A Better Way

BEYOND PUNISHMENT

Can we correct wrongdoing without causing more suffering?

In the last edition of Justice Files, we asked a simple question:

What are we trying to achieve when we punish another human being?

We considered deterrence, protection, rehabilitation and society's understandable desire to see wrongdoing answered.

But that leaves another question.

What if we could achieve those objectives without punishment?

When a child does something wrong, a responsible parent should want the child to understand the wrongdoing, recognise the harm and learn not to repeat it.

Surely the objective is not simply to cause suffering.

So why should we not examine whether a similar principle could guide our criminal justice system?

Suppose a person commits an offence.

Instead of beginning by asking how much punishment they deserve, what if we began by asking:

Why did they offend?

What harm have they caused?

What would help prevent them from offending again?

What do their victims need?

And what must society do to remain safe?

Perhaps we would discover that punishment is sometimes necessary.

But perhaps we would also discover that in some circumstances it is not.

Should punishment be our starting point—or our last resort?

Must society change as well?

There are two matters about our present system of criminal justice that trouble me.

The first is not simply what we do to offenders.

It is what our approach to punishment may be doing to society itself.

We live in a culture profoundly influenced by Jewish and Christian teachings about justice, repentance, mercy and forgiveness.

Yet how often do we speak of punishment, and how seldom do we speak of redemption?

When someone commits a serious wrong, society understandably condemns that wrongdoing.

But must that condemnation become permanent hostility towards the person?

If someone genuinely changes, must we keep defining them by what they once did?

Are we seeking justice, or are we preserving anger?

I am not suggesting that victims should be told to forgive. Forgiveness cannot be demanded, and no one should minimise the suffering of those who have been harmed.

But surely society can provide victims with every reasonable opportunity to recover, rather than leaving them to carry the burden of anger for the remainder of their lives.

And surely we can teach our children that accountability and compassion are not opposites.

Perhaps rehabilitation must begin not only with offenders, but also with society's understanding of justice.

That would require more than changing sentencing laws.

It would require education, public discussion and a willingness to reconsider some deeply established attitudes.

The second matter troubling me is more practical.

Are we satisfied that our present system is achieving what we need it to achieve?

We punish people. We imprison them. Eventually, in most cases, they return to society.

But what have we done to help ensure that they do not offend again?

What have we done to reduce the likelihood of another victim?

What have we done to help them become responsible members of the community?

Perhaps some of our existing approaches work well. Perhaps others do not.

But should we not be prepared to examine every reasonable alternative?

I am not claiming that the rehabilitation system I have begun to describe is perfect.

It may contain serious weaknesses. It will need safeguards, careful trials and independent evaluation.

Some offenders may not respond. Others may require continued restrictions for the protection of society.

But surely the possibility of failure is not a sufficient reason to refuse to investigate improvement.

Why should we demand perfection from a proposed alternative while accepting the shortcomings of the system we already have?

What if we began with offenders convicted of less serious offences who were assessed as presenting a manageable risk to the community?

Instead of automatically imposing imprisonment, a court could obtain reports examining the person's circumstances, the reasons for their offending, their prospects of rehabilitation and the needs of their victims.

Where public safety permitted, rehabilitation could take place within the community, under appropriate supervision. Where confinement was necessary, treatment and education could still form part of the response.

The progress of each participant would be independently assessed, with victims offered appropriate support and protection.

And the results would be compared with those achieved through our existing sentencing arrangements.

Would such a trial not be worth investigating?

If a carefully designed trial can begin with suitable less serious cases, why should we not investigate it?

If it succeeds, we can learn from it.

If it fails, we can learn from that too.

And if it reduces the number of future victims, surely that is an achievement worth pursuing.

The question is not whether my proposal is perfect.

The question is whether we are willing to search for something better.