Crime and Punishment
There was a time when the penalty for crime was about its exemplary effect. An extreme and brutal version of this (punitive) justice was crucifixion. People were nailed to a cross so that others, passing by, would see and be less inclined to break Roman laws. The Romans were brutish as they spread their peace.
This means of jurisprudence long dominated, and it had its point; making examples might not stop crime, but no doubt it tempered crime; you’d think twice, or hopefully, thrice.
The one thing this did do was make people directly responsible for their actions, even if the punishment was cruel, which it often was. The one thing this didn’t do was take into account extenuating circumstances, such as grinding poverty, which, in effect, forces people into crime. Their options were bleak: steal a loaf of bread for your starving family, or commit a petty crime, and be deported to Australia.
The problem is that neither, taken on its own, is a humane solution. Law must be upheld, or anarchy will ensue; mercy must be shown, or anarchy will, eventually, ensue; the first being an outcome, the second being an inevitability.
Today, the treatment of crime is increasingly therapeutic, which treats the perpetrator as a victim of the monstrosity of their circumstances. According to the therapeutic view, the guilty party is also a victim who should be treated with understanding and given the chance to effect real change, in the hope that this decreases recidivism. Or, as the movie A Clockwork Orange suggested, the patient (no longer the criminal) should be treated in ways that may be against their will, to be a better person. This begs the question, who is the victim now?
This infamous movie from the 70’s (not recommended) by Stanley Kubrick told the story of Alex DeLarge, a charismatic sociopath who leads a gang in committing heinous crimes, often sexual in nature. After being caught and imprisoned, he undergoes state-mandated (and equally violent) behavioral conditioning that removes his ability to choose between good and evil. Is it better to be evil by choice or good by coercion? Is enforced rehabilitation moral, or is (measured) punishment more humane?
The therapeutic approach is more likely to make the perpetrator the pawn (maybe the victim) of a penal philosophy that may do more damage than old-fashioned incarceration. It may be healthier for a person to face the seriousness of their crime and their guilt (not all guilt is destructive) than be subject to enforced state-sanctioned behavioral change; some call it re-education. It is unlikely this will entail violence, but it may equally be manipulative, which is a form of violence. None of these discounts education programs and trade skills being taught in jail. These are positive measures to help people upon release, unless, of course, their crimes are capital, in which case they have forfeited the right to be released.
Certain authoritarian regimes are more than happy to rehabilitate those who don’t fit their prescribed patterns of behaviour, particularly if it is a belief in something more enduring, more coherent than the current oppression they suffer under.
Be that as it may, paying for your crime may be a healthier and more humane means of jurisprudence than behavioural adjustment being forced upon the person, no matter the methodology for their own good and the good of society, of course.
No matter your philosophy about crime and punishment, we will always need jails, unless punishment is chemically administered. Crime does need punishment, but it should not be cruel or unusual.