Several years ago, my home state made a significant change to its correctional system. The California Department of Corrections (CDC) was renamed the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). At the time, I was concerned that this change in name might signal a shift toward incarceration philosophies that would ultimately be detrimental to the safety and well-being of California’s citizens.
Unfortunately, my fears have, to some extent, been realized. California now seems to go out of its way, through various policies, legislative actions, and legal mandates, to release most criminals, reserving punishment only for the most heinous offenders. This approach often results in very limited punishment and what I consider to be mysterious, or at least poorly defined, rehabilitation efforts.
This situation has, in effect, made a life of crime more profitable than ever before, attracting those who are inclined to cheat the system. Furthermore, many individuals who are simply too slothful to seek legitimate work, who lack self-control, or who are controlled by chemical substances, find themselves cycling through jailhouse doors with alarming frequency, much like teenagers frequenting the mall.
Let me be clear: my argument is not anti-rehabilitation. Quite the contrary! We all have a vested interest in seeing lives transformed and redirected toward positive choices, and I fully support genuine rehabilitation efforts. Nor is my argument solely about deterrence, although I firmly believe that strict punishment does indeed have a deterrent effect. Even those who disagree with me would likely concede that one is less likely to speed past a motor officer holding a radar gun at the side of the road.
My argument is also not exclusively about safety, although that is certainly one of the intended benefits of punishment. After all, those who are incarcerated, regardless of whether they are reformed, are unable to burglarize a home or commit other public offenses from behind bars.
My central thesis is this: punishment should be the first step taken by the government to guide an individual toward a new life. I fully understand that a large percentage of those who are punished will be unsuccessful in their attempts to reform, for a variety of reasons. However, when rehabilitation supersedes or entirely eliminates punishment as part of the equation, failure is almost certain to follow, and societal order will inevitably suffer.
Consider the person who chooses fitness as a lifestyle. A measured amount of physical duress – that is, punishment – will strengthen the body. The phrase “no pain, no gain” is posted in workout rooms everywhere for a reason. Muscles must be broken down through exercise before they can be developed and strengthened. If the principle of punishment can help us gain fitness, it can certainly be applied to conduct as well.
“People do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his appetite when he is hungry,” reads a well-known proverb, “but if he is caught, he will pay sevenfold; he will give all the goods of his house.” Whether the punishment is incarceration, repayment with interest, or a combination of both, it needs to be present if we hope to modify behavior. Discipline should never be absent as a consequence for illegal activity.
For the person seeking, or enduring forced rehabilitation, there is value in serving a justified sentence for their crime(s). The worth of paying a public debt will favorably contribute to a fresh start. The absence of such liability will perpetuate the enabling cycle of failure. As a young man, I had a rebellious streak in me. I pushed the boundaries whenever possible. While a certain degree of mercy was appreciated, I could have found myself engaged in a life of crime instead of a career combating it had there been no fear of criminal penalties for my actions. Eliminating negative consequences for destructive activity is not helpful. It is harmful to civilization and those who play by the rules. Good citizens will continue to suffer at the hands of others who refuse adherence to criminal statutes.
I sincerely hope that public policy makers will come to understand that The Passé Principle of Punishment has significant value to law and order.
-Jim McNeff