The Philosophy of Punishment for Criminals - Essay Example

The Philosophy of Punishment for Criminals in Regard to Society and Victim This paper examines the role that punishment plays in fulfilling the needs of society, the victim, and the criminal. The findings are evidenced by previous research and contend that the judicial system, and the system of punishment, has been geared more towards a uniform protection of the security of society and punishment of the criminal, rather than the physical and emotional needs of the victim. It will examine the role that punishment plays in the psychology of the criminal and the victim's ongoing relationship to the criminal and the crime. The paper concludes that while the system has significant room for improvement, changes need to be implemented slowly and deliberately. Changes should be instituted that continue to enhance the rights of victims and create a greater sensitivity to their long-term emotional needs. Introduction It is a relatively recent development in the history of punishment that the victim of a crime is not central to the issue of resolving the debt created by a criminal act. In the American justice system, a criminal is considered indebted to the greater society, thus excluding the victim as a part of the punishment process. In fact, the concept of victims' rights has only become an issue for the justice system within the last few decades. The design of the justice system was not created with empathy for the victim, or an understanding of the lasting affect that violent crime can have on the life of someone who must cope with the aftermath of such an act. However, the concept of punishment does hold the potential as a deterrent for future crimes, and in this way relates mainly to the needs of a secure society. In an examination of punishment in the United States, and the way in which it relates and affects both the victim and society, it reveals a philosophy that is ineffective at addressing the core issues that are significant to the long-term goals of society, or in satisfying the needs of the victim. In the evaluation of the ways in which crime affects the victim, there are specific goals that arise from the consequences of the act that need to be fulfilled to make the victim whole. Orth (2003) determined that there are five prevalent categories of needs for victims that include "retaliation, recognition of victim status, confirmation of societal values, victim security, and societal security" (p.173). The five goals of the victim are directly related to the ways in which the crime has affected the well-being of the individual. The more violent crimes require more than one of these goals in establishing a sense of closure, while less violent crime can require only one or two of these goals. However, these goals that affect the well-being of the victim are often not specifically addressed in the current justice system. While civil lawsuits can create monetary reparation toward the victim, most crimes are difficult to address through this type of litigation. Criminals that are incarcerated usually have no physical resources for restitution, and become a depersonalized entity within the prison system. Victims are left with a sense that their needs have diminished within society and that their circumstance has not been properly acknowledged. Historical Perspective Historically speaking, the philosophy of punishment has more often been designed around reparation to the victim of a crime. This is not to suggest that punishment was more merciful or did not have an aspect of cruelty incorporated into it. One example of the harshness of ancient law is from Sumer, which has the earliest surviving written record of law in history. According to Tetlow (2004), "When a woman said something offensive to a man, her teeth were crushed by burnt bricks on which her guilt had been inscribed. The bricks were then hung up in the city gate for all to see" (p.9-10). While the harshness of this sentence is beyond any reasonable standard of conduct for a modern culture, it represents the direct relationship between the crime, the victim, and society. This is an example of violent retribution, where the 'victim' has found an outlet for their anger. When the brick was positioned in the city gate, the whole of society became involved in the punishment as witnesses to the evidence of the offense and the relationship of the punishment to the crime. Private retribution was also an acceptable form of justice in Anglo-Saxon Britain. The fear of victim revenge created an effective deterrent to the commission of a crime, especially when the potential victim was in a position of power. However, when the victim had no real sense of power, their potential position as a threat to the criminal was less significant. Eventually, the responsibility for justice was handed to the nobility who would institute a system of monetary fines for even the worst offenses. A member of the nobility could absolve himself from a murder by paying a fine, while the poor man could lose his life or find his body mutilated for much smaller offenses (Wright, 1996, p. 12). In the effort to standardize justice, and transfer the goal of justice from the victim to society, it instituted class considerations in sentencing that are still seen today. The way in which the justice system has developed in the United States has created a diminished role for the victim of a crime, despite the central position that identity holds. According to Wright (1996), until the eighteenth century in the United States prosecutions were done at the expense of the victim (p.11). However, in putting this role into the hands of the state, "the result was to leave the victim on the margin" (Wright, 1996, p.11). By creating a system that sidelines the victim, an alternate philosophy of private retribution becomes evident and is sometimes acted out by the victims of crimes in order to seek balance from the experience that has warped his or her course of life. However, in a civil society vigilante justice is perceived as another deviant form of crime. Wright (1996) stated that "historical and anthropological reviews show that many simple societies function with little or no distinction between criminal and civil wrongs; indeed some do not have a system of law as understood in the complex societies of today, but rather a procedure for restoring balance through reparation in individual cases when one citizen has harmed another" (p. 19). When the philosophy of punishment excludes the victim and creates no consideration toward those needs, the balance within society is not maintained. Crime and Punishment The definition of crime is often somewhat vague and must be considered in the relevancy of the social context. Acts that create adverse circumstances to the continuance of the safety and security of that society are usually considered crimes. A more simplified version of that definition might be to state that crime is an act that is contrary to the laws of a society (Friedman, 1994, p. 3). In this society, once guilt has been established through conviction, the individual or individuals who committed the crime are then known as criminals. Thus, the identity of the initiating member of the relationship that is created by the action of crime has been established and is sustained. The consequences of punishment, both material and psychological, are developed within a complex system of power and control that the state exerts over the offender. Vidmar and Miller (1980) define punishment as, "a negative sanction intentionally applied to someone perceived to have violated a law, rule, norm, or expectation" (p.568). In the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment conducted on the campus of Stanford University, 24 students were chosen as subjects specifically based on a sense of 'normalcy' in their psychological foundation. They were put into a basement and divided, designating some as guards and some as prisoners. A phenomenon occurred where those designated as guards became authoritarian, and in some instances developed sadistic behavior patterns that were against their original psychological profiles. Those deemed as prisoners, who were subjected to mock police interrogations and simulations of the prison experience, also underwent profound changes in their personalities. These changes included a "loss of identity experienced by prisoners, their passivity, depression, and psychopathological and psychosomatic experiences"(Yardley-Matwiejczuk, 1997, p. 40). Punishment had inflicted psychological stress and discomfort in those that were identified as criminals. The Stanford Prison Experiment demonstrated the mechanism that the prison system uses to dehumanize the prisoner and create a disintegration of the sense of self. The Stanford Prison Experiment was able to replicate the prison system conditions using individuals that were not actually guards or criminals, but who took on those identities by virtue of recreating the circumstances of the culture. In the experiment at Stanford, "deindividuation processes created by anonymity of person and anonymity of place are evident. Dehumanization of prisoners is apparent by virtue of their sheer numbers, enforced nakedness, and uniform appearance, as well as by the guards' inability to understand their language" (Zimbardo, 2007, p. 352). The success of the current prison system, and the role of punishment, must be questioned, as it does not form a direct relationship to the goals of either society or the victim. Victim Goals This connection between the victim, society, and the offender, creates a symbiotic relationship that is maintained until each member of the connection has fulfilled their role. Therefore, the victim is part of the crime until the punishment has been completed and the offender has reestablished their course of life. In this way, most victims must cope with being connected to the offender for the rest of his or her life. As in the example of the brick, the victim will be reminded of the crime whenever he sees the offender and whenever the brick is within their sight. Whether this brings a sense of satisfaction or a sense of residual guilt for whatever role the victim played in the commission of the crime, the effect will still be present and the connection maintained. Orth (2003) determined that there were five main goals that appear most often in the experience of the victim (p.173). These concepts will be examined and defined in relationship to the way in which the connection between the state, the victim and the criminal addresses these needs. Retribution In creating a sense of retribution, the victim can attain a certain satisfaction against the trauma of the criminal event. According to Orth (2003), "victims can demand retribution for the purpose of 'just deserts' (observer perspective), but also for the purpose of revenge (victim perspective)" (p.175). The need for revenge is driven by a hope for re-balancing the life of the victim. Orth (2003) lists several factors that impact the need for revenge by the victim that include "re-equilibration of power in relation to the offender, restoration of self-esteem, and escape from psychological pain"(p.175). The need for revenge is driven by an emotional desire to take back what was stolen, whether that is a sense of security, self, or physical and emotional well-being. Recognition of Victim Status One of the most important aspects of emotional well-being is that of validation. When an experience is validated by society, the consequences of that experience can be justified and contribute to a greater sense of well-being. Sun (2007) states that "emotion is defined by the awareness of the discrepancy between the experiences of validation or invalidation of the cognitive system that guides a persons expectations about social reality" (p.104). Societal recognition of the role of the victim is a necessary component for the victim's emotional healing. Confirmation of Societal Values Punishment is instituted and perceived in the context of the culture that defines and prosecutes the crime. According to Vidmar and Miller (1980), "Punishment also defines social boundaries, vindicates norms, and provides an outlet for the psychological tensions aroused by deviant acts"(p.565). In creating a circumstance that provides a perception that societal balance has been restored, punishment acts as an agent of public confirmation of righteousness. When a crime is recognized in a public forum, and the offender has been sentenced, society makes a statement about the control that it has over issues of security and its ability to enforce its values. Victim Security The way in which a person views personal security is central to maintaining a sense of well-being. The stress caused by the traumatic situation that the victim of a crime is subjected to can wear on a person's body and mind, and can be significantly damaging, such as in the case of a rape victim. A condition known as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is one possible outcome from a traumatic experience. This condition is defined by "a failure to recover from mental traumatization. Implicitly, recovery is always possible, especially when the subject is empowered so that the 'normal' recovery process may occur" (Van Der Kolk et al, 1996, p. 79). When suffering from PTSD the victim continues an overwhelming feeling that the danger has not past. When the perpetrator of a crime is caught, prosecuted, and sentenced, this sense of insecurity can sometimes be diminished. Societal Security When a criminal is caught and put through a public trial, the awareness that is created within society leaves the perception that as long as the criminal is convicted, that all is well in the security of the state. This can also be successful as the perpetrator is no longer a threat to the victim when they are put into prison. As the relationship between the victim, society, and the criminal continues, both the victim and society look for a way to reestablish a sense of safety. The re-establishment of security by putting a convicted criminal in prison is one way in which both the social and personal victimization can be diminished. Conclusions A symbiotic relationship has been established between the victim, society and the criminal. The initial actor, the criminal, sets up a circumstance that pulls the victim into a traumatizing event, and obligates society with the responsibility to punish the criminal. The situation of a crime imposes circumstances that require responses from all three participants. The criminal has developed a situation in which he or she will have to endure a specific life-change that inhibits freedom. The criminal is highly likely to have created the circumstance through irresponsible or socially unacceptable behavior and is therefore responsible for the consequences. However, the victim is less likely to have created the situation into which he or she has been drawn. From this viewpoint, the victim personally suffers the most from the act of crime. Despite the fact that the victim suffers the most in the act of a crime, he or she has a limited active role after having suffered through the victimization. The act of creating an appropriate punishment does not usually involve any type of victim compensation, or direct retribution, from the offender. The state assumes the responsibility of paying for the prosecution, defining the terms of punishment, and executing the sentence. This relieves the victim of any responsibility in regard to the offender. However, this also strips the victim of the power of actively taking back a sense of control. The philosophy of punishment is a complex issue that has never been addressed in such a way that the three components of the situation can find satisfaction. In addition, as in evidenced by the Stanford University Experiment, behavioral change is defined more by the culture of the prison than by the desire of society to create a contributing member of society from a man who has been incarcerated. The period of incarceration is, at best, a temporary form of security for society or the victim. There is a sense of frustration that is shared with both victims and society when the act of punishment is not creating the desired results on a broad scale. In conclusion, the personal tragedy of the victim is left open and the struggle for balance is not specifically addressed by the judicial system or society. While victims' advocates, groups, services, and rights have begun to emerge from the cry of the tattered and torn souls of a group that has been marginalized in the legal process, a social movement of change has not occurred that creates a specific place, other than as a witness, for the victim. The system is imperfect, but without it a sense of complete anarchy would reign. Therefore, a considered effort to make changes that disrupt society as little as possible is necessary. The justice system needs to work towards an acknowledgment of the problems and the needs of the victim, and continue to validate the significance of the trauma that the victim has suffered, while addressing the real security needs of society. References Friedman, L. M. (1994). Crime and punishment in American history. New York: Basic Books. Orth, U. (2003). "Punishment goals of crime victims". Law and Human Behavior. Vol. 27, No. 2, pp 173-186. Sun, K. (2007). Correctional counseling: A cognitive growth perspective. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc. Tetlow, E. M. (2004). Women, crime, and punishment in ancient law and society. New York: Continuum. Van der Kolk, B. A., McFarlane, A. C., & Weisth, L. (1996). Traumatic stress: The effects of overwhelming experience on mind, body, and society. New York: Guilford Publications, Inc. Vidmar, N. & Miller, D. T. (1980). "Social psychological processes underlying attitudes toward legal punishment". Law and Society Review. Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 565-602. Wright, M. (1996). Justice for victims and offenders: A restorative response to crime. Winchester: Waterside Press. Yardley-Matwiejczuk, K. M. (1997). Role play: Theory and practice. London: Sage Publications. Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. New York: Random House Publishing Group. Read More