What do you see as the purpose of punishment from smacking a child to locking up a criminal.

What is it designed to achieve?
Does it achieve any of your goals?
Should we be proactive
Do we need to change our attitudes towards laws the 'nanny state'?

Givens. Historically deterrents are like locks there to keep honest people honest. They don't work universally or for any long period.
There will always be someone who will try to circumvent the system.

Violence begets violence not resolution it merely prolongs the problem.

'No tolerance' simply move the problem not eliminate it.

We've been fighting drugs for how long and aren't winning ?

The evidence is clear. Locking people up in inhumane and barbaric conditions does not miraculously turn them into model citizens. Usually it makes them much worse.
Punishment in most cases of law is nothing more than revenge. In the cases of children, school and workplaces it is all about control and fear. Fear of authority. Not the most conducive situation for productivity nor learning.
The threat of punishment only makes one submissive, unthinking and docile. It would be much better if people were taught self control, empathy and analytical thinking so they could understand why certain actions are wrong and the effect their actions have on other people.
Like the saying says
"Obedience that is based on fear of punishment, this-worldly or otherworldly, is not really goodness, it is merely cowardice."

And for those who could not control themselves and endangered other people they should be removed from society and kept in humane and preferably rehabilitative conditions until they can be trusted to take their place in society responsibly.

Dear Examinator,

What do I see as the role of punishment
as far as criminals go?

I see punishment as a measure that society
applies to convicted criminals, primarily
imprisonment, probation, and parole - all of
which serve distinct purposes:

1) Punishment serves to punish the offender,
applying revenge on behalf of both the victim
and society as a whole.

2) Ideally, the role of punishment is supposed
to deter the offender from deviating again, and
to scare others who might be tempted to crime.

3) By imposing restrictions on the freedom
of the offender, this may help prevent the
person from committing further crimes, at least
for the duration of the restrictions.

4) Punishment may serve to reform the offender
by providing the skills and attitudes that make
return to a law-abiding life possible and more
attractive.

However, prisons fail to rehabilitate.
There are relatively few resources devoted to
rehabilitation in the first place. Authorities'
custodial duties take priority over all other goals.
How can you rehabilitate someone in a place of
residence where the inmates are confined for a set
period of their lives, where they are cut off from the
rest of society, and where they surrender personal
control of their lives, submitting instead to the
almost absolute rule of a hierarchy of officials.
The prison environment also guarantees association
with other criminals - so the inmates can hardly
fail to learn about new techniques and possibilities
for crime. Imprisonment may therefore lead to
further crime, not rehabilitation.

I don't know what the best deterrence is. Is the most
severe the best? Or rather is punishment that is
swift and certain the best? Possibly, if punishment
follows soon after the crime, and if there is little
doubt that it will follow, this may deter. But if
people think they can escape punishment indefinitely,
then the punishments will have less of a deterrent
effect.

The same can apply to punishing your child. A smack on the
bottom done to stop the child from misbehaving will get
the message across much faster then all the lectures
in the world.

I have no sympathy for criminals. My sympathy is for their victims, & only for them. The criminal lost the right to my support, when they decided to rip off decent people.

My only interest in criminals is in getting them off the street, permanently. I can see no reason to waste good money on rubbish.

The three strike principle sounds good to me, but the result of the third strike must be less cumfortable than present. Something like labour camps, clearing invasive weeds, like prickly acacia, from our northern national parks would suit, I think.

The thought of a few years of this, should deter some, & those it doesn't would at least give a little uesfull labor back to the community they did not value.

There should be no job description, as criminal, but long term national park "volunteer worker" sounds OK.

Hasbeen,
I can see your point of view. However you perhaps need to consider the consequences of the throw away the key and three strikes rule.
The US has these policies and they have the largest population of internees per head per capita in the western world. It costs some harsh states more than their education budget just to keep in even.

- history has shown that if a criminal has nothing to lose then he/she simple becomes more desperate (violent) to stay out. He/she can only die once so why should they care how many they ultimately kill.

- How about those who commit crimes that are mentally disabled the state doesn't look after them any more.

- It costs to keep crims in jail about $50k (much more than an old age pensioner) each per year and that doesn't include the prisons or where you are holding them.

- Given the rate at which crims re offend and that each subsequent crime tends to increase of seriousness and cost of catching them.

I'm not necessarily thinking in terms of sympathy simply enlightened self interest. i.e. a youth goes to jail for pinching a car because he's young etc. etc. He get out a fully fledged crim (perhaps a druggie) and next time he has burgled 20 houses, bashed his girlfriend and spawned the next generation. The time after into serious stuff.

Given all these one has to wonder if there isn't a better way.

It would go some way towards a solution if the law fraternity as part of their studies were to spent 5 years out in real life/society between Graduation & actually entering the business of Law. I have witnessed it first hand how ignorant magistrates are fostering delinquents by incredulous leniency yet the victims aren't given any consideration at all. This is a direct consequence of of accumulated academic only experience.
Now, please don't come screaming back at me. I'm not implying that academic experience does not count. Of course it does but it is absolutely useless without the backbone of reality. This reality includes the fact that some people are just bad & can't be changed & need to be dealt with by way of compensating their victims. If they can't or won't then a small cell for the night & a physical labour during the day will at least make them think. those who are appalled by this attitude can always provide their address to villains & experience having their place violated & property stolen. I bet they'll change their view.