Most of the time, someone is punished for their mistakes so that they would learn from them and not repeat them again. Punishments are given in various forms with varying degree of intensity in the world today. For example, in Arab countries, a small theft results in the immediate amputation of the thief’s hand as punishment while in countries like Africa, the punishment is given based on the believe that the thief will be burned when he puts his hand into a pot of boiling oil while the innocent would not be. Even if there are no standard punishments across the world for crimes, law and order is still maintained because the punishments seem to be working. Thus I agree that any form of punishment that is effective in maintaining law and order is justified.
Punishments for the same crime are different in different countries because they are given according to how people of that nation would react to them. If people accept the public amputation of body parts as a form of punishment, it goes to say that they believe is the right form of punishment. Punishments exist to instill fear in future offenders so that they would not do it. Thus, any kind of punishment, regardless of its intensity is justified as long as it works - instills fear and prevents future crimes.
Some people might argue it not justified. There are basically two main reasons to this. They may feel that the offender is easily let off because his of her punishment is not severe enough or the punishment is too severe and unreasonable to the extent that it is unacceptable. For example, in some countries, public humiliation is given as punishment. Under it, a convict would be jailed for a few months, has to walk in public carrying a board indicating his crime and punishment for a fixed few hours per day for up to months or even years, has to give talks to other offenders and schools and managements of his experience so that these people would not repeat his mistakes. This kind of a punishment may seem so easy to people who want revenge. Furthermore, such a punishment works on the basis of shaming the convict. It would hardly be a punishment for him when he has got no shame about it.
Some people find the punishment of dipping hands into boiling oil and deciding the criminal based on it unreasonable and severe because in such punishments, not only the offender is punished but the innocent too is inflicted with pain as he too would have to dip his hand into the oil. Furthermore, such a punishment is given based on the beliefs of people about the oil not burning the innocent.
In some other countries, the punishment is given by the public and not by the court. For example, a shooter is allowed to be punished in a similar way by members of the family affected by him or her. As a result, the shooter shuts himself home for many years and lives in constant fear of being shot to death if he steps out of his house. However, this punishment may not be justified if it promotes the nature of seeking personal revenge in the people as personal revenge would not help to maintain law and order especially when the venom of seeking revenge flows from one generation to another.
Whatever it is, what is set out to be achieved must be achieved at the end of the day. Thus if punishments are given to prevent crimes, they must really be successful. This is a goal to achieve at the end of the day. The process of how it is achieved may vary among countries but as long as it works it is definitely justified to use any form of punishment to maintain law and order.
No comments:
Post a Comment