Premodern interpretation of punishment sees it as the only possible measure to prevent crimes and social disobedience. From classical perspective, punishment is a deterrent of crime. No one in the crime control establishment questions whether the system should so wholeheartedly redirect itself to fight violent crime. Nor does anyone bother to consider whether the criminal-justice system can do anything more about the problem. In an unrestrained reaction to public sentiment and pressure, the system’s role as crime controller is blindly accepted. High-level government officials, police chiefs, judges, and academics willingly jump on the bandwagon of public sentiment to ride out this new wave of interest. Crime is a problem facing the nation, but one for which a solution exists. It must be met head-on with a hard-line approach.
Classicism would criticize premodern punishment as ineffective and unsuccessful. In terms of premodern approach, the criminal offender is an “enemy” who deserves condemnation and retaliation. The answer lies in the ability of the criminal-justice system to catch, convict, and punish the violent criminal (Crow, 2001). Other nationally recognized experts advocate a similar hardline, punitive approach to crime control. For this reason, stringent conditions for bail, allowing judges to consider the seriousness of the offense and the probability that the criminal will reoffend if released, a practice known as preventive detention, has been proposed and supported by several respected authorities (Burke, 2005).
In contrast to premodern approach, classical understanding of punishment is based on the idea of rationality, Preventive detention has been debated for many years. Its proponents argue that it would prevent crime by incapacitating those likely to reoffend. Its opponents claim that it is fundamentally unfair because it allows a judge to make a decision about a person’s future behavior. Since no one can accurately predict behavior, particularly criminality, the chances of mistakes are high. It is also considered to be a dangerous step toward punishment without trial. Since most of the nation’s jails are already overcrowded and in disrepair, it is pragmatically an unworkable solution. Another component of the current punitive trend is tougher sentencing laws, particularly for serious crime and repeat offenders. Within the past few years at least three dozen states have enacted stricter sentences. Most of the remaining states introduced but have not yet passed similar legislation. During the heyday of rehabilitation, the form of sentencing most often used was the indeterminate sentence (Murphy, 1994). Legislatures set wide ranges for sentencing, and judges meted out minimums and maximums that also had a wide range. This allowed correctional personnel the discretion of releasing offenders when they were reformed. No one, other than correctional authorities, paticularly cared for this system. Inmates did not like it because their release depended on the whims of the parole board and because offenders never knew exactly when they would be released. Judges and the public did not like it because the term served never resembled the actual sentence given and was almost always shorter (Crow, 2001).
Recent legislation in many states replaced the indeterminate sentence with more determinate forms of sentencing. Discretion has been taken away from correctional personnel and assumed by legislators and judges. New laws specifying set lengths of sentences for particular offenses allow modifications of the time served based on the specific circumstances associated with a given incident (Newburn, 2007). Judges then sentence according to the prescribed scheme and set a specific time for a person to remain incarcerated, which correctional officials can do little to modify. This change lengthened sentences, particularly for serious and repeat offenders. In many states, third-time convicted felons automatically receive a life sentence, and second-time felons receive automatic prison sentences with no chance for probation (Murphy, 1994).
Classical punishment is based on punitive measures applied against criminals. In its turn, premodern approach rejects these measures as ineffective and unproductive means. Restriction of the opportunity for probation and parole often accompanies new sentencing legislation. Many states made it more difficult to be placed on probation for certain offenses and impossible for certain serious ones. Parole, which is the conditional early release from prison under supervision in the community, has also been restricted in many states. In theory, a return to determinacy and the abandonment of rehabilitation eliminates the need for parole, which was designed to help the offender prepare to reenter the community. Yet parole serves another important function of controlling inmates in prison and is one of the few rewards that can be manipulated. For this reason, most states have retained it. Still, the administration of parole has been modified so that the parole date is determined by the sentence rather than by the paroling authority (Russel, 2006).
Classicism states that punishment plays a double role: as a punishment itself and deterrent or a sign for general public. Besides the benefits of specific deterrence, secondary effects known as general deterrence accrue. Only strict punishment serves as a warning of what will happen to anyone who commits an illegal act. In this way, the criminal sanction should have a restraining effect on the entire population, and even though most do not directly experience its unpleasantness, they come to associate it with illegal behavior. Along with deterrence, incapacitation is considered to be an important aspect of the current reform efforts. Rehabilitation had as its objective the return of offenders to the community as cured and viable members of society (Russel, 2006). No program appeared to be any more effective in changing criminals than any other program, so a sizable portion of the people released from prison continue to return. Incapacitation will be effective if the “right” people–those likely to commit crimes–are locked up. Since criminals are thought to be more likely to commit crimes than those never convicted of a criminal act, it follows that some benefits will be derived from incarcerating convicted criminals. Incapacitation has the greatest potential as a method of crime control if it is a few hardened criminals who commit most crimes. If they can be identified, convicted, and incarcerated for long periods, a significant reduction in crime would be realized. Most advocates of punitive reform have this perspective on the criminal population. Blame for the majority of crimes committed is placed on a relatively few compulsive, predatory individuals thought to commit hundreds if not thousands of crimes each year. Classical punishment underlines that there are habitual criminals who committed thousands of crimes of various types, including rape, assault, burglary, robbery, and even murder, but who were capable of feigning mental illness and convincing a jury they did not appreciate the consequences of their acts. These habitual and predatory offenders have distinctive criminal personalities characterized by unique thinking patterns. Such individuals are persistent liars who have little capacity for love or friendship. They commit brutal acts with little remorse, totally disregarding the rights of other people to live safely, and they find the restraints of responsible living contemptible. These characteristics do not develop during the course of the individual’s life experiences but manifest themselves early in the individual’s life (Maguire et al 2007).
The main arguments against premodern punishment are based on the motion that cruelty and execution cannot be a good source of prevention and crime reduction. Programs providing opportunities for the disadvantaged and programs for rehabilitating criminals did not reduce crime, so penal philosophy followed the general swing back toward conservatism. Second, it is a reaffirmation of three goals of criminal sanction: deterrence, incapacitation, and retribution. The fourth recognized goal is reform, from which the system is moving away. Deterrence, simply, is the use of punishment to prevent illegal behavior and may be directed toward two different populations. Offenders are punished to prevent them from repeating their crimes in the future; this is known as specific deterrence, a practice that embodies the principle most American families use in disciplining. When children engage in undesirable behavior, they are punished. This is repeated whenever the behavior occurs until the punishment is associated with the act. To avoid the punishment, the child learns to refrain from the act. Punishing criminals has the same purpose (Maguire et al 2007). The society wants the individual to associate the punishment and its related pain and unpleasantness with commission of the illegal act so that in the future, to avoid the punishment, the individual will refrain from repeating the crime (Russel, 2006).
In sum, classicism criticizes premodern punishment as ineffective and useless because it does not fulfill its main function: crime prevention. Treatment of offenders is becoming more and more punitive. The reason politicians endorse punitive reforms is obvious: it is what the public wants. People are afraid of crime. They are tired of being the victims of theft and violence, and they want action. They want government to solve the problem. The accuracy of the public’s image of crime is irrelevant.
Bibliography
- Burke, R. H. 2005, An Introduction to Criminological Theory. Willan Publishing; 2New Ed edition.
- Crow, J. 2001, The Treatment and Rehabilitation of Offenders. Sage Publications Ltd.
- Maguire, M., Morgan, R., Reiner, R. 2007, The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. Oxford University Press; 4Rev Ed edition.
- Murphy, J. G. 1994, Punishment and Rehabilitation. Wadsworth Publishing Company.
- Newburn, T. 2007, Criminology. Willan Publishing.
- Russel, C. 2006, Alternatives to Prison: Rehabilitation and Other Programs (Incarceration Issues: Punishment, Reform, and Rehabilitation). Mason Crest Publishers; Library Binding edition.