| Product: |
Capital punishment |
| Date: |
08/08/01 (153 review reads) |
| Rating: |
 |
Advantages: Effective, Economical, Ethical
Disadvantages: Contoversial, Illegal!, none
The debate on Capital Punishment continues to rumble along.
Personally, I've always thought that this irrevocable step is too drastic, not least because there is, naturally, no means of righting wrong verdicts.The criminal justice system is fallible. We have seen so many cases where 'Lifers' have subsequently been exonerated. There are also arguments about the tendency of the Capital Crime criminal to literally fight to the death when faced with the certainty of execution after capture. 'Nothing to lose' has always been a perilous position for all concerned.
On the other hand it can be argued that a swift end for the criminal can be a kindness so maybe we should give a choice. For the criminal this would be a 'get out of jail' card. For society the choice of execution would rid society of the financial burden of imprisonment (£30,000 per annum per prisoner?), reduce the legal costs of interminable appeals and remove the risk of releasing a recidivist back into the community.
And what about those convicted felons who choose to live out their sentence? Well, that brings me to the main theme of this article.
There is a recurrent word in the first two lines above. The word is 'Punishment'. Not a word so widely used these days.
Our Justice system is more geared towards rehabilitation of criminals using far less stick and much more carrot than at any time in history. Felons are imprisoned only as a last resort and generally only after a very lengthy process of assessment by various professionals who determine whether, amongst other things, the cost of a custodial term is appropriate. From the point of view of the criminal, being 'banged up' can mean everything from a shaming experience to an opportunity to learn new skills in a relatively comfortable environment.
How much of the rehabilitation work is effective? How many prisoners, who are released back into the community, having 'served their
debt to society', then reoffend? If the answer is less than 20% we could say that our present system is cost effective. Well, it isn't.
So what's the alternative?
Pain. Yes, that's right. The infliction of PAIN.
Not fashionable, I know. Not 'civilised'. Not legal. Some would argue it would be immoral.
' Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' says the Good Book (one of many). Mark you, it also says: 'If thine eye offend thee,pluck it out; and if thine hand offend thee, cut it off'. So after the other cheek has been turned a few times it may well be appropriate to physically eject the 'money changers' from the 'temple'. When you go to the dentist with a toothache don't you want ,desperately, to have a spot of the 'do unto you'?
Think about it, please.
We are fortunate to live in a tolerant society. Some call it a Democracy, but they are wrong. Our society, on this topic at least, presently adheres to a system which is not 'Popular with or for the benefit of all'.
Try this experiment. Next time you are with friends, take a straw poll of their opinions on how violent criminals should be treated. And when you discover (as have I) that the vast majority believe there is no better, effective and cheap way of discouraging assault, robbery, vandalism, child abuse and rape than causing the perpetrator to feel anguish and pain, then ask yourself why our supposedly democratic legislature takes a different view.
Would it be too, too cynical of me to mention the preponderence of lawyers amongst Parliamentarians.
Barristers and solicitors get paid to vigorously defend all those who are accused by the Crown Prosecution Service which is staffed by another batch of .....?
Who says crime doesn't pay!
But I'm straying from the point.
My proposal is that prison sentences should be reduced. In fact they should be slashed to the bone an
d deeper. A maximum of one month would probably suffice for the most heinous crime: presuming we introduce pain into the process to be inflicted on a regular basis. If subjected to pain at regular intervals throughout a prison sentence, at a level to be decided subject to medical opinion, no sane miscreant will ever reoffend.
Felons would be returned quickly to their families thus reducing that collateral suffering. Fewer spouses and children would be forced to bear the stigma of an absent incarcerated member of the family.
The felon would be speedily returned to gainful employment without the lengthy readjustment undergone by victims of our present prison system.
Without the need to store criminals over long periods the taxpayer would be freed of the fiscal burden of our massive and massively expensive prison system.
The funds thus made available could be redirected into urban renewal.The demolished prison facilities, wherever suitable, would be converted into parkland. Wormwood Scrubs, Holloway and Winson Green, just to name three, would be perfect for this purpose.
Criminal damage through vandalism and robbery would become miniscule. Our streets would be places of safety and tourism would see huge benefits as a result.
Personal injury claims would decline to the benefit of insurers and , more significantly, the National Health Service.
And Democracy would be served. After all, criminals are not the majority. They are a minority, and represent the only one which should be persecuted!
Summary:
|
|
