What is the purpose of putting people in jail: Deterrence, punishment, rehabilitation, or a mix of all three? — Filepic
“To err is human, to forgive divine.” Or perhaps you prefer “An eye for an eye”? Mercy is a wonderful concept in theory, but faced with harsh realities, I believe some of us hesitate to embrace it.
Consider the recent push by the Malaysian government for the Home Detention Act, which aims to take prisoners from overcrowded jails and place them under house arrest.
The Prisons Department has wholeheartedly backed this idea, citing overcrowding in existing jails. They claim it also improves rehabilitation outcomes, citing the recidivism rate of just 0.2% for the Community Rehabilitation Programme, in stark contrast with the 17.6% rate seen among those who were incarcerated.
But many believe that letting those in jail serve out the remainder of their term in the relative comfort of their home is tantamount to letting criminals off with a light slap on the wrist, or worse, a gross miscarriage of justice. As they say, “If you do the crime, you do the time”.
Yet, this raises deeper questions: What is the purpose of putting people in jail: Deterrence, punishment, rehabilitation, or a mix of all three?
One belief is that if the prospect of being punished is harsh enough, then it deters you from committing crimes. However, in a meta study of traffic offences, when fines for severe speeding violations were increased significantly in 2017, there was no substantial reduction in serious or fatal accidents.
Similarly, a study in Finland on those convicted of drunk driving also showed that harsher penalties only resulted in marginal reductions in reoffending rates.
Perhaps being put in jail “teaches you a lesson” and stops you from committing a crime again? You might hope so, but the US National Institute of Justice highlights that long prison sentences often fail as deterrents. Instead, they can have the opposite effect: inmates may learn better criminal strategies from peers or become desensitised to imprisonment. Of course, it depends on the crime and who you have as cellmates, but certainly the friends you make mould who you are.
I think these sorts of results are counterintuitive to what most people believe: That when you are punished, you stop doing things that are wrong. The reality is that strategies like prioritising treatment and proper supervision are more effective at preventing future transgressions.
This rethinking to focus on rehabilitation rather than retribution is what I believe the Home Detention Act is trying to do. With proper implementation, house arrest can be an environment conducive to rehabilitation. Convicts under house arrest are not just free to go about as they please. Among the factors listed that help those under this sentence is access to therapy, avoidance of negative influences, and staying away from situations that might trigger their past behaviours. Rather than be around criminal elements in jail, they hopefully will find a more positive setting away from it.
There still is a cost to all this. You have to continually monitor their activities to make sure they don’t begin on that slippery slope to reoffending. You have to make sure that they stay away from temptations that could pull them back towards the dark side. You have to remove “triggers” that make them react instinctively in the wrong way.
While all this might be understood when dealing with violent crimes, there is much to learn when dealing with white collar criminals who commit nonviolent crimes for financial gain.
A research article by the Depart-ment of Sociology & Criminal Justice in Gonzaga University in Washington notes that white collar criminals receive “significantly shorter, and less severe sentences for their crimes, than violent criminals do”. As a result, recidivism rates are high.
One factor that the authors believe affects this is the lack of understanding by the general public about how severe the effects of white collar crime can be, as they are seen to be “victimless”. Even a study of employees in a Swiss Bank, who already understood the seriousness of corporate crimes, still found that they would give harsher punishments to those convicted of violent crimes.
Perhaps even worse, white collar criminals are more likely to reoffend. The study from Gonzaga University found that while around two thirds (38.9%) of those convicted of violent crimes would be rearrested within three years of release from prison, this number rises to over half (58.8%) for white collar criminals. On top of that, those involved in white collar crime are less likely to view themselves as “criminals” and are more able to rationalise their criminal behaviour.
It seems to me that if somebody is convicted of white collar crime like embezzlement or criminal breach of trust, they should be put on a watchlist, with authorities allowed to continually monitor their activities and all financial transactions. Any potential or suspicious breach needs to be treated with utmost seriousness and investigated like the serious crime it is, since those previously convicted are so likely to reoffend.
You would also hope that those who have broken trust should never again be allowed to take up significant positions of responsibility and power, although the reelection of Donald Trump in the United States seems to imply that the public still underestimates and underappreciates the seriousness of such crimes, especially when committed by a head of state. He isn’t getting therapy, he’s not being held accountable for transgressions while in power, and he’s still associating with people who arguably actively encourage him to commit crimes.
While I believe that we should not cling to punitive measures that have shown limited success, we also should appreciate that rehabilitation is a long road that requires constant vigilance. Indeed, while mercy and second chances may seem idealistic, if you can practise them with due care, they can be transformative – for offenders, their families, and society as a whole.
Logic is the antithesis of emotion but mathematician-turned-scriptwriter Dzof Azmi’s theory is that people need both to make sense of life’s vagaries and contradictions. Write to Dzof at lifestyle@thestar.com.my. The views expressed here are entirely the writer’s own.