Terrorist crime and punishment
The case of Anna Mendleson and others like it raise profound questions. The Opposition Members who rounded dri the Government on Monday might have pondered them before producing their somewhat hackneyed lines. In the particular case of Miss M endleson there is every reason to think that the parole board—not, it must be remembered, the Government, although the Home ecretary consented to the board's recommendation°. as acted wisely as well as kindly. Here was a foolish and ,IMPressionable girl caught up in a political fad which °ecame horribly perverted. But she was more dupe than monster, and her crimes at least caused no loss of life. All t,he evidence suggests that she has, in the most literal sense, !earnt her lesson. Her release has been motivated purely bY considerations of humanity and sense, rather than n3tPediency : a contrast indeed to the release of K haled by 'de last Tory administration (and, perhaps, to Mr Rees's decision to expel Messrs Agee and Hosenball). The wider issues are certainly more problematic. Our scitY has never properly decided, or attempted to „ec, tde, what is the purpose of the punishment of crimi; and this, while it may seem a matter of philosophical Interest. does make a resolution of practical problems uch harder. Is punishment pure deterrence, or pure etribution, or part of both ? There is a respectable arguiMent for retributive punishment, which most 'harditiners' on penal affairs are in fact too squeamish to use. In ,".s most sophisticated form it holds that punishment is a mnd of negative reward to the law-abiding. On the other hand, liberals tend to be disingenuous or simply dishonest about the deterrent effect of punishment. Refuge is usually taken in the difficulties of objectively measuring deterrence value—this in an area where scientific criteria are inherently not applicable. In fact, punishment does deter, as it deters honest citizens from, let us say, parking offences. The deterrent effect is of especial importance in the case of terrorist crime. It is an inescapable fact that political terrorists such as the IRA men recently convicted in London believe that they will never have to serve the full and severe sentences imposed upon them. But that is a problem not to be confused with cases such as Miss Mendleson's. The thugs of the IRA think that they are going to have their political way and that some form of amnesty will eventually be part of it. There is plenty of melancholy evidence around the world and over the years to give plausibility to such a belief.
Terrorism is a disease to which modern, civilised society is peculiarly vulnerable. It is vital that the vigorous surgery of tough punishment is used against it and that men of violence know that they face both the likelihood of detection and the harshest of penalties. But to try to protect decency by indecent measures is absurd. There is no purpose served by confining a penitent, broken woman in prison. We wish to show that, in Gladstone's words the resources of civilisation are not exhausted. It will be best done by showing those who wish to destroy civilisation that the war on terrorism is compatible with the true humanity which they are trying to destroy.
