Australian National Drug Strategy - Assignment Example

Three thinkers and philosophers, Becarria, Lombroso and Durkheim, enter one of the Australia’s auditoriums. The audience that has been expecting them cheers up as the three take their seats upfront. Lombroso is animatedly waving an article in the air. It is not clear whether he is happy or unhappy with its contents. The two colleagues are not amused. ) Becarria: What is again learned friend? Lombroso: (holding up an article1) Look at this! Durkheim & Beccaria: It is the Australian National Drug Strategy1. Lombroso: Yeah, these 21st century governments are getting the pathological drug offenders off the hook in the pretext of restorative justice and biomedical treatment. They argue that custodial and capital sentences have failed to deal with crimes effectively2. Beccaria: And they are calling it a “diversionary program1.” Police diversions, bail-based interventions drug court treatment programs and drug rehabilitation initiatives get all the emphasis.1I can’t quite see that happen in our good old days. What do you guys think? Durkheim& Lombroso: No way! No way! It won’t happen. Becarria: Excuse me, fellow thinkers, before we jump into conclusions; let us compare our perspectives with theirs on definition of crime or criminals, motivation for crime, deterrence and, very importantly, implications for the society. In the first place, who is a drug offender? Lombroso: Aha! He is an Atavist, a Criminaloid or an Insane criminal3. You see, their researchers reckon that most of these drug offenders commit property and violent crimes2. I haven’t examined their skulls and the general anatomy but from their involvement in violent crime, I can authoritatively say that these drug offenders behave atavistically – instinctively ferocious just like the primitive humans and inferior animals. These addicts are criminal simply because they engage in what average humanity doesn’t find normal4. To them and their ape generation, their actions like their physical features, may count as normal but the modern society can only classify these actions as criminal. This is so obvious, isn’t it? Durkheim: Professor, let me not comment on your individual positivism in criminology, I have my reservations. But I do agree that the criminality of a drug offender’s actions is a social fact5. I also agree with your analysis of one’s grouping and crime. Your savage communities correspond to what I call mechanical societies5. In these primitive social groupings, there is relative homogeneity of labour and circumstances. To this grouping, crime is normal. It is in the highly complex organic societies with different specializations of labour that an event can be properly called a crime. The rapid changes in the organic societies cause faults and breakdowns in personal and social norms. Becarria: Anomie. Is that what your theory calls anomie? Durkheim: Yes, crime manifests social disorder or anomie. What do you call it? Becarria:I will call the drug offenders encroachers on the sovereignty of others and despots that plunge the society into disarray6. Their individual passions are at war with the general wellbeing of the society. What do you think motivates these drug offenders to commits such acts as rape and murder of their victims, some cases their own mothers? Lombroso: What is your take on it? What is the force behind crimes? What will drive one to commit such a heinous crime? Becarria: The passions for an individual to commit a crime are motivated by the impressions that the present objects put on the mind6. Such tendencies to go against the law are natural because experience shows that masses are will not voluntarily follow the established laws. Every individual, I believe have free will controlled by rationality and intelligence7. You see, we are not products but producers of our fate. From our education and experiences, we are able to carefully choose what is good for us. That drug offender has chosen not only to be involved in the drug abuse; the criminal consequences are not accidental. Lombroso: My friend, I won’t talk of free will here. But you are very right as far as you believe that the drive to commit a crime lies squarely on the criminal and not elsewhere… Durkheim: Wait gentlemen! Wait! What about the society? Are individuals and their acts not the products of their societies? Lombroso: Not necessarily always. We are talking about born criminals3. And I can easily predict their stigmata and as I said before, they are atavistic. They think only of crime because they were born that way. They are completely devoid of feelings for pain and that is how they do commit a series of crimes with a passion to do more. They don’t stop at the illicit drug or rape or murder. Their passions tell them to rip open their victims’ bodies and cannibalize. That’s how they lick the blood from their swords whenever they hack their victims to death. At their best these criminal are insensitive, unremorseful and unrepentant4. Beccaria: You can’t be so inconsiderate, Lombroso! Lombroso: Not as much as born or insane criminals or worse megalomaniacs8. They have no control over what they do; they are simply following their instincts. In the world of these inferior beings, crime is not an exception; it is a norm…no free will here, please. Durkheim: Allow me to interject please. I find Lombroso’s explanation of what motivates crime very narrow. How can you leave the society out of the drug crime nexus? I still insist that crime is asocial fact and its motivation is equally sociological5. Social deviance is not as pathological as Lombroso would want us to believe. It is not the individual anatomical make-up but the social structure that necessitates a crime. Changes and complexities in the societies lead to crimes. These changes include organic solidarity as a result of division of labour which makes some people above or below others9. Development of anomie that Becarria was asking about is another source. This is the deviation of the individual from the collective conscience. Lastly, crimes are cracks in the society as a result an individual running amok by acting independent of the organic solidarity10. Becarria: That’s very impressive, Durkheim. But you are yet to tell us what motivated this young man to commit such a crime. Durkheim: Alright, let me say that a combination of these societal changes is at work. I strongly rule out the possibility of such crimes without the society. Neither will there be a society without crimes. Lombroso: Is that what is called sociological positivism? Becarria: I guess so. It is quite different from your individual positivism. So, whatever the underpinnings for criminal acts, what is the best deterrence? What should we do stop the same or other people from engaging in drug crimes? Durkheim: Let me make my point on this question first. Any punishment for a crime should add to the social good. Becarria: As for me, I strongly believe that the focus of the punishment should be on the offence and not the offender. In this regard, societies should clearly define the offence and its punishment. Lombroso: I politely differ with you Becarria ; I will emphasize on the criminal and not the crime or the society… Durkheim: Let me explain, social solidarity should be goal of any punishment. Morality, you know, maintains social integration. The law is the only means of maintaining social integration in both mechanical and organic societies. On the one hand, in mechanical societies, punishment serves to compensate the collective consciousness dented by the crime. This would preserve unitary conscience. On the other hand, the law aims at restitution in the organic societies. The law here is aimed at restoring normalness from the anomie that was manifest in the crime. The law is not meant to punish but to turn man from the waywardness of social deviance to the route of solidarity. Because my theory stands on the premise that crime is not pathological, it cannot be cured by punishment. Restitution and not repression should guide the course of action taken on the offender. Thus, I vouch for less violent punishment for these offenders. Becarria: I can say in the least that your theory on punishment converges in several points with mine. In my writing, you can find the nine principles for preventing crime one of which is that the entire public should be united against crime. In focusing on the crime and not the offender, I believe, the ultimate goal of punishment should be deterrence of the crime and not incarcerating the criminal. Judges should match the severity of the punishment with its crime and it should promptly come after the crime to be effective. In the case of the drug offender, I would prefer corporal punishment since they committed crimes against persons. But I am against death penalties. Lombroso: In keeping with my theories that put the criminal at the centre of the crime, I would call for a psychiatric examination to establish the category of the criminal either as a born criminal or an insane one. It will be effective to treat the crime by ascertaining its source and addressing it. Should insanity be established, the offenders should be given the relevant attention in the medical facilities. Should it be a case of inherent criminality, I have strongly proposed punishment that would greatly reduce infamy and ferocity – long periods of quarantine. In cases where a distinction cannot be made between born and insane criminals, intermediary institution would be sought for mercy, treatment and safety measures. As for the offender in question, I recommend psychiatric examination before any course of action is prescribed. Becarria: What an interesting discussion? Gentlemen, we are coming to the end of our talk. Let’s wrap up with closing comments on how your ideas are reflected in the National drug strategy. I will begin by saying that in principle, several of our ideas are reflected in the policy paper. Like in all your definitions, the drug strategy identifies that the drug offenders cause disharmony in the society and should be given special attention. Durkheim: Surely, the offenders precipitate anomie. Lombroso: I wonder if the strategy understands the offender’s pathology! Becarria: I think they do, that’s why the offenders have been identified for specialized criminal justice treatment. Let’s make reflections on the theories that underpin the new ways of looking at the drug criminals. Key among them are the socio-economic theory7, psychoanalytic juvenile approaches to criminnolgy11 and the social learning theory of crime.12 Lombroso: Yes the psychoanalytic theory believes that crime is in the mind of an individual. Durkheim: I think it is an expansion of your scientific explanation of crime. Lombroso; I think so. Becarria: What of the social learning theory of crime? Durkheim: This is very close to my work. It is premised on the theory that the society determines crime13. It appreciates the role of the society in motivating and deterring crime. Lombroso: The diversions also address the rehabilitation and treatment of the suspects and convicts. Becarria: Yes. This is very close to what you proposed on the place of psychiatry in crime motivation and deterrence. Lombroso: That is very right. The insane criminals are given treatment. Durkheim: I also find that these diversions are in tandem with emphasis I put social compensation and restitution over retribution and incarceration. Their main aim is for promoting social harmony. Becarria: Thank you very much friends for your very in-depth criticism of the criminal justice as practiced by the current governments. Lombroso: I am also very delighted to have shared my views with you two. Durkheim: I am indeed honoured to have been part of this insightful debate. Becarria: May your great ideas live on. Thank you both. (The three thinkers shake hands as they move out of the auditorium, one at a time. The audience, in standing ovation, applauds each of them with loud acclamations. It is not clear who gets the biggest applause.) Notes 1. Australian Government (2012) National drug strategy. 2. Lombroso, C. (1876) [2006]. The criminal man. London: Duke University Press. 3. Payne, B.K. (2007). Victim advocates’ perceptions of the role of health care workers in sexual assault cases. Criminal justice policy review, 18, 81-94. 4. Bernard, Thomas J., Jeffrey B. Snipes & Alexander L. Gerould (2010). Vold’s theoretical criminology, (6th ed). New York: Oxford University Press 5. Durkheim, Emile. 1895 [1950]. The rules of Sociological method. Glencoe,IL: Free Press. 6. Beccaria, C. (1764). Of Crimes and Punishments. New York: Marsilio Publishers. [1996] 7. Vold, G.B., Benard, T.J., & Snipes, J.B. (2002). Theoretical criminology, (5th ed). New York: Oxford University Press. 8. Lombroso, C.(1891) The Man of Genius 9. Durkheim, Emile. 1893[1984]. The division of labour in society. Translated by W.D.Halls. New York: Free Press. 10. Durkheim, Emile. 1897 [1951]. Sucide. New York: Free Press. 11. Friedlander, Kate: (1947).The Psychoanalytic Approach to Juvenile Delinquency 12. Akers, Ronald: Sociologist and criminologist, who, along with Robert Burgess, developed the differential reinforcement theory, wrote Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach (1973, 1977). 13. Sutherland, Edwin: (1883-1950) Developed the differential association theory, wrote The Professional Thief (1937) and Principles of Criminology (1947). Read More