Humanist perspective: Crime and punishment Humanist beliefs and values Humanists try to use reason, experience, evidence, and respect for the dignity of others when thinking about ethical questions. When deciding what is the right thing to do they consider the particular situation, the potential consequences, and the rights and wishes of those involved. They believe this life is the only one we can know we have. We will not be rewarded or punished after we die. Instead of believing in divine justice, they prefer to focus on human justice. They value personal freedom to live our lives how we want. However, our actions should not interfere negatively with other people’s freedoms or cause them harm. The law Laws exist for the common good, to ensure orderly and secure societies that, at their best, can benefit everyone. We should obey the law. However, if we think a law is immoral, then in a democratic country we should be allowed to question it and argue for change. As secularists, humanists believe the government and institutions of state should be separate from religious institutions. That means they believe religion should have no place in setting the laws of a country. We should recognise that actions can be morally wrong without being illegal, and illegal without being morally wrong. This can complicate already difficult decisions about what to do with those who break the law. Forgiveness Human beings provide the only potential source of forgiveness. Forgiveness demonstrates a sense of empathy with the criminal that is all too often absent. It can also lead to positive consequences: potentially making the victim feel better, and breaking the cycle of hatred and revenge. However, it should not be used simply to hide away from confrontation and allow criminals to feel they have done no wrong. Nor should forgiveness be a duty or an expectation. For it to be meaningful, forgiveness should be freely given. Justice ‘Recompense injury with justice, and recompense kindness with kindness.’ Confucius (551–479 BCE) It is important that the victims of crime feel justice has been done. However, what that means can vary from person to person, and punishment should not simply be about satisfying the victim. Criminals should also be treated justly (have a fair trial, be allowed to defend themselves, and be treated humanely while in custody). This also helps to ensure that suspects who are innocent are treated fairly. Any punishment should be appropriate to the crime. For example, it does not seem just today to execute thieves, as the punishment is out of proportion to the crime. Punishment When deciding whether, how and why to punish criminals, humanists do not have rules in holy books that provide answers. They have to work things out for themselves, using reason, evidence, empathy, and respect to guide them. Evidence and approaching problems rationally are important to humanists, and many believe we should try to do that which works best to minimise the total amount of crime. Humanists will therefore often advocate an evidence-based policy when it comes to dealing with crime. However, we also need to respect the dignity of all persons, and, for many, that includes criminals. Simply focusing on the goal of minimising crime may mean we risk acting without such respect. We have to therefore consider whether some punishments (e.g. particularly severe punishments) are appropriate, even if they would reduce the total amount of crime. We should always try to look at each case individually and consider the contributing factors to any crime before passing judgement. Prisons For many humanists, evidence is important when deciding how to act. Prison can sometimes be effective, but not always. Recidivism (relapsing into crime) is common among ex-prisoners: • Many prisoners return to the outside world with more criminal skills and contacts • Many also leave prison with a reduced opportunity to fit back into society and so return to a life of crime Prison is also incredibly costly to the state (and therefore to taxpayers). What are the advantages and disadvantages of prisons? What alternatives are there to prison? Are they better or worse? (E.g. community service, tagging, fines, probation.) Capital punishment Capital punishment does not seem to deter murder. • The US, one of the few democracies to retain capital punishment, has one of the highest murder rates among western democracies, at around 4 murders per 100,000 people (in Britain it is 1 per 100,000) • The number of murders does not rise when capital punishment is abolished • US states with the death penalty have 28% more homicides than those without Many humanists disapprove of the death penalty. • The evidence shows that it is not effective as a deterrent • Even if it were effective, many would still not approve as they believe premeditated killing is wrong • It also carries the risk of mistakes and the potential deaths of innocent people The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) campaigns for the abolition of the death penalty across the world as it violates our right to life (Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). The harm principle ‘The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.’ John Stuart Mill, philosopher (1806–1873) Purposes of punishment Retribution Not every criminal is solely responsible for their crime. Social factors play a role and these should be taken into account. Reformation Reparation Punishment that involves giving something back to society (e.g. community service) can be less costly and help communities, but does it violate people’s rights? Social causes like poor education and unemployment can lead people to crime. If we can mitigate these then we may be able to minimise the total amount of crime. Purposes of punishment Vindication It is important to uphold the system of the law. However, we need to consider whether particular punishments are the only way to instil respect for the law. Protection Deterrence We need to consider the evidence for whether or not the punishment is effective. Severe punishments may deter more effectively, but are they appropriate to the crime? We need to consider the evidence for whether or not particular punishments mean someone is more or less likely to commit crimes in the future. Free will and moral responsibility Are criminals morally responsible for their crimes? Often, there are causes beyond the control of the criminal: • Genetic influences • Environmental factors such as poverty, poor education, unemployment, and addiction Do we have free will? Is it possible for any of us to act differently from how we do? If we don’t have free will, do we have moral responsibility for our actions? Should punishment always be forward-looking, not backward-looking? Should we consider what effect punishment can have on what determines the behaviour of people in the future, rather than seeking to punish people for their behaviour in the past? Causes of crime Many humanists feel we should focus more on the causes of crime and devote our time to considering how we can stop crime happening in the first place rather than simply dealing with it after it has occurred. Some crimes, for example, are committed by people suffering from a mental illness or addiction – both are things that a strong healthcare system and support from other people can help to reduce. More crime is committed in very unequal societies where some groups are discriminated against or feel that they have little to lose by committing a crime. A more equitable life may therefore be the best deterrent and we should look at what we can do to improve the quality of life of people in those sectors of society who feel the need to turn to crime. Questions for discussion 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Is crime only committed by bad people? Is crime ever acceptable? Is it ok to steal to save a life? Have criminals forfeited their right to be treated according to the Golden Rule by not following it themselves? Should we punish criminals? If so, why? What is the best form of punishment for criminals? Why? Do the different motivations for punishment conflict with each other? Can, for example, we enact a very harsh punishment as a deterrent and also expect to help rehabilitate a criminal? Can education, training, and counselling act as deterrents? Can a long prison sentence, removing the prisoner from their family and society, prepare someone to become a useful member of society in the future? 7) If we can’t ‘cure’ criminals, should we lock them away forever? 8) How important is it to treat criminals fairly? 9) Do people always deserve a second chance? 10) Is the policy in some American states of ‘three strikes and you’re out’ (life sentences after a third offence, whatever that offence may be) fair? 11) Should we have the death penalty? 12) Do murderers have the right to life? 13) Is forced community service slavery? 14) Should we force education on criminals? 15) What causes crime? What are the solutions? 16) If criminals are made by their genes and environment and have had little or no choice in their behaviour, should this alter the way we treat them? 17) Have you chosen to be the person you are? What, if anything, prevents you from committing crimes? 18) Do we have free will? Are people morally responsible for their actions even if not? 19) How are you deciding your answers to these questions? What principles and arguments influence your answers? 20) How is the humanist view on this issue similar to or different from that of other worldviews you have come across? A fair punishment? What would be a fair punishment for each of the following crimes? a) A teenager is caught shoplifting. It is his/her first offence. b) A man is found guilty of murdering four people on four separate occasions. c) A woman has conned several people into transferring money into her bank account. d) A man has parked his car on a double yellow line. e) A man is caught drink driving. How much did the different purposes of punishment play into your decisions? Retribution Protection Vindication Reparation Deterrence Reformation
