Comment on: “Towards a more pragmatic penal system”
| Author | Roger Douglas |
| DOI | 10.1177/000486908301600406 |
| Published date | 01 December 1983 |
| Date | 01 December 1983 |
| Subject Matter | Original Articles |
234 (1983) 16
ANZJ
CRIM
COMMENT ON:
"TOWARDS AMORE PRAGMATIC PENAL SYSTEM"
Roger Douglas"
Ray's analysis fails in a number of respects. Its analysis of the problem is
superficial; its recipe for dealing with the problem is nothing but a prescription for
the squandering of public moneys and for the torture of offenders.
The problem is taken for granted; it is in fact problematic. Existing social
arrangements and the current imperfect criminal justice system ensure
that
few
people ever experience a serious crime. Most people do not regard crime as a
"problem".
And,
insofar as crime is an objective or subjective problem, the
problem is not the problem which preoccupies Ray.
If, for instance, one is concerned about pain and suffering, then murderers,
muggers and molesters represent only part of the problem. Far more pain and
suffering is produced by appalling work conditions and by lack of work in a
work-oriented society, than by violent criminals. Most people are in far more
danger from fellow road users than they are from the "traditional offenders" who
so concern Ray. Maimings in the workplace and on the road are not necessarily
criminal, but insofar as they are not, they indicate the shortsightedness of defining
crime as the problem - and insofar as they are, they indicate that
"blue
collar"
violent crime is only
part
of the problem - and a relatively minor
part
at that.
The protection of property plays a subordinate role in Ray's analysis. Yet the
protection of property may be a means towards maintaining a sense of psychological
well-being; burglary, for instance, is far more widespread than violent crime and
can prove extremely traumatic for its victims; fraud can undermine the trust
necessary for business transactions. Arguably, after corporate crime, property
crime poses the next greatest criminal problem. However, Ray appears to discount
its importance.
Ray
appears, therefore, to be focussing unduly on a narrow range of crimes. This
would not matter too much if he was simultaneously presenting asolution: even if
rare, criminal violence should be minimized. What does matter is that his "solution"
would be extraordinarily expensive, of very limited effectiveness, and very
unpleasant for the offender. Ray's solution to the crime problem is the
time-honoured trio of deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation. The solution is
a highly questionable one. First, there is little evidence to suggest that punitive
strategies do much (or indeed anything) to detercrime. Several correlational studies
suggestthat low crime rates coexist with high imprisonment rates, but other studies
fail to replicate these and, in any case, the results are difficult to interpret. Findings
consistent with the deterrence hypothesis may in fact reflect other mechanisms.
High crime rates may so overburden the criminal justice systems as to produce low
sanction rates; alternatively, high crime rates coexisting with low imprisonment
rates may reflect permissive attitudes to the crimes in question.
*Senior Lecturer, Legal Studies Department, La Trobe University.
To continue reading
Request your trial