Terrorism and punishment— Sir : In your leader of 19
February (Terrorist crime and punishment) you implicitly or explicitly discuss four possible reasons for judicial punishment : retribution, protection of society, deterrence and correction of the offender. Where the last is concerned, and with particular reference to Miss Mendleson, parole is often preferable to remaining in grossly overcrowded cells surrounded by criminal types.
However, there is a further reason of some importance. Certain stiff penalties also serve simply as an affirmation of society's moral values—particularly in reply to the vile things of the IRA. This was the way in which Lord Shawcross and others accounted for the Nuremberg Trials in 1946.
How heartily I concur with your view of deterrence. Last year [was obliged to debate capital punishment at six different American universities. On each occasion the usual barrage of dubious statistics was fired in my direction, the sort sociologists at obscure universities tend to quote. But whatever else they do or do not prove, such figures never allow for the fact that each time punishment works successfully as a deterrent a crime is not committed. That cannot appear in their statistics.
Peter Bazalgette Cloud End, Aldington, Near Ashford, Kent
Previous page
