The Use of the Punitive Controls - Case Study Example

WHY SHOULD THERE BE LIMITS TO THE USE OF PUNITIVE CONTROL BY THE STATE? By Author’s Name Name of the Class Name of the Professor Name of the School City, State 6 January, 2015 Introduction The essay seeks to expound the necessity to limiting use of punitive control to criminals by the state. It first establishes why people engage in criminal behaviours and the intended purpose of the punitive controls used by state. It ultimately defends limiting the use of the punitive controls by arguing out on abuse of power, accidents in prison facilities, inhumane punishments and their ineffectiveness. Punishment Based on penology context a punishment is a penalty imposed to criminals by the state authority in response to violation of law. A legal punishment is imposed by state constituted institutions, entails unpleasantness to the victims, for parties in breach of law to enforce the law (Lacey 1994). Offenders are punished to hold them accountable/responsible for violation of law but to also promote social solidarity and order as Durkheim theorized. The philosophical approach of retributive and utilitarian theories set the goals of punishment to be concerned with deterrence, incapacitation, retribution, rehabilitation and restorative justice. Retributive theory entails an eye for an eye (lex talionis) perspective, which has been exercised in capital punishment and Islamic penal law (Hudson, n.d). Punishments for crimes are in form of imprisonment, deportation, execution, community service and compensation among others. Punitive control describes the increasing restrictive practices or interventions used to restrain the delinquent/criminal behaviour. They are applied in learning institutions, by states in judicial system, and in industrial sectors among others to control crime. According to Lacey, the State is the body/authority “responsible for the administration and enforcement of the criminal law, with the right and duty to punish for breaches of criminal law” (1994, p.20). Imprisonment and long sentencing is the modern punitive approach used for diverse range of crimes in the society. Why people engage in crime Crime is the norm of the day in all societies. However, criminal behaviours are motivated/ caused by varying factors. Some commit crimes to avenge or seek justice and are usually punished on retributive principle in demand of an equal proportion of punishment. Majority are willing to forgo the pain and suffering just for their satisfaction, fulfilment of their desires and achieving success by committing crimes. It could be triggered by experienced poverty, labelling in society, social inequality and low economic power, and are hence prepared to protect them at any cost. From a utilitarian basis, such criminals are punished because they had choices and opted for crime in pursuit of a desired consequence. The ministry of justice of NZ explains the relation of criminal behaviour to psychological perspective “in terms of child-rearing practices, attachment, neglect, abuse, supervision, and the parents own anti-social or criminal behavior” (2009, p.2). As Drunken puts it, some join radical criminal groups in support of their social solidarity, through their stronger collective conscience (Piepmeyer 2007). Therefore, at any given opportunity, some will voluntarily engage in crimes to improve their socioeconomic status or come out of poverty. At times groups in societies engage in crimes due to moral panic only to protect themselves from a threat. The government of the day is the utmost power that enforces penal policies and crime control. States would always justify forms of punishment is they produce consequences. However, imprisonment is taken a normal routine for criminals, and from a utilitarian and retributive perspective have at times failed to produce social good, interferes with human rights in the negative sense, punishments have lacked utility and expressed conflict of purpose. As more people are tried, arrested and imprisoned more prison facilities are required, which demand substantial financial spending for construction, staff to run the facilities and other expenditure on basic needs. Due to increasing number of criminals sentenced to prison, government have resorted to contracting with private organizations to acquire private prison facilities that house diverse range of criminals. The industry of crime control has turned into a business platform, but has exposed the flaws of punitive controls in the system. Reasons for limiting use of punitive controls The wake of the 21st century has challenged the ethos of the penal system, correctional mechanisms and punitive controls inflicted on criminals in the society to call for reforms. According to Pratt et al., new punitiveness is associated with punishments that are likely to “violate productive, restrained and rational tenets of contemporary disciplinary punishment and hark back, in different ways to the emotive and destructive themes of sovereign punishment” (2013, n. p). The penal order and punishments passed across have been characterized by excess rather than limits. Death in prisons Most of the problems emanating from the punitive controls of a given state are deeply rooted in their penal system. When individuals are arrested for alleged crimes, it’s the criminal justice system of a state applied. However other than dealing with dangerous criminals, the system itself is more problematic in its complexity to deliver justice, actual functioning, with codes that inflict harm to suspected criminal; all together painting the states as potentially dangerous bodies to their citizens (Christie 1986). Imprisonment punishments are common, but the treatment and experiences for those housed involves catastrophic risks. While some prisoners and suspects are held in detention facilities would think they are safe from societal harm because of their offence, they fall into worse hands of the states. Due to the poor penal system employed some alleged criminals awaiting trials (perhaps innocent) end up spending years of their lives confined in the facilities, attacked by mysterious sicknesses and accidents to meet deaths. Imprisonment punishments though intended to serve a purpose expose offenders to awful living conditions, congestion, forced labour, exposure to accidents and sicknesses like TB, which leads to humiliating deaths in custody (Christie, n.d). An example is the death of approximately 100 people between 1980- 88 in Australian prisons and police custody (Grabosky et al 1988). Mass incarceration has gradually turned into a public health threat influencing high rates of chronic health illnesses, mental/emotional disturbances and drug abuse. Penal system and imprisonments have acted to facilitate excess pains, hence the need to limit the extent of the punishment to minimize unnecessary deaths and pain. Abuse of power Increased modernization and civilization over the decades have aided to correct previous barbaric acts implemented by the states and society. However, it has tampered with the governments’ and individuals power, allowing the former to claim and exercise greater control of people’s lives. Today, what are experienced are much internalized forms of discipline and punishments that intrude into individuals’ privacy and express the overstretched sovereignty of the state. The delivery of the penal justice and the carceral culture adopted in the contemporary times practice an indefinite discipline comprised of endless interrogations, limitless extended investigations for analytical observations and judgments constituting of files never closed among others (Foucault, 1977). Borrowing from the Bentham’s panoptic prison scheme, modern bureaucratic institutions are allowed to invade into individuals’ privacy through constant surveillance and observations of inmates and those on parole as imbued by the justice system (Hudson, 2002). The mere thought of constant gaze in the prison cells/ground renders states power over the inmates. Inmates and public members under the surveillance are repetitively deprived of their freedom and pushed into forced labour in attempt to discipline them. To prevent inhuman punishments The contemporary society only gets to hear of the heinous and barbaric punishments that former societies prior mid 20th century were subjected to by their penal systems. Torture, public humiliations and capital punishments may be a past tense today because of the evolution and reforms in penal laws. However, while criminologists tend to justify imprisonment punishments, there far confirmed cases of inhuman practices within the prison walls that well relate to traditional brutality of penal justice. Some countries like USA and Saudi Arabia still practice capital punishment. Though crimes warranting the penalty have to be heinous, how can ever two wrongs make a right? In the moral sense, an offender could have shot a victim to instant death, but putting him in prison for approximately 20 years awaiting death, which is later executed through painful lethal injection, is quite an inhumane procedure. One, the use of Criminal Alien Requirement (CAR) facilities under the management of private companies in contract with States’ governments are notorious in inmates isolation and denying them of the social services like drug treatment least to mention inadequacy of basic needs like food (Hill, 2014). Such confinements subjected to certain prisoners result in serious psychological illness that deteriorate their health rather than improve their condition or behaviour. Limits should be put to humanize the punishment process. Ineffectiveness of the punitive measure There numerous criminals emerging in the society and back from prisons whom continue to terrorize the communities at any opportunity. The concern here is that prisons have often failed to reform the society, ascertaining that most punitive controls in use have not been effective in their purpose. As a matter of fact, Hudson claims that prisons have been a failure, and rather than control crime have served to repress individuals and setting about social divides (2002). Some people are locked for several years but the imprisonment is of no social good in the end. A problem that could be resolved through rehabilitation or impacting of productive skills ends up recurring once the individuals is released, because the jail term served no intended purpose. Individuals imprisoned for illicit drugs trafficking and use end up perfecting their act inside the prisons. Prisoners account for the large market and involved corrupt officials facilitate distribution. Hudson states “that prisons, far from reforming offenders, encourage recidivism, as inmates form a subculture with loyalties to each other and further alienation from authority” (2002, p. 239). Hence, upon ineffectiveness of one punitive control in a specified period, there should be a limit to its use to explore on other strategies. Only them would the social good be achieved to the society. Conclusion States have commonly used diverse range of punitive controls against potential criminals who exercise antisocial behaviors. Though some punitive punishments like death penalty and various methods of execution have been abolished in majority of states, imprisonment and its series of violations has been a factor of the new punitiveness. Punitive controls have traditionally been used to deter crimes, rehabilitate criminals and exercise retribution among others. However, imprisonment as the modern control has posed more dangers in its excess application affecting the lives both the criminals and general society. In regard, there should be limits to the use of punitive control by the state to eliminate unnecessary deaths posed by the dangerous penal system of the state in custody/prison facilities, abuse of power that deprive inmates and free citizens of their rights to freedom and privacy, hidden inhuman punishments and promote the greater social good by applying effective punitive controls. References Christie, N 1986, ‘Crime Control as Drama,’ Journal of law and Society vol. 13 no.1, pp. 1-8. Christie, N n.d, ‘Dangerous state,’ Uio.no, viewed 7 January 2015, Foucault, M 1977, ‘Discipline and punish, panopticism,’ Foucault.info, viewed 7 January 2015, Grabosky, P., Scandia, A., Hazlehurst, K. Wilson, p 1988, ‘Aboriginal deaths in custody,’ aic.gov.au, May, viewed 12 January 2015, Hill, E 2014, ‘Immigrants mistreated in ‘inhumane’ private prisons, finds report,’ Aljazeera.com, 10 June, viewed 8 January 2015, . Hudson, B. A 2002, ‘Punishment and Control’ In M. Maguire (Ed.). The oxford handbook of criminology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, (2nd Ed.) pp. 233-263. Hudson, B. A 2003, Understanding justice 2/E: An introduction to ideas, perspectives, and controversies in modern penal theory, Open University Press, Buckingham. Lacey, N 1994, 'The traditional justifications', in State punishment: political principles and community values, Routledge, London, pp. 16-57. Piepmeyer, A 2007, ‘Collective consciousness,’ Uchicago.edu, winter, viewed 7 January 2015, . Pratt, J., Brown, D., Brown, M., Hallsworth, S., and Morrison, W 2005, The new punitiveness, trends, theories and perspectives, Routledge, New York. The Ministry of Justice of NZ 2009, ‘Theories of the causes of crime,’ Justice.govt.nz, March, viewed 7 January 2015, . Read More