What is an appropriate punishment for a one-off crime?

What is the best way to treat a criminal which will result in the best outcomes for the future of those people affected and concerned?

A one-off crime is distinct from an on-going crime in that is doesn't happen persistently, an on-going crime is similar to a territorial dispute because both parties uphold their "right" to prevent the other from trespassing on what is (they claim) their land. Usually, in an on-going dispute, neither party will deny that they are engaging in the violence (force) and neither party will think that they have done anything wrong. For these reasons participants in a territorial dispute will not seek to prevent their behaviour from becoming known to the public, in fact they might encourage that since it might help the situation get resolved...

If we assume a one-off crime (such as violent attack, or rape) has been committed and also that we are entirely convinced of the guilt of the defendant (it is redundant to argue against a form of justice on the grounds that a defendant might have been found falsely guilty since all methods will have that possibility, we can ask whether the system allows for flexibility in remedying a miscarriage of justice but that is not the same as continually making the point that the person whom is accused of guilt might not be so... are we to let everybody go free in that case?) then what action should be taken?

At the present time the sentencing is decided by the judge (after the jury has decided on the guilt). The judge must choose a sentence appropriate to the circumstances of the case and also according to the recommendations prescribed by the law-making authorities... The only body available to the judge to provide the sentencing is the State (we can only "hand over" the criminal to representatives of the State...).

Imagine the sentencing of a drug addict who has perpetrated many burglaries, the only option for the judge is to hand that person over to the State. Might it be better if a charity (who are expert in treating, and dealing with, drug addicts) offered sentencing to the judge, provided they give assurances that the criminal will be kept away from Society during the period of the sentence? It would remove the burden of "in loco parentis" (over the criminal) from the State...

Might it be better then, for the judge (and whomever else must decide on sentencing) to have a suite of possible sentences to chose from? It would be a form of free-market sentencing whereby the judge would have a choice of "punishments" offered by various groups, including charities, groups representing the interests of the victim, possibly a traditional State punishment, and all other groups. The judge could then choose the most apposite punishment among those offered.

We can assume that in most cases of serious crime, there will be a group that offers to put the defendant to death... We can also presume that there will be groups that oppose this practice and that will offer to provide an alternative course of treatment. There will be many groups who are motivated, at least in part, to rehabilitate and nurture the criminal out of sympathy for their position... just as there will be groups who seek less tolerant solutions.

A free-market choice of sentences will allow the courts to choose a punishment that is more appropriate to the crime... which best improves the social environment for everyone else. It is the one which best improves the circumstances for Society in the future.

We can assume that the option to do nothing, and let the defendant go free always exists, if only to avoid the situation of having only a very severe punishment such as the death penalty for relatively minor crimes.


Another innovation (beyond extending the tolerated bodies to provide sentencing to those not part of the State, and making a choice available...) might be to extend the decision-making responsibilities to more than only the judge (presently, often under guidance from the law-makers), the jury could be involved, perhaps making a democratic decision. Or even a poll of a wider selection of people from the community.

Tuesday 14 April 2009