Friday, November 7, 2014

IS THE PUNISHMENT TOO MUCH OR TOO LITTLE? #THEORIES OF CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT#


 

“A person who has been punished is not thereby simply less inclined to behave in a particular way; at best he learns how to avoid punishment.”[1]

“No punishment has ever possessed enough power of deterrence to prevent the commission of crimes. On the contrary, whatever the punishment, once a specific crime has appeared for the first time, its reappearance is more likely than its initial  emergence could ever have been.[2]

“Punishment  is not for revenge, but to lessen crime and reform the criminal[3]

Just yesterday, it was reported in the news that a financer of the dreaded book haram sect was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for his involvement  with the terrorist group.the question on many minds is whether 10 years imprisonment is a fair enough punishment for an offence of that magnitude.  

Section 13 of the Terrorism (Prevention) Act, 2011 provides inter alia;

 A person who knowingly-

(a) Solicits, receives, provides or possesses monetary or other property or;

(b) enters into or becomes involved in an arrangement as a result of which

money or other property is made available, or is to be made available, for

the purpose of terrorism or for a proscribed organization, commits an

offence under this Act and shall on conviction be liable to imprisonment for

a maximum term of 10 years.

Terrorism (Prevention)(Amendment) Act, 2013 provides that;

13(1) Any person or entity who, in or outside of Nigeria-

(a)   Solicits, acquires, provides, collects, receives, possesses or makes available funds, property or other services by any means to-

(i)             Terrorists, or

(ii)            Terrorist groups, directly or indirectly with the intention or knowledge or having reasonable grounds to believe that such funds, property will be used in full or in part in order to commit an offence under this Act or in breach of the provisions of this Act,

 

(b)   Possesses funds intending that it will be used or knowing that it will be used, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, for the purpose of committing or facilitating the commission of a terrorist act by terrorist or terrorist groups, commits an offence under this Act and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for life imprisonment.

 

 

There are three main theories of punishment which are; retribution, reformation and deterrence.

A.    RETRIBUTION: this is referred to as the theory of just deserts or fair deserts. Retribution is defined as severe punishment for something seriously wrong that someone has done.[4]This is simply punishing a person found guilty of an offence because he deserves it. This is usually achieved by considering the circumstances of the crime, the accused’s responsibility for the crime and deciding what punishment will be most deserving. This is more like vengeance. A kind of punishment thateverybody or most people will agree that it is fair and just; thus the name just or fair desert.

B.     REFORMATION:  the act of improving or changing somebody or something.[5] This theory thinks of punishment as something that would transform the offender and make him a better person thus preventing him from committing the offence again. For instance sending the person to a corrective facility or appealing to the person’s psyche such that he understands what he did was wrong and actually regret it.

C.     DETERRENCE: to deter is to make somebody decide not to do something or continue doing something especially by making them understand the difficulties and unpleasant results of their actions.[6] The deterrence theory comes in two forms, the individual deterrence and the general deterrence. While the individual deterrence targets the offender to make sure he doesn’t repeat the offence, the general deterrence discourages both the offender and the general public from committing the same offence. The punishment is such that a person planning to commit the same offence becomes scared and doesn’t go ahead because of the fate of the person already caught in the offence.

I close with the words of Thomas Szasz, “if he who breaks the law is not punished, he who obeys it is cheated. This and this alone is why law breakers ought to be punished; to authenticate as good, and to encourage as useful, law abiding behavior. The aim of criminal law cannot be correction or deterrence; it can only be the maintenance of legal order.”



[1] B.F Skinner, Beyond Freedom and dignity.
[2] Hannah Arendt.
[3] Elizabeth Fry
[4] Oxford Advanced learners Dictionary
[5] Oxford advanced learners dictionary.
[6] Oxford advanced learners dictionary.
7 Okonkwo and Naish, criminal law in Nigeria.
8 Jurisprudence; J.M  Elegido.

No comments:

Post a Comment