Crime and Punishment: Political Science - Essay Example

Crime and Punishment: Political Science Question What are your thoughts on the principle of least eligibility? Should offenders be placed in circumstances less comfortable than those of our poorest citizens? The principle of least eligibility came into force as early as 1900. The principle states that offenders deserve living conditions that are no better than those of the law abiding citizens who are considered not to be well off among those in the working class (LaFollette 484). This means that the offenders are not entitled to more beneficial programs than do the law abiding citizens. In other words, they are not entitled to get college degrees or even have exercise equipments or receive benefits that the ordinary citizens do not enjoy and in real sense the prisoners can not afford them (Sifakis 197). Around 1970, the principle of least eligibility came into force in the prison practices and to that effect it defeated the purpose of rehabilitation (Sifakis 197). The principle of least eligibility does apply in some situations but in other cases, it gives more room for the prisoners to get what they need; especially in its absence. It is not right to treat someone badly even if the person did the most detestable thing on earth. Subjecting someone to living conditions that are unbearable may not solve past mistakes. Rehabilitation is the key thing whenever a criminal is taken to a prison. Prisons are supposed to be correctional facilities but not torture chambers. It defeats the purpose of prisons if the offender will be subjected to conditions that will not result in the rehabilitation of the offender. Rehabilitation programs such as free college educations, counseling and other benefits are affected by this principle. The resultant effect is that the offender once released will not feel like part of the society; the principle of non-superiority comes into effect (Sieh 353). Counseling is very important and in most cases it assists the prisoners to cope with the offence and prepare them to face the outside world as reformed people. If it lacks, the community is put at risk of increased crimes. The application of the principle in prison practice has resulted in brutal treatment of prisoners in some prisons. The principle in this case is more harmful and gives leeway to the prison wardens and fellow prisoners to brutalize other prisoners. An example is the treatment of prisoners like Ed Morrell and Robert Elliott Burns. To some extent the principle has its benefits. For example, it brought to an end of chain gangs after the maltreatment of Robert Elliott Burns (Sifakis 197). Luxury and wastage of time and money that is coddling criminals is the scenario that takes effect when the principle of least eligibility is absent (Sifakis 197). There have been some concerns whether criminals should have luxury and even get benefits like ordinary law abiding citizen. The principle in this case applies; the amount of luxury and benefits that the prisoner receives should be limited. As stated earlier, the purpose of any prison is to rehabilitate or correct the prisoner. Thus, there should be no extreme luxury and the living conditions of the prisoner should be kept at a level that will allow easy rehabilitation. There should be no strict measures as stated in the principle. Giving the prisoner living conditions that are better than the law abiding citizen does not mean he or she is getting more luxury. If giving the prisoner those better conditions will lead to reformation, then, let it be. Prisoners who take educational programs provided in those correctional facilities are less likely to return to prison (Clear, Cole and Reisig 346). One may argue that providing education to convicts is a luxury and waste of time and money but in reality, it is for the benefit of the prisoner and the community. The principle argues that crime arises from impoverishment and idleness (Sieh 353). The causes of crime according to this principle are limited and do not capture all the causes of crimes such as greed, revenge, pride and anger. Thus, it will be unfair to limit the causes of crime to poverty and idleness. Even the rich commit crimes that are linked with the desire to revenge or get more money. The punishment should be given as stipulated in the penal code but it should not be dictated by the principle of least eligibility. In a nutshell, the offenders should not be put under conditions that are less comfortable than those of the poorest law abiding citizens. The main aim of the prison is to correct the prisoners but not to torture, brutalize or infringe on their human rights. However, the prisoners should not be placed in more comfortable circumstances as this will also defeat the purpose of rehabilitation. Question 2: How do public opinion and politics affect the definition of what is a reasonable punishment for a given crime? The issue of reasonable punishment for a given crime is one of the controversial topics in the contemporary world. Policymakers, in this case the politicians, are subject to changing the policies regarding sentencing and in most cases the opinions given are manipulated by the public. A good example of how politics affects reasonable punishment can be seen in the manner that the issue of capital punishment has been handled in the United States. Other than capital punishment, there are other punitive policies that the public are in favor of. These punitive policies include imprisonment, and three strikes laws. The public show a tendency of being progressive and punitive and want the correctional systems to achieve their missions of doing justice, reforming criminals and protecting public safety. While the public may be willing to see justice being done, the lack of political will is the greatest barrier towards having a balanced approach to correctional policies and sentencing (Bonnie, Brandon and Francis 1). The public is as well divergent on the reasonable punishment for a given crime. It is evident that the reasonable punishment for a given crime differs among the politicians and the public. The mode and intensity of the punishment is dictated by the public opinion. Thus, a politician at most times will follow what the public wants in order to get elected or re-elected. According to Burrell (1), elected officials, regardless of their levels in the government, believe that for them to be elected, they need to be tough on crime. The belief is based on the public’s perception that crime must be dealt with using tough and punitive measures such as a prison sentence. The public has little knowledge of correctional and punishment issues (Bonnie, Brandon and Francis 1). When the politician acts on this belief, the resultant effect is increased number of prisons across the states and formulation of arbitrary laws. Thus, the approach to sentencing and correctional policies is not balanced. The belief has been persistent for some decades. Reports show that the public opinion on sentencing and correctional issues is not uniform and thus the politicians’ belief of the public does not hold any ground. The public and the politicians have entirely different views in some cases. The public at times can be humane and forgiving. The public is more sensitive to issues such as punishment which are rarely discussed in public political debates (Burrell 1). Politicians some times formulate laws based on numerous assumptions hence the increased number of prisons. The public is of the opinion that the terms for low risk petty offenders should be reduced and that these people should receive treatment and services to assist them adjust better in the society. The need for rehabilitation is strongly supported by the public. Thus, the opinions by the politicians and the public on punishment sometimes differ, always driven by different factors. For the politicians, the key issue is getting votes and popularity and for the public, justice is the driving factor. Capital punishment is always linked to serious crime, violence and murder. Capital punishment has drawn a lot of criticism from the policymakers (politicians), public and the mass media in the United States. Of major concern is the age at which one should be executed. Individuals as young as 16 years are subjected to execution in some states. This has raised concerns not only in America but in the entire world. Some are of the opinion that these young offenders should undergo repentance or reformation. Apart from the execution of young offenders, mentally retarded prisoners are also executed in some of the states in the United States. The execution of mentally retarded prisoners was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2002 (Singh 104). The nature of person who should undergo capital punishment is still unclear to both the policymakers and the public. Capital punishment is concentrated on the southern states of the United States of America. In the northern states, capital punishment is not popular. The popularity of capital punishment in the southern states is linked to the public’s strong ties to religion and racist attitudes of the native white southerners (Singh 106). The policymakers and the public strongly agree that the best punishment for crimes and violence that result to murder is capital punishment. Their decision is based on their religious values and racism. This is not the case in the northern states. The public and policy makers in the northern states are more willing to substitute capital punishment with life imprisonment without parole. As can be seen from the arguments presented above, reasonable punishment for a particular crime is driven by personal interests, religious values and geographical location. It is also clear that public opinion and politics define what punishment can be given for a certain crime. Works Cited Bonnie, F. S., Brandon, A. & Francis, C. T. “Public Opinion about Punishment and Corrections.” Crime and Justice: A Review of Research 27. (2000): 1-79. Print. Burrell, William. Punishment, Politics and Public Opinion. The Crime Report, 21 Dec. 2010. Web. 10 Jan. 2011. Clear, T. R., Cole, G. F. & Reisig, M. D. American Corrections. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning, 2008. Print. LaFollette, Hugh. Ethics in Practice: An Anthology. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2002. Print. Sieh, Edward. W. Community Corrections and Human Dignity. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2006. Print. Sifakis, Carl. The Encyclopedia of American Prisons. New York, NY: Infobase Publishing, 2003. Print. Singh, Robert. Contemporary American Politics and Society: Issues and Controversies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2003. Print. Read More