Sia,—There seems to be something strangely unreal about almost any
correspondence on " crime and. punishment ": the disputants seem to be writing at cross-purposes. The idealistic reformers (otherwise called sentimentalists) point out, perfectly justly, that mere severity is no remedy and that no criminal is likely to be turned into a good citizen merely by methods of intimidation and deterrence. The prac- tical realists (otherwise called reactionaries) point out not less justly that long-term humane methods in themselves guarantee no present increase of security, and that law-abiding members of society have a primary right to protection. Both positions are incontrovertible, but neither is an argument against the other; and it would appear obvious that we have somehow to combine them.
It is in fact foolish to discuss the problem except in reference to both a long-term and a short-term, policy. As regards the former, surely the idealists are right. We need a far more vigorous prosecu- tion of every sort of accredited social therapy, economic, psychological. educational, to cope more effectively with the conditions which breed delinquency and the anti-social mind. But all this takes time; its efIcels are not garnered in the immediate future; and in the meantime the realists are surely right in claiming that existing anti-social Iffembei. of our community (such as " cosh-boys ") may be more promptly sus- ceptible to deterrent than to reformative influences. They are wrong only if they imply that deterrence is sufficient in itself, or may be made so effective that security may be achieved by it alone. The saying of Joubert, quoted in another context by Matthew Arnold, seems relevant here: " Force till • right is ready "; " deterrence," may we not say ? " until re-education' has had time to become successful enough to render it largely unnecessary."
It 'will then become an empirical question what treatment provides in fact the most effective deterrents. Some people may have to concede that physidal, gain, though the most obvious, is not always, or even often, the most telling. But others will also have to admit that the quasi-Manichean attitude which regards all deterrent methods as evil per se and under all circumstances will have to be abandoned,. even if the authority of some psychiatrists could be invoked in its defence.
It would seem then that both the sentimentalists and the reaction- aries (if 1 may use their less complimentary names) are in this 'matter one-sided, and therefore silly. But because the former have the' longer. view and in essentials -the deeper wisdom, it is they who have the less excuse for being so.—Yours faithfully,
University of Leeds.
JOHN W. HARVEY.
Previous page
