What’s wrong with the old? It’s not working. Why is it when every science is advancing, are we still stuck with the old penology? It used to work, so why doesn’t it work any more? Because there has been a change of attitude brought about by the academicians. The old penology has been changed by them and it is now less effective.
I must clarify. I mean those academics whose god is human rights above all other rights and considerations. They decided, and everyone went along with the notion that to punish an offender by taking away his liberty is enough to make him change his ways. So. If a man’s profession is breaking into other people’s homes and taking their property or robbing them at gunpoint, he will find another way to make a living after you put him in jail for a term. Meanwhile, the state pays for his upkeep and teaches him a trade. They forget that “a leopard can’t change his spots” and, is not motivated to do so. Why should a burglar or robber change his occupation when the old one is so much more profitable than anything he may have been taught to do?
The present penology is based on the belief that jail sentences deter criminals. Perhaps, they did when inmates were used to build roads, pick up refuse and clean drains. But, along came the modernists, not penologists, not behavourial scientists, just people who thought they were wiser, and had more knowledge of human nature. Also, they had the power to make decisions, which were binding on other people. What is particularly painful is that they, not only had these notions but, they could have studies done by people with similar notions to prove that they were right. For example, they did studies about the death penalty to prove that it did not deter because, most murders are crimes of passion where the killer was moved to act by an uncontrollable urge. They did these studies in countries like England and France, which have the most orderly, disciplined and law-abiding citizens in the world. Then they tell other countries, in the form of Human Rights Conventions, how they must deal with murderers and other criminals.
Fortunately, for countries like Singapore, they say nyet to these conventions and place their trust in their own traditions and judgement. Countries like Belize, which follow the established line, allow these conventions to tie their hands, and criminality flourishes. Can there be any doubt about this?
The average unskilled worker earns $150 per week. The average armed robber makes more than that in a day. All he needs is a gun and the will to confront the victim. All ordinary citizens are potential victims and they are not safe anywhere in Belize City today.
Now we come to the crux of the matter. Why should criminals change their ways when crime is so profitable and punishment is so little feared? Does crime pay in Belize? Without a doubt. Can anything be done about it? Perhaps. It is proposed in this essay to explore ideas on penology which has as one of its principal objectives, to make the criminal pay for his crimes.
The first thing we have to dispense with is the notion that the purpose of bringing the criminal to justice is to have him pay his debt to society. The ends of justice are not served when a criminal is tried, convicted and made to serve a term in jail. Jails should serve the purpose of deterring others from committing the same crime and/or discouraging the server from repeating his crime.
But, what about the victim? He has suffered pain or a loss or both but, our justice system does not provide for restitution or compensation. Why should he report the loss or harm that has been done him by the criminal when he has little to hope for, besides suffering “the law’s delay and the insolence of office” in the form of harassment by the police and a “hundred” court adjournments. This, on the assumption that the offender will be brought to justice with the possibility of his being convicted and imprisoned at the expense of the taxpayers, which include him.
Is it any wonder that many crimes are not reported, in spite of the fact that it is the duty of citizens to report all crimes that they know of, regardless of the identity of the victim?
When a crime is committed against an individual, the loss or harm is a personal one. The victim at the hands of the victimiser. It is submitted that all losses and harms can be quantified in monetary terms, except murder. It is submitted also, that when a crime is committed, a debt is incurred and owed to the victim by the victimiser. Our system of justice should include restitution of losses and compensation for harm, and the quantum in each case should be established and pronounced when the accused is found guilty of the crime appertaining. The questions arise. How can the quantum be determined and how can the payment of restitution or compensation be enforced?
It is suggested that the victim who suffers a loss make a declaration sworn before a justice of the peace listing the expenses met as a result of the crime. For example, a motorist’s car is broken into and its battery is stolen. He has to buy a new battery. The window costs $300; the mechanic charges $75 to install it, and the new battery costs $120, plus he takes two days off and foregoes his wages, which are $50 per day. All together his claim is $595.
Determining a schedule of compensation for harm would be very complicated and will have to be undertaken by the competent authority, when and if it is decided that there is merit in these proposals.
In order for those who have been convicted of crimes to discharge the debts to their victims in the form of restitution or compensation, they have to become productive. It is proposed, therefore, that they be required to earn their keep while imprisoned by converting the prison to a factory-type institution which produces goods and services for the institution and for the public. The idea is for the inmates to work and pay for the cost of keeping them in the institution and discharging their debts of restitution and compensation to their victims. They should be required to perform any task inside or outside the institution and be given credit at the minimum wage rate. At the end of their term, the cost of their keep and debts should be deducted from their accumulated credits and the balance, if any, paid to them.
These are just first thoughts on a penology which seeks to achieve two purposes. To provide victims with a measure of satisfaction for losses suffered and pains endured at the hands of their victimisers, and to institute a penology which makes convicted criminals pay for their debts to the victims of their crimes, as well as the cost of their incarceration through productive work.