Some Thoughts on Punishment
“Punishment is not for revenge, but to lessen crime and reform the criminal.”
--Elizabeth Fry (1780-1845), British Reformer.
Most of us would like to believe ourselves in sympathy with this simple quotation and others like it, believing it to be the view of modern and enlightened minds. I was reminded of such thinking while reading about the trial and conviction of 71 year old Bobby Frank Cherry who was found guilty a couple of years ago of the cruel and brutal 1963 bombing of the 16th Avenue Baptist Church in Birmingham that killed four little girls. I remember the event and the national outrage that followed. Cherry’s conviction was viewed by just about everyone, including me, as welcome news. I wonder, though, just how sentencing a 71 year old man to a life sentence for a crime he committed nearly 40 years earlier serves to “lessen crime or reform the criminal.” Can we seriously view his sentence as a deterrent in any way? Will others, previously hell-bent on committing similar acts now think twice because of this event? Will Cherry somehow be “reformed”? Will society be safer now that he’s behind bars? If we’re honest with ourselves we can justify the judge’s ruling on the basis of only one principle: that of retributive justice, or “just desserts.” Cherry (since deceased) was sentenced to life imprisonment because “he deserved it.”
The larger issue, though, is why we punish anyone. In his remarkable essay, “On the Humanitarian Theory of Punishment,” C.S. Lewis not only justifies punishment on the basis of “just desserts” but baldly states that it is the ONLY justifiable reason for ANY punishment. Lewis presents his argument by examining and then dismissing the standard justifications for punishment. As for rehabilitation, there is certainly no evidence that we need to inflict intentional punishment to achieve it . We do need to keep criminals away from the rest of society, but, here again, there are ways of doing so without taking away their rights (except the right to go where they please). The most often cited justification for punishment, however, is that of deterrence. While deterrence may be a useful by-product of punishment, is it not unjust to derive deterrence from punishment without first establishing that the one being punished actually “deserved” to be punished in the first place? If this were not true, the criminal would be justified in protesting his punishment. After all, why should he be made to suffer just so others will not commit crimes?
The notion of "deserving justice" for its own sake is a pretty difficult thing for those possessed of modern sensibilities to swallow and yet, few of us have examined this issue (or ourselves) to consider the actual role the notion plays in our society.
--Elizabeth Fry (1780-1845), British Reformer.
Most of us would like to believe ourselves in sympathy with this simple quotation and others like it, believing it to be the view of modern and enlightened minds. I was reminded of such thinking while reading about the trial and conviction of 71 year old Bobby Frank Cherry who was found guilty a couple of years ago of the cruel and brutal 1963 bombing of the 16th Avenue Baptist Church in Birmingham that killed four little girls. I remember the event and the national outrage that followed. Cherry’s conviction was viewed by just about everyone, including me, as welcome news. I wonder, though, just how sentencing a 71 year old man to a life sentence for a crime he committed nearly 40 years earlier serves to “lessen crime or reform the criminal.” Can we seriously view his sentence as a deterrent in any way? Will others, previously hell-bent on committing similar acts now think twice because of this event? Will Cherry somehow be “reformed”? Will society be safer now that he’s behind bars? If we’re honest with ourselves we can justify the judge’s ruling on the basis of only one principle: that of retributive justice, or “just desserts.” Cherry (since deceased) was sentenced to life imprisonment because “he deserved it.”
The larger issue, though, is why we punish anyone. In his remarkable essay, “On the Humanitarian Theory of Punishment,” C.S. Lewis not only justifies punishment on the basis of “just desserts” but baldly states that it is the ONLY justifiable reason for ANY punishment. Lewis presents his argument by examining and then dismissing the standard justifications for punishment. As for rehabilitation, there is certainly no evidence that we need to inflict intentional punishment to achieve it . We do need to keep criminals away from the rest of society, but, here again, there are ways of doing so without taking away their rights (except the right to go where they please). The most often cited justification for punishment, however, is that of deterrence. While deterrence may be a useful by-product of punishment, is it not unjust to derive deterrence from punishment without first establishing that the one being punished actually “deserved” to be punished in the first place? If this were not true, the criminal would be justified in protesting his punishment. After all, why should he be made to suffer just so others will not commit crimes?
The notion of "deserving justice" for its own sake is a pretty difficult thing for those possessed of modern sensibilities to swallow and yet, few of us have examined this issue (or ourselves) to consider the actual role the notion plays in our society.
posted by unca | 10:43 AM
5 Comments:
Whoa. That's extremely interesting. It's so much further than I've examined the issue that rather than think about it myself, I'd prefer to read more of what either CS Lewis or Unca has to say on the subject.
Don't just leave us hanging here with the tough part left "as an exercise for the reader" -- tell me what I should be thinking, for pete's sake!
Well, my main point was that this is an issue that we don't give much thought to and needs to be examined especially by those who don't give any credence to retributive justice. I'll try to come back with some implications later. In the meantime, there's a pretty good discussion and summary of the topic at:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/punishme.htm
Implications: If we except the notion that justice can only be based on just desserts, we are no longer justified in extending (or shortening) sentences based on deterrence "as a warning to others," or "to send a message."
This is an interesting and thought provoking post.
I might comment on it later when my brain cells are up to the challenge.
The only thing I can think of right now is having my just desserts.
(Cookies and Milk)
Nice post Unca
I think (and I haven't thought about it very deeply as unca says) a society gets into trouble when it starts doling out punishments based on values other than retribution.
As Lewis implied in his example using deterrance, whose to say that the government shouldn't use the death penalty in dealing with petty theft? As deterrance it makes sense and would certainly work but is out of whack with the idea of basic fairness or justice which demands that the offender be punished in proportion to the amount of harm done. I assume that's why historically cultures have used lex talionis, e.g. "an eye for an eye".
In our society we've started punishing based on other circumstances such as historical group discrimination ("hate crimes").
Seems to me that's asking for trouble as what the societal elite values changes over time.
Post a Comment
<< Home