Criminals and Punishments

(source of the illustration)

We have defined crime in the first section; criminals will be then justified and their sentences will be decided by the court. Punishment is what the criminals would receive from their “wrongdoings” and it is mostly accepted by the community. But are all punishments fair? Some are finance-involved creating a difference extent between the poverty and the rich, whereas with the other, even if you are a billionaire, you still cannot escape from the boundaries of justice.There are three major factors determining the sentence a criminal would receive, including their prior records which clarify their criminal records, the perceived seriousness – the extent of the crime and the incentives resulting in the commitment. Undoubtedly, a murderer who killed one person would receive a less grave sentence than the one who was a nightmare of a whole neighbourhood for killing every black-wearing girl he saw. In addition, aggravating factors – which could build up the severity of crime such as the offence’s violent nature or its preceding sophisticated planning and mitigating factors which on contrast, could reduce the extent of the punishment, for instance, the family responsibilities (particularly for a mother having babies less than 6 months), the criminal’s employment state, etc will be taken into consideration as well. The sentence will be decided, varied from fines or restitution to death penalty.

There has been a controversial issue of criminal’s execution – capital punishment raised recently and personally, this is a fair punishment. The sentence applied the most by China – 1010 cases and the least by the United States – 53 cases according to the Amnesty International in 2007 (it is also the most grave punishment in Vietnam) has proven that despite the diverse culture, different views on offences, the statement of paying for the guilt one has created is accepted globally. The argument agianst stated that it violates the right to live of the criminal; yet, has they ever concerned about the victim’s right? “All and only guilty people deserve to be punished in proportion to the severity of their crimes” – one statement of the theory of punishment has declared the coressponding penalty resulting from the offence. In addition to the capital punishment, incarceration usually known as “imprisonment” is also a fair sentence, in my opinion. Keeping a criminal in jail as a prisoner or a jail inmate would most likely be an innovation to persuade them not to pursue the criminal “career” comparing to fines or other “monetary” punishment as the time spending in jail/prison can provide them not only an opportunity to regret their sin, as a deterrence to them not to commit the crime again but also a chance to refresh their life, with provided education and training from the prison service; as the Correctional Services of Acts of 1998 has stated the prison’s objective is to “enable the sentenced people to lead a socially responsible and crime-free life in the future.”

Therefore, the prison’s role in the criminal’s rehabilitation is significant. In most countries, criminals are provided courses to yield more useful skills such as constructions, textiles or other labour’s tasks and educated classes which are often drug treatment. In addition, some prisons offer jobs for their inmates and this could help them to earn wages during the sentenced time. However, the government is still regardless of the criminal’s condition as well as the protection from being exploited. To the BBC’s statistics, only 60% criminals actually fail to be provided skills from the course due to the poor facilities and shortage of staffs. Criminals are still people and how the government and the society treat them will have a great influence on their change of attitude towards their life; otherwise, the imprisoned time would condemn them to a bleak future.

Credir: The Guardian and BBC