Oxthink

Could somebody please explain to me how the justice system works? I just don’t get it.

It seems that we have become too tolerant of crime and too accepting of it. Crimes go unsolved and unpunished. Unsocial behaviour is frowned upon but largely brushed aside. It seems we have become too fixated on trying to reason with and empathise with those who commit offences.

Society should be much more emphatic in its upholding of the justice system.

If a person knowingly breaks society’s rules, they should expect and need to be punished. Punishment is about redress for the harm committed and a disincentive to committing similar offences again. In order to ensure that wrongdoers don’t reoffend, the punishment should be a lesson for them. It should be harsh, uncompromising and definitive.

The punishment should also be commensurate with the crime committed. The worse the crime, the worse the punishment.

The underlying message is that if someone harms or damages society, they should expect to be harmed or damaged in some way themselves if caught.

As the old expression goes, “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.”

In decreeing and administering such punishments, we do need to uphold a person’s human rights. Even criminals should be treated humanely. But an offender must also accept that by committing a crime, they are relinquishing some of their societal rights, protections and privileges. Frankly, we don’t have to be nice to them.

Prison – our primary sentencing sanction – should be a humane but tough and unpleasant place to be. The problem with this is that many of our societal rights are now considered human rights.

• Is it a human right or a societal right that people cannot be obliged to work a 16-hour day, seven days a week?
• Is it a human right or a societal right that people are offered three meals a day?
• Is it a human right or a societal right that people can have a hot shower every day?

Should our development and advancement as a society also mean that we progress what we consider to be a person’s human rights? Or, when defining human rights, should we go back to basics?

Any notion that punishment is not about retribution, that society is above such pettiness, is nonsense. If a cost has been incurred, it needs to be paid.

Why should society as a whole pick up the pieces for the misdemeanours of a few of its members? Why should the innocent suffer due to the offences of others?

I do not understand the idea of being kind and understanding to offenders. These people have done wrong; they knew they were doing wrong; that wrong had a negative effect on others. For me, that represents unacceptable behaviour and should not be tolerated.

Too often, as a modern society, we seem to be trying to rehabilitate offenders before we have punished them. Rehabilitation is certainly worth pursuing, as, if successful, it means less damage is done to society in the future. However, rehabilitation should always be a secondary action, once the punishment has been served.

The reason for my uncompromising, hard-line attitude is that I recognise the importance of society. Without society and our enduring ability to live together, we would not survive. We would be subject to the forces of Nature, and we would quickly succumb to Nature’s forceful and pernicious rule.

Humanity needs society to survive. It is therefore vital that we recognise our obligation to uphold and protect society as being greater than any consideration we would have for an individual within that society. There is a greater good. That good is the preservation and upkeep of society.

Most individuals are law-abiding and comply with society’s rules. They recognise that society can only exist if everybody plays their part. However, a minority that breaks the rules poses a threat to society’s stability. These people have to be dealt with.

Every time somebody is disruptive, it chips away at society and represents a potential threat. If somebody rocks the boat, then it endangers everyone on board. It cannot be allowed to happen.

I would even be reluctant to reduce a sentence for good behaviour, turning state’s evidence, or becoming a reformed character. There’s no getting out, no way of easing the punishment. If you commit the crime, then you will have to face the full consequences, the full term.

Of course, to back this up, alongside a forceful justice system, there needs to be an effective policing operation. There should never be any thought that if someone commits a crime, they will get away with it. Potential offenders must think that they are liable to get caught; that it is just not worth the risk.

A likelihood that they will be apprehended; a likelihood that they will be punished. That’s the surest deterrent to crime; that’s the best way to protect society.