Proportionality of crime to punishment

PROPORTIONALITY OF CRIME TO PUNISHMENT

——by Ezra, Nathaniel, Chenyang, Tao Ran

Explanation

An official measure must not have any greater effect on private interests than is necessary for the attainment of its objective but must still be severe enough as to deliver justice.

Rehabilitation Most humanitarian form of punishment Does not have increasing severity of

punishment Will cause injustice if used alone E.g. A mass murderer and a litterbug

both face rehabilitation although the severity of their crimes differ greatly

Hence, we must utilise retributive justice and must have increasing severity of punishment based on the crime committed.

Basis of proportionality The perpetrator of the crime must pay

back his debt to the victim E.g. A steals $5000 from B.

Result: A must return $5000 to B or work off the debt (Restitution)

However, this will result in A losing nothing at all and he may not be deterred from committing the crime. Hence, in the same scenario, A will have to

return the $5000 to B and another $5000 as punishment. (Deterrence)

Basis of proportionality pt 2 Even then, the crime will have left non-

monetary damages on the victim (emotional damages, stress） Hence, the punishment would have to be

more than double to both compensate the victim and deter the perpetrator

Controversy Lex talionis

(an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth) E.g. You got beaten up Does that give you the right to beat up the

perpetrator more than twice as much?

Monetary compensation Can fines really count as punishment? Real

restitution for the victims? E.g. Rich men?

A scenario In a world without punishment for a

crime, the number of petty crimes such as stealing a fruit from a vendor would increase but would the number of more severe, gross crimes such as murder increase as well?

A speculated answer Most people have a greater built-in inner

objection to themselves committing murder than they have to petty shoplifting

Hence, the number of severe cases such as murder is not likely to increase as much even without punishment

A theory provided If punishment serves to deter, it would be

wiser to make punishment for petty crimes very severe as they are more likely to be committed

Since one usually will not commit very severe crimes as it goes against their own morals, we should make the punishment for these crimes less severe as they are unlikely to be committed again

Example Michael P. Fay

Charges: theft; vandalism Penalty: four months in jail fine S$3,500 four strokes of cane

Torture So, in relation to the proportion of crime,

is the current death penalty enough to deal with a murderer?

Since the formula for punishment is given by the equation p= 2.5x severity of crime, is killing off the perpetrator by hanging severe enough?

Should torture be used against these people?

Advantages of torture Allows the punishment to be

proportionate to the crime, hence bringing about retributive justice. (a fate worse than death)

In theory, should effectively deter

Example 1 Michael ross 2005 Serial killer Put to death by lethal injection Killed a total of 8 women and girls and

confessed to having raped most of them as well

Was it fair to just let him die?

Example 2 McVeigh 2001 Involved in the 1995 bombing of the

Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people

Executed by lethal injection

Reasons why we cannot use torture

Inhumane No possible way to ensure that the

punishment meted out is not too much Universal Declaration of Human Rights

(UDHR) Article 5 states, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

Conclusion For now, the current maximum form of

retributive justice is death by hanging in Singapore

Torture cannot be used except in certain countries and even then, it is condemned by others

Bibliography http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/thirteen.

asp