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.

Individual,
There is some merit in your comments but what do we do with the prison culture?

All that harsh prisons do is create harsher criminals we the public suffer the losses they cause as well as the violence etc.
Also read my comment on costing. Surely we can do better?

Locking them up with hard labour just doesn't work.
The problem is our system is based on a dubious concept of justice ...one size fits nobody. Some juveniles would be better served by victim conferencing i.e. make the little buggers face their victims in a controlled environment.

Some need scared straight ' lock them up in a big prison (isolation) over night' after a controlled session with real crims.'

Some real hard cases at 16-17 should be treated like adults.

Most of all some need to be given a better reason (positive) to go straight.
There is no point locking a crim up for 5-7 years and then releasing him with no more skills than he started with except those from other crims then there's the 'inside' contacts.
The real issue is preventative action with the tear away children before they get to be serious problems for everyone else and it costs several times more.
As I said to Hasbeen I'm not necessarily going soft but It's enlightened self interests. I don't want my tax going down the drain for out a good reason. Current system hardly controls crime escallating.
What do with the white collar crooks

It is my most sincere opinion & not mere redneck philosophy that the rise in crime is directly linked to incompetent law makers.
How many law makers do not have an academic background ?
Why do they discourage trial by jury ? Because jurors come from all walks of life & when they come to a sensible conclusion it irritates the lawyers because then the money trail ends !
Is prison the answer for crims ? definately ! The key word is Prison ok, not motel with exercise room & better educational facilities & support than is available for decent folk.
I find it just so discriminating when I hear of some prisoner getting free education & re-enter society with a degree or other qualification whilst decent people can't afford the time & money to attend a Tafe course.
Treat a criminal as a criminal & afford him human courtesy only when he can prove that he/she attained human qualities. On the other hand if a wrongful conviction is made then every effort must be made to compensate the wrongfully convicted without delay & to the fullest extent of lost property & finances.

Individual,
As I said that's fine but have you got any evidence of your uncompromising position?
I do not deny your right to your opinion or bias/prejudice.

I am often in conflict with some who don't seem to make the distinction between an opinion (a conclusion developed by reason and evidence) and a prejudice/bias (a perspective that doesn't require evidence or reasoning).
The first is an subject open to discussion ( a swapping of evidence proofs and reasons for the conclusions logic patterns etc.) the other isn't.

I have opinions and prejudices but make the effort (learn, change my mind) to overcome the latter in favour of fact based opinions.

If some one has a deeply held bias and I know it, within certain boundaries, I try to accept that and avoid conversation for conversation sake, which only ends up in fights etc. (waste of time all round).
The difficulty is sometimes working out which the poster is putting up.
I am always open to being proved wrong or hearing a different fact based conclusions.

A good example is I am not religious but some are I therefore avoid conversations on that topic unless it's on a factual level.
I hope this helps to understand my stance

Do I have evidence of my uncompromising position ? I'm uncertain of what you mean by that.
I accept that I sound uncompromising but as a victim of discrimination, theft & official corruption I can assure you that I have made a point of assessing the situation from another viewpoint. I simply can not see any merit in not punishing an offender. People often favour rehabilitation. Sounds good but, rehabilitate to what ? to their former condition ? hang on, wasn't being bad their former condition ? Why on earth rehabilitate them to being bad again ?
Only this afternoon I was listening to an indigenous Lady talking about the ineffective law system when dealing with young offenders. You know what ? It was like listening to myself. She stated the same simple facts that law pussy-foots around with young offenders & the victims , in her case a single mother was left with the damage bill, are ignored. I really can't comprehend why some people are so lenient & forgiving to those who cause so much grief to others. And yes, when it comes to that I am uncompromising because I have been at the receiving end of our judicial system. If I am wrong than so be it !

Examinator,

I can follow your logic that the current system is not rehabilitating criminals well enough. And I can follow your logic that extra training, support, even mentorship may assist in achieving better outcomes.
In isolation, that suggestion is a good one. But let me put that same suggestion to you in a different way.
As an unskilled, unemployed non-criminal you need to find money for food and shelter, jobseek to get the dole, and at the same time organise and pay for training to upskill yourself and make yourself more employable.
Alternatively, you could start committing crimes. Either you will get away with it and have more money etc. Or you will get caught, locked up, fed, sheltered, paid a wage, get provided with training to upskill you and get assistance with finding a job when you get released.
To me that doesn't sound fair to law abiding citizens.

I also think you need to consider the effect on the public. Unsuccessfully releasing criminals means the law abiding public is exposed to more risk of being robbed, raped, murdered. When does the goal of rehabilitating criminals outweigh the protection that needs to be afforded to law abiding citizens?

Maybe we do need to go back to the times when prison meant you had to do hard labour or as you suggested, victim confrontation and maybe even redemption.
I reckon let's get our $50,000 worth out of the criminals. There are a lot of roads out there that could use some upgrading. Actually as I am writing this I've realised that would help with upskilling them anyway.