light the lamp can as well extinguish it. It is the domain of divinity, the will of God! Beccaria:Thank you for your support and understanding. Both the theories justifying punishment, have intrinsic merits. All need to agree that no crime should remain unpunished. Punishment is a great tool of social control that is expected to usher peace in the society. In the first flush of enthusiasm to render justice, the retributive approach is often vigorously supported as it states that punishment should be equal to crime. In other words, “ an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” Lombroso: Do you think that this approach is still acceptable in keeping with the modern thinking of reformation and rehabilitation of the prison population? The current research points out towards “four specific assumptions of social disorganisation as an explanation of delinquency. First, delinquency is mainly the consequence of a collapse of institutional, community-based controls.... Second, the disorganisation of community-based institutions is often a result of rapid industrialisation, urbanisation, and immigration processes that occur primarily in urban areas. Third, the effectiveness of social institutions and the desirability of residential and business locations correspond closely to natural, ecological principles that are influenced by the concepts of competition and dominance.... The fourth assumption is that socially disorganised areas lead to the development of criminal values and traditions that replace conventional ones and that are self-perpetuating.”(CSISS Classics....) Beccaria: Certainly not! The crying question is, how to increase happiness for the humankind as a whole. Therefore, I solidly stand by the Utilitarian approach. Most of the crimes are committed at the spur of the moment, except those committed by hardened and professional criminals. When we talk about increasing the happiness in the world, it is possible by the process of reformation only. Death sentence is no solution. One death sentence has the capacity to damage the psyche of the entire community /society, for a long time to come and pave way for the revengeful attitude. But the mode of punishment should also deter others from acting in the same manner. Durkheim: Is your statement not contradictory? When the criminals develop the feeling that they can getaway easily, does it not tantamount to encouraging the trend of criminality? Is such soft approach not self-defeating for the society? Beccaria: To punish is important. But how you punish, I mean the procedure of punishment, is more important. The punishment should take place forthwith. This is the correct meaning of connecting the crime and the punishment. The issue should be clear in the mind of the convict that he is bound to be punished swiftly with no escape from it. Such punishments will deter others. Severe punishments,like capital punishment apparently look good but in reality they are pointless. Lombroso: If a straightforward question is asked whether capital punishment should be there or not, what is yous stand now? I do feel that it can not be erased out of the system of jurisprudence once for all. Beccaria: The issue is too complicated to merit a clear-cut answer. It all depends on the intensity of the crimes. For example, treason is the worst type of crime, as it breaks down a very important social contract and lets down the Nation to which one belongs. Durkheim: One important point incidentally. All laws, especially the one leading to the capital punishments, just because they are the laws of the land, are not faultless aphorisms. A difficult law implemented in a worst manner is the ultimate calamity for the prisoner. Such a law, if not amended or withdrawn quickly, can ruin the delicate social structure based on human relationships. Embroiled in such an unfriendly system of jurisprudence, the economically weaker section suffers more. I must really congratulate you Beccaria for your bold stand on the issue of capital punishment and I quote you, “ What right, I ask, have men to cut the throats of their fellow-creatures? ... Did any one ever give to others the right of taking away his life? Is it possible that, in the smallest portions of the liberty of each, sacrificed to the good of the public, can be contained the greatest of all good, life? If it were so, how shall it be reconciled to the maxim which tells us, that a man has no right to kill himself, which he certainly must have, if he could give it away to another?But the punishment of death is not authorised by any right; for I have demonstrated that no such right exists.”(Beccaria,1963,Chapter 28) Beccaria: Your observation is perfect. The best deterrent to crime is to reward good deeds in the community, encourage education to all, and draft simple laws that one can understand and follow with confidence. Capital punishment does not serve the purpose for which it is meant for. Long term imprisonment serves the objective better. It is the key to deterrence. Lombroso: I agree. Every case of capital punishment needs to be decided on its situation. Notwithstanding the capital punishment, serious crimes are yet committed. Keeping the criminal behind the bars is more deterring than to take ones life. Durkheim: Mr. Lombroso, you were a prison doctor and had close access to all types of prisoners. You were also known as the father of Italian school of criminology. You insisted on empirical evidence for studying crimes. Extending this approach further, you relied upon physiological traits like cheekbones, hairline,a cleft palate as indicative for criminal tendencies. How do you feel now, when this theory stands superseded? Lombroso: Research is not a static subject, it is the growing one. In the initial stages of studying criminology, such facts were interesting. In many countries, there are what are called criminal tribes. Continuing with my research, one of my student, Enrico Ferri, concluded that social as well as biological factors played a definite role in criminal actions and the criminals should not be held responsible when factors leading to their criminality were beyond their control. Beccaria: Mr. Durkheim, your viewing of the criminal acts and its consequences is altogether novel, as per your theory of social solidarity. “ Rather than in placing either the crime or the criminal at center stage, this theory focuses on the injuries and needs of the victim and of the community as a whole. Offenders must be held accountable to these victims, and part of their penalty may involve direct restitution, apologies to the victims, and community service.”(Punishment....)Your views have proved to be prophetic as reformation and rehabilitation are the watchwords today, and form the foundation stone for the psycho-analytical treatment of the prisoners. Any comments? Durkheim: What happens when a crime is committed? Social relationships are harmed. Trust and solidarity is broken by that criminal act. Howsoever powerful may the waves of an ocean, their real nature is mere water! Similarly, restorative justice appropriate to the crime is the only answer. The ultimate purpose needs to be building the society, not break it further in the wake of crime. And when capital punishment is awarded, the society does suffer the repercussions. Issues like religion, color, nationality of the individual put to death, aggravate the situation further.“No other penal issue has attracted such controversy since the mid-1970s as the death penalty. Abolitionists argue that morally it is inhuman and practically it is ineffective in deterring crime. Abolitionists also argue that it grants the state too much power, and is too often used as a tool of political terror, or used unequally upon minority communities.”(Punishment....) Beccaria: So, we all agree gentlemen that capital punishment must be eliminated from the system of jurisprudence and USA must take the lead for such an initiative on a top priority basis. References: Beccaria, Cesare. On Crimes and Punishment 1764. Reprint, translated by Henry Paolucci. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1963. Breathnach, Seamus. Emile Durkheim on Crime and Punishment(an exegesis), Google Books, 2002. CSISS Classics - Clifford R. Shaw and Henry D. McKay: The Social ... Retrieved on April 4,2010. Lombroso, Cesare(Author) Gibson, Mary(Author) Rafter,Nicole Hahn(Author) Criminal Man;Google Books-2006.Duke University Press, Durham. Punishment - From Justification To Explanation.... For Durkheim, the social function of punishment is to give effect to the ... Retrieved on April 4, 2010. Whats behind decline in death sentences / The Christian Science ... 22 Nov 2004 ... Retrieved on April 4,2010 Read More