Crime: Child Upon Child, 2

So what is this fixation with punishment for acts deemed guilty?

I think that the idea that "guilt" should be punished is one of humankind`s long-needed primitive ideas and it is around us all, in our relationships, our societies, attitudes, culture and religion.

The problem is that we all grow up with the notion that acts that we regard as unacceptable, in society, in the home, or wherever we may be, should be punished. That the only way to curb unwanted behaviour is to threaten and deliver retribution.. Children learn this from parents, teachers try to enforce this in schools and society wants anything that is "not acceptable", punished. We seem to be so riddled with punishment as the only solution to unwanted behaviour, that we have to convince ourselves, somehow, that what we are doing is right. It`s as though all the officiousness, the trappings of protocol, the wealth and power of law, feed us with the idea that our justice system must indeed be just, since it is so invested with such esteemable structure.

When we consider the case of Venables and Thompson we, both as individuals and within the legal system, are very confused about what guilt is and what mitigations should be offered to those accused, and I think that this is one reason why we have a very shaky justice system (I mean "shaky" in the sense of morally confused). I really feel that since guilt is not something that is a universal, our system of punishment flounders from the start. What I mean is, we are dealing with issues of crime or misdemeanor with a wish to punish and yet we are not sure whether mitigation should play a part or not, in what circumstances, or upon whichever factor compels sympathy-value at any given time !!! The plain fact is that in a society that disadvantages large sections of the population, exculpation of guilt could be applied on a massive scale.

In the case of Venables and Thompson, there may be various mitigations that would make the purpose, or consequence of punishment, both unfeasible and immoral... Their age may be considered pre-competent or they may have learned aggressive and destructive behaviour that gives them a psychological condition of mental incompetence. However, though we all feel the deepest horror at the way Jamie Bulger was murdered, somehow the humanity of mitigation did not seem to play its hand in this case.

The age of deemed competence is 10 years old, yet I feel that the emotive weight of the Bulger murder denied Venables and Thompson proper, humane treatment. In other words, "the mob", society, was so incensed about Jamie Bulger`s murder (and who wouldn't be?) that our sense of rightfulness was swayed by animal-driven lex talionis. (I am mindful that these instincts for retribution were the very justifications for the American treatment of detainees at Guantanamo.)

My final thought here is, I think that our prosecuting two children in an adult court will be seen in the future as an act of serious cruelty, matching the emotional need for revenge for Jamie Bulger. And, in fact, this example of even our (primitive) justice system at work, shows us we are both confused about what we are doing and that our attachment to punishment has roots in our animal nature.

I feel that the measure of us as a society, as human beings, is represented............. just as the American Government represented itself in its conduct around the world when they sought revenge for the Twin Towers......... in the extent of our compassion at times of our own greatest suffering.

Crime: Child upon Child.

I am coming to this blog this week upon the news that Jon Venables has been taken back into custody. (You will know that Jon Venables and Robert Thompson were convicted of the Jamie Bulger murder.) There has been much ensuing speculation about the case around all the issues: Should Venables and Thompson have been tried at all, given their age? Should they have been released after so few years? Does rehabilitation really work?....and many more facets to this deeply problematic issue.

Because we are faced with such complexities here, I want to take a look at what we think criminal justice is and how it relates to our perception of what is just, if it does at all. I want to tease apart some of the elements of the very quality of being just and ask some penetrating questions about our purpose in seeking retribution. It`s so big a question though, that I may have to extend to two blogs !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let`s look at the criminal justice system:

The justice system acts upon laws according to prescribed principles based upon what is accepted as criminal or just in any particular society. It metes out punishment deemed appropriate to a crime. Within this system of punishment, there may be a consideration of fairness, proportionality, and various mitigations, but essentially criminal justice is retribution exerted upon the guilty.
But what constitutes guilt and does its changeable nature cause us to confuse our purpose when we deal with it ? After all, a person is not intrinsically guilty, they are only guilty by the attribution of guilt leveled at them by the society or people around them, and the extent of their culpability is adjudged by the hands of subjective compassion.

Let`s look at guilt: Of course, guilt is man-made, it is something that changes from one culture to another, one circumstance to another, one era to another and even one jury to another. It is not something that is fixed universally and certainly is not dispensed fairly, however we might wish it to be. Guilt depends upon the perception of the observer, individually or collectively, and punishment is resultant upon the power that observers have over the person deemed to be guilty. The end result is a changeable subjectivity.

Of course, knowing that guilt has to do with power brings another dimension to our understanding. If the very attribution of guilt is about the power, status, social position, majority, group-think, of the accusers, it tells us that society makes laws according to animal/biological motives. This is quite a shock to us, I think, because we tend to think that it is about such noble ends as "right and wrong" and creating a civilised and safe society for us all, but when we look closely we see the curious fact that the law seems to penalise more of our disadvantaged classes than would make its purpose quite so altruistic.

Well, the law, demonstrably, doesn`t always encompass "right and wrong", it claims criminality over selective acts that are practicable to enforce and are of majority, or most powerful, opinion. This means that, for example, it is not a criminal act to commit adultery, it is not illegal to punish children, nor is it illegal to be homosexual, but if mass opinion should change, as fickle as fashion, these things could become punishable by law. When we consider if the law is about power over others... and not about right and wrong.... we see, with at least an uncomfortable suspicion, that the penal system is full of disadvantaged classes, men who have grown up without fathers, drug users, the mentally ill and women who are well used to being victims. Strange isn`t it?

I`d like to ask, are we really comfortable with punishing people for the crimes they commit, even if those crimes reflect their social background? Is someone really deserving of punishment if they come from a broken home, a drug ridden social environment or have been drawn into gang culture because gangs control their neighbourhood? And are we not responsible if we do little or nothing to make social change? With this thought, everyone has a mitigation when it comes down to it: a child has an incomplete comprehension of their position, someone from a deprived background has a rooted mindset that propels their actions, even someone well off financially who becomes a thief, is the victim of their own greed, insecurities or one-upmanship-drive. A persons psycho-social makeup causes them to commit criminal acts and this is all part of our insider/outsider, inclusivity/exclusivity, group structure. In plain language: we, as a society, create the victims around us and we punish them for it, to boot.

Continued in my next blog.......