Crime And Punishment

Look For Crime And Punishment 3 at Amazon

Crime and Punishment in American Society.

There may be few Americans who are not concerned by, or have been personally affected by the crime rates in our country. Our politicians have a remit to protect us, and we shall consider in detail whether or not the punishments they have put in place are effective in achieving this aim.

Retribution – an eye for an eye – is perchance society’s oldest response to crime. Superficially, it has a great deal of attractions – the perpetrator surely suffers, and the victim and society at big have their natural urge for revenge satisfied. In it is primitive form, it may have been literal in the Biblical sense of an eye for an eye, but such a literal approach is no longer morally acceptable.

Retribution now comprises of causing the perpetrator financial pain or removing his liberty – and our prison population proceeds to rise. America has by far the most eminent incarceration rate in the formulated world by a element of five. The prison scheme is overcrowded, fantastically in effective, and fabulously expensive. America’s hunger for payback is the main driver in this scenario, and has resulted in galore extreme absurdities. In one peculiar case, a criminal received a fifty year to life sentence for stealing $150 worth of video tapes. (Lockyer v. Andrade, 123 S. Ct. 1166 (2003).)

Financial retribution in the form of fines may be effective, but the peculiarities of the justice system are such that the fines levied are often times disproportionate (in either direction) to the gravity of the offense. According to Martin “In the case of fines, the financial position of an offender is not taken into account, leading to situations where an unemployed man and a millionaire could be forced to compensate the same fine, creating an unjust situation; either the fine would be too punitive for the unemployed offender, or not big sufficient to impose a penalty on the millionaire.” (2)

Societal payback insofar as it is integrated into the prison scheme is distinctly designed to cause the offender to suffer – by removing a good deal of of his civil rights, taking away his liberty, giving him comparatively harsh ( and in the case of the so-called Supermax prisons) exceedingly harsh living conditions.

It also, for the medium to long term prisoner, takes away hope. People are resilient, they adjust well, in the prison population this means that they speedily adjust to a new social grouping, a new sub-culture and mindset that makes it much having little impact for them to tolerate their imprisonment. They are, however, exposed to severe violence on a each day basis, once in a while maltreatment by guards, and a poor health care system, which inevitably changes their perspective on prison – and on the society that put them their.

It seems clear, however, that most of the prison population go on to re-offend after release. Recidivism rates (defined by re-arrest within 3 years of release from prison) in the United States are high – an intermediate of 67.4% in 1994 – and show no sign of decline.

So is payback – in the sense of imprisonment – work for society? It would appear not, and that the $60 billion expended yearly on perpetuating the existent system is cash ill-spent.

The US Commission on Safety and Abuse in Prisons said in their 2006 report

“What happens inside jails and prisons does not stay inside jails and prisons. It comes home with prisoners after they are freed and with corrections officers at the end of each day’s shift. When people live and work in facilities that are unsafe, unhealthy, unproductive, or inhumane, they carry the effects home with them. We will have to create safe and generative conditions of confinement not only because it is the right thing to do, but because it influences the safety, health, and successfulness of us all.”

Deterrence as a reaction to crime is a somewhat more modern approach to punishment. In any situation, people carry out activenesses which fetch rewards, whether these may be money, status pleasure or anything else. They will carry on to repeat that conduct as long as it brings the reward, and have no reason to change.

However, when the conduct stops bringing a reward, and in truth brings discomfort, there is an incentive to change. The more outstanding the discomfort, the dandier the incentive is to change. This is the principle of deterrence.

Deterrence, by it is very nature, is a preventive measure, and if it is effective in that sense, it is effectiveness is very difficult to measure, plainly because the crimes it may have prevented can not be quantified.

In American society, there are in all probability three major deterrents to criminal conduct – societal disapproval, incarceration or at long last judicial execution. It is likely that at grass roots level, and in little ways, societal disapproval is an effective deterrent to minor misdemeanors. It is well recognized that people who engage in minor misdemeanors tend to go on to more prominent ones, and to that extent at least societal disapproval as a deterrent has a in a positive manner beneficial effect.

In the area of more severe crime however, it is crucial to realize that deterrence is only likely to be effective in premeditated crime, ordinarily that versus property. Criminal acts carried out in the heat of the moment are not likely to be prevented by the principle of deterrence. The effectiveness of deterrence as a crime preventative action tool is modified by two other significant constituents – the probability of being caught, and the severity of the punishment ultimately handed down.

As to the first, we need only thoroughly and closely question or examine the stats relating to unsolved crime. More than half of violent crime reports are unresolved. In other words, the probabilities of getting caught are rather low – scarcely a disincentive to the potential criminal. Rates of recidivism, as we have noted, are high, which proposes that imprisonment is not a significant disincentive either.

It is tempting to conclude that deterrence is not peculiarly effective preventive strategy.

If we consider crime as a phenomenon relating from social issues such as poverty, poor housing, lack of education and lack of opportunity, then helping the offender post-sentence to escape these elements could make a positive contribution to bettering recidivism rates. Significantly reducing them could in all likelihood the best preventive measure ever employed.

There is a great deal of proof to suggest that there is a correlation amongst the state of the economy and crime rate. When the economy decline, crime rates rise, and vice versa.

It is clear that most crime is devoted by people from ‘deprived’ backgrounds. Poor education, social and financial poverty and a highly materialistic culture all bestow heavily.

In the American scheme dozens of rehabilitation programs have been tried, and while some have failed completely, others have been in an outstanding manner successful. The ‘scared straight’ scheme typified by the Ralphway State Prison program “Juvenile Assistance Program Help” showed early promise, later analysis of it is results proved disappointing. Boot Camp type programs have shown no significant success in reducing later criminality in their participants.

Some rehabilitation approaches are being effective. These portion similar characteristics – concentration on the needs and troubles of the person prisoner.

The original essential step is profiling of potential nominees to discern those at the most eminent danger of re-offending, and the next is that of addressing these in a way that is concentered on the distinctive needs of each individual, whether they are matters of unemployment, drug abuse, and lack of education and so on.

This highly individualized approach has shown most promise, and while it is staff intensive, in the long run it has the potential to reduce recidivism rates and the cost of those to the government.

Further developments of these, such as the “Key” and “Crest” programs in all probability represent the best way forward.

Finally, we need to thoroughly and closely question or examine the conception of societal shelter – the separation of the offender from the rest of society, either completely by judicial execution or long term by long term sentencing.

Characteristic of the approach is that no particular crusade is made to rehabilitate the offender, or to offer him the prospect to change. It is a simplistic approach which may have the gain of assuaging the public need for retribution, but (with the exception of execution) offers little probability of reducing re-offending.

One prison guard thought that “The value of the prisons is that they keep bad persons locked away from the good people. Let them out and, surprise, they are still bad people. Those who want to alter do so. Most never will. My primary occupation as a correctional officer was to keep their hands from around your throat and the throats of your and my loved ones. There are a great deal of things that need doing. Wasting time bleeding your heart over bad apples doesn’t make the cut.” (3)

It is a system that offers little in the way of hope to the offender, is exceedingly highpriced and offers little payback to the community.

Overall, then, society’s response to crime has to be multi-factorial if it is going to have any prospect of being effective. Prevention – in the form of bettering education, housing, literacy and occupation probabilities has a outstanding share to play.

Moral considerations on the death penalty aside, societal shelter – the “lock them up and throw the key away”, may make us feel good, but does little or not one thing to reduce re-offending rates and the effect of crime on the community.

Deterrence, except in the case of minor criminality, is largely is largely ineffective, and closely completely so in the case of non-premeditated crime. However, attempts must not be abandoned, and deterrence must be linked to the reduction of social deprivation.

Crime can not be permitted to go unpunished – so society merely cannot do without incarceration as a punishment. History teaches notwithstanding that on it is own, incarceration does not reduce re-offending. The reduction of judicial Freedom to sentence appropriately and the increasing special importance and significance on mandatory sentencing collaborate to invent a system where sentences may be exclusively ridiculous and ineffective.

Probably, criminal and the rest of society would gain from a exhaustive re-examination of the system to ascertain new approaches based on person assessment of prisoners’ needs, together with intensive, closely focussed and on an individual basis purposed intervention to meet those needs are incorporated. There has to be hope – without hope there is no incentive to change.

According to Reiman, 1998 “…our criminal justice system fails if we release people, who have remunerated for their crime, with no lawful skills. The ex-felon is likely to return to crime with no other rightful choices at his or her disposal.” (4)

If we always do what we always did, we shall always get what we always got.

Sources.

2. Martin, Jacqueline (2005). The English Legal System (4th ed.), p. 174. London: Hodder Arnold. ISBN 0-340-89991-3.

3. Prison Guard cited in Murray, I., 2002 “Making Rehabilitaion Work”, Civitas Organisation, p.4

4. Reiman, Jeffrey 1998 The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison: Ideology, Class, and Criminal Justice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Most helpful customer reviews

18 of 19 people found the following review helpful.
Picture on cover?
By LUC
I have just finished watching this brilliant adaptation of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s ‘Crime & Punishment’. The three episodes last seventy-five minutes each, a total of just under four hours. In my opinion, the first episode is the best, but I enjoyed the entire DVD immensely. I do not know how faithful it is to the book as I have never read it, but I certainly shall now.

The wonderful Jack Pulman adapted this for BBC TV in 1979, shortly before his death. Again he manages to produce an impeccable script, full of both drama and humour. Interestingly, as with so many of his works, his wife Barbara Young makes an appearance as the eccentric Amalia Ivanovna – or at least that is what she calls herself.

The cast is outstanding and features many well known and hugely talented players. The amazing John Hurt is simply riveting as the tortured Raskolnikov. Sian Phillips and Frank Middlemass are both very moving and Timothy West is masterfully subtle and understated. Other standouts include David Troughton and Beatrix Lehmann as the Pawnbroker. In fact, the only member of the cast who was not particularly good was Yolande Palfrey as Sonia, but even she was acceptable.

The sets and locations are very authentic and there are some unforgettable scenes. The story is dark and bleak, but enthralling, thought-provoking and simply fascinating.

All in all an excellent production – one to keep beside ‘Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy’ (BBC TV 1979), ‘Anna Karenina’ (BBC TV 1977) and ‘The Mayor of Casterbridge’ (BBC TV 1978).

But why on earth is there a picture of Elizabeth Garvie and David Rintoul in ‘Pride and Prejudice’ (BBC TV 1979) on the back cover? I am surprised that no previous reviewer has commented on this.

19 of 21 people found the following review helpful.
Splendid teleplay
By Extollager
Read the book — but this _is_ a superb miniseries. John Hurt is a little older than is ideal for the role of the student Raskolnikov, but otherwise is a fantastic choice for the part. The story is absorbing and thought-provoking, and, at least in the marvelous scene in which Raskolnikov taunts a police inspector — funny!

Crime and Punishment was preceded by an adaptation of Dostoevsky’s The Possessed. I hope that will become available.

14 of 16 people found the following review helpful.
crime & punishment
By H. Davies
Superb acting and script. Recent adaptations seem afraid to include original dialogue at any length- this gave us so much that was gripping and character-revealing. I wish all past BBC miniseries were available. Brilliant!

See all 12 customer reviews…