October 2010
Freedom and guidance 3
Revenge or transparency?
It is difficult for many people to abandon an avenging justice. The more a crime violates the popular sentiments, the more powerful is the public cry for revenge. In extreme cases, a defendant would be insulted in a public show trial, condemned, injured and cruelly killed.
Vengeance or refurbishment?
It is unwise to speak of revenge and deserved punishment without looking exactly what triggers it. The actual effect of a "vengeful justice" can be seen on the example of pedophilia: Most cases of pedophilia happen within a family circle. It begins sometimes with a transitional period of allowed familiarities until a criminal act happens and in fact often follow years of continued criminal activities. A circle of people begins to suspect or to know something, but they do nothing against it. Why is this so? The child knows that something huge and threatening will happen when it comes to the public. It is afraid of it. The mother does not want to lose the breadwinner of the family or the lover. Therefore, perhaps she will do nothing. There is the good name to defend, the so-called family honor. The other relatives fear a scandal as well.
In larger relationship circles such as school, sports club and church, the leaders and the institutions are often protected at the expense of the children. One can say: Tough actions against child abuse create reasons because of which confidants hide and conceal criminal acts. This is a
disaster.
* The fear of negative consequences may be the protection under which the crimes are possible and will continue.
This is against our goal, therefore:
* If we want the best possible protection against crime, we must free ourselves completely from thoughts of revenge and deal with offenders in a way to achieve an optimal protection for individuals and for the society.
* Neutral places to go are needed in which children, insecure people and confidants get advice from experts without having to expose themselves.
* Representatives of the law should interfere earlier then it is the habit, but should decide rather soft measures. This is important to ensure that involved people are not afraid to say what they know. This helps that more crimes can be prevented or stopped.
Tragic predisposition
A difficult character or an acquired fatal tendency has little to do with malice. We have to accept people with fatal tendencies and we have to tray to integrate them into society. The society must, however, for its own protection, define the rules and set the limits. It would be inhumane to suppress all fatal tendencies completely. For sexual inclinations it would not work anyway. Therapies can reduce the problems and therefore be a valuable aid. We must also think if there are any harmless substituting acts possible. What does no harm? What is not too risky? If a pyromaniac burns down entire cities in a video game, it will not harm the society. If it helps for a tragic assessed to murder a dummy, it is better than when he kills a human. Beautiful or disgusting is not the legislatures business, but harmful or not harmful for others is.
Is there a just punishment?
An offender gets several years of prison for a murder in affect. This means he will spend several years in an ambiance of frustration and crime. If he is released after these years of de-socialization into freedom, he will then be probably more aggressive, unbalanced and dangerous than he was before. Thus, a prison sentence being expensive for the society and as we say "deserved", can boost the recidivism rate.
For dangerous repeat offenders, a court has to decide on a limitation of freedom or a safe custody. If a confinement is seen as revenge or a punishment, the Court hesitates to express such a profound decision. If a confinement is seen as a protection for the society in terms of "transferring the offender to an island where his crimes are not possible" then the judges will rather prescribe a confinement. The perpetrators are thereby deprived of opportunities for criminal acts.
The delinquent, who has done something terrible we do not understand, we will not recognize as one of us. He is severely punished, even if his opportunities to act differently are limited by a difficult personality. The perpetrator, however, who does things we did also like to do, we understand him and accept him emotionally. This delinquent is usually judged mild, even if the consequences of his actions are much heavier than from one who has done an atrocity. He may have undermined a company, made irresponsible arms transfers, damaged the environment severely or has made other benefits and triggered serious consequences for others. Another factor is that small offenders are often punished, but the big offenders are sometimes washed clean. All his shows that the idea of a "just punishment" is an illusion.
The idea of a just punishment is a fiction, that can not be realized.