Law and Punishment

People make mistakes. It happens. And because it is a mistake, it was, until later on, unforeseeable and unintentional. Once they know they have made a mistake (pleaded guilty in formal cases), the next definitive step is punishment.

Punishment. It does have a nasty ring to it. It is two sides of a coin to argue if punishment is necessary. Recently, the past few months at least, I had encountered with this sticky argument about punishment, its effects and its desired outcome. Punishment is meant to first, make a person realise their mistake and second, to deter them from making that mistake again. So, as long as these two criteria is cleared, then punishment have served its purpose. But punishment have been proven to not work on some, if not many, people. These includes repeat offenders and those that confess that they were in the right.

I always thought punishment have to be done, but it have to be to the minimal. What is important is the heart and the way of thinking. One reason a repeat offender would continually do crime is not due to punishment being too light, but that they have a baggage somewhere, elsewhere, outside most likely. It could be a grudge, an insatiable addiction or in some cases, I've heard from first hand experience, fear of the outside world more than the fear of the four enclosed but safe walls they currently hole in. Punishment, in these cases, could either fuel their grudge, vendetta or create a worsening of their bad addiction as it is prolonged. The problem lies in the thinking; of remorse, understanding and what is just in their mindset. A sentence my paracounselor told some of us which I find it strikingly, beautifully true, he said, "I know that whatever you are, a gangster or what, everyone really do have a good heart" Sounds like what Anne Frank had said. Take away the corruption of the heart and people are really, naturally good. The solution is to change the heart by touching the soul and affect the way of believing. Talk to them, understand them and then the most crucial and hard step. Convince them. "You are right, understandable. But what you did is wrong." Contradictory statement. But ultimately true.

Another scenario is when a person knows he is in the wrong and on hindsight, they know they should not have done what they had done. That person is extremely apologetic. It was careless. Unreasonable on their part. They want to make amends, any way possible. Should punishment be served? Yes, by law and also to satisfy the victim and those related. But the person is almost certain not to do the crime again. It is not fear that is preventing him back. It is conscious conscience. These cases are heart-wrenching. It ruins lives and it is not worth the crime nor the punishment. A long time ago, Courts of Chancery, often presided by churchmen were established during the years when common law tradition was beginning to take shape and root in the European background. They were guided more by principles of conscience and fairness rather than technical legal rules. These laws of equity are used today, infused in the common law courts of UK and Singapore to name a few. Equity overrules law. The wrongdoer have to be treated justly.

Satisfy the victim and not do lasting and undeserving damage to the aggressor. If a decision by court is not equitable in any way to opposition or defendant, there is the Court of Appeal to review the punishment. There are even clauses whereby with "good behaviour" your sentencing is reduced. The law is what we make them to be. It have to be strict to be taken seriously by those with baggage, and yet reasonable to allow remorse and allow the good in people to shine. The Yellow Ribbon Project is one way to produce hope and allow the good in people's heart be shown and felt. Afterall, the way we treat people will be the way people treat us back. If someone is harsh to you and you treat them nicely, you somehow hold a leverage that you treated him nicely. Because it is right to do so. Recently, the Singapore Government granted $2 million to be used for pro bono cases in court. This is admirable as it helps portray, even if a little, that the society is trying to do good and that you can trust the society.

Religion, arguably works along the same line of human made laws. Religion in some ways try to publish a law in which people are treated the right way. Initially there are no laws as it is, unless you believe that there is a predesigned law in the universe or similar to that matter. Hence, there are no right nor wrong. What is right or wrong have been a debated opinion for centuries. But essentially, a law must be in place in order for people to coexist and survive. Strength through community. The better people can coexist, the stronger they are. Now there are international laws which some disagree, hence they do not work so well together. If there is a universal set of law which everyone agrees on, religion is the closest example, the world would agree and not be so divided.