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 • Lextalionis(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

Proportionality of crime to punishment