The Theory of Punishment

THE THEORY OF PUNISHMENT TERENCE SHEARD N OT long ago I had occasion to visit an elderly lady whose residence is one of the most charming houses in Canada. Surrounded by ample grounds.) it is admirably designed and rich in historica~ associations. The owner is naturally proud of the place.) and after I had completed my business.) she ·took me around and showed me its various paints of special interest. In due course we passed into a garden altogether in keeping with the house itself. All at once I realized what up to that moment had not been present in my mind, that this delightful house was situated almost immediately adjacent to one. of our larger penitenttanes . I felt immediately that, whatever its charm in other respects, this particular house was not one in which I should care to live. This reaction of mine was.) I believe> a perfectly natural one implying no special sensitivity on my part. vVhile there may be, and no doubt is, _ a widespread interest in prisons and their problems, not many of us \Vould care to live with those problems constantly evidenced by the proximity of prison walls. Our interest is only tolerable to us when it can be kept fleeting and the greater part of the time we prefer to have all consideration of them shut out from . d I ~ ~· I • our m1n s. ~·, t ··. ! ..-.~ t1~·~ This deliberate disinclination to dwell on the subject of prisons and prisoners is no doubt very largely explained by the fact that sufferinglbf any1!kindl..1s not pleasant to contemplate. But ·this explanation·_i!is not completely adequate. A great deal [of 1 suffering also takes place in hospitals and no small part of that suffering 92 THE -THEORY OF PUNISHMENT is,. in a sense, deliberately inflicted. Yet we do no.t mind thinking about our hospitaJs, but on the contrary take a ce.rtain pride in conternplating the skill and efficiency with which they' -are carried on. The- difference would se~m to be in the philosophy behind the two institutions and in the theory of them rather than in the facts themsetves . The suffering inflicted by the surgeon is felt to be unavoidable and justified by ends that cannot be a.tt.ained without it. In the case of prisons we realize in a general way the ends they are intended to serve, but there remains the uneasy feeiing that these ends are possibly not altogether coherent nor the means well adapted to achieving them. -'~To the rational being pnly ·that which is irrational is .intolerable.'' One does not need to be more than partially rational in order to experience some discomfort. There exist a number of different theories on which our present methods of treating criminals ·are customarily justified. Three of the more importan t of these theories have recently been well summarized by the prime minister as follows: u Society has a thre~-fold purpose in providing penitentiaries, (1) the punishment of -the convicts,· (-2.) to deter others from com-mitting similar offences1 and (3) the reformation of the convict through affording him opportunities to acquire useful knowledge so that on the termination of his punishment he may be able to take his place as a member of society.,, .It is impossible to quarrel with 'the clarity of this statement or to deny that it is the explanation that would be given by nine people out of ten who were called upon to give one. If, then, the various grounds are independently adequate, and the ends themselves not incompatible, we may dismiss our doubts on grounds of reason and seek 93 THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO QUARTERLY .. elsewhere for ·an explanation of what qualms· we may feel. It is plain, of course, that not all sentences for crime can be justified by reference to all three of the grounds·to which Mr. Bennett refers. A life-sentence can hardly be said .to contemplate that on the termination of it the convict "may be able to take his place as a member of . society''~ertainly a death-sentence does not-and the same can probably be said of all long sentences of, for example, fifteen...