- reflections by -
Hénock Gugsa
=//=//=//=
No, no misalignment of thought there, no dyslexia of
mind processes. I am indeed thinking of punishment as something that should
precede crime at least in the philosophical investigation aspect of certain human
situations (or predicaments). This certainly is a twist or rather a reversal on the
way we view matters. We begin with the destination, the present state of
affairs, and work our way back to the beginning. I am hoping that we may shed a
different light on matters that in turn could point the way to
different outlooks. We could profit with some wisdom on how to handle future
situations. Let us think of punishments first, then let us consider what crimes
could precipitate them.
Recently, in Iran, authorities executed a billionaire
businessman who was “at the heart of a $2.6 billion state bank scam”. The
indicted man, one Mahafarid Amir Khosravi, received the maximum punishment of
death by hanging for the crime he committed during the previous regime of
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Alas, in Iran, some of the worst cases of
corruption and economic ineptitude happened between 2005 and 2013. Ahmadinejad
was too busy back then focusing his attack on foreign "satanic" powers while his country was being domestically ransacked and
ravaged by homegrown demons. And this brings us to the question of the role of
punishment as a pre-deterrent to crime. Let us examine what punishment is, what
it means, and how we should really perceive it.
To begin, punishment is a price, a penance delivered by
a person or a government body for wrongful deed or thought. Depending on the situation or
circumstance, punishment is either self-administered or exacted by an
authority. Of-course, we know that self-punishment is a result of guilt or
remorse, and it may also be due to some questionable state of mental acuity. The
type of punishment that society calls for, on the other hand, is based on a
legal or institutional framework. But, here we are in an area of philosophical
and political landmines too complex to fathom in a short essay. Suffice it to
say that punishment is what the law demands for a crime. Our concern is twofold:
How weighty is punishment and how does it affect a person before the crime is
even committed?
As we have come to know, the United States and Iran faced, almost simultaneously, similar types of crimes by despicable, and unremorseful
individuals. How did each country handle their respective cases?
In the U.S., the whole story could be summed up as a
shameful farce. The wrong doers got off practically scot-free … not even a
slap on the hand. There were massive bailouts and assessment of miscreant
financial bodies as “too-big-to-fail”.
Instead of stricter regulations or enforcement of existing rules, there were
cries for more 'freedom' for the capitalist
economy.
Iran, however, has more rigid standards and is
stricter because it cannot afford to be otherwise. Being a theocratic state
means that the conduct of individuals as it affects the nation is not taken
lightly. Crime is seen for what it is, and punishment is not necessarily an
outcome, but the mirror image. So when one thinks of committing a crime, there
is already a built-in counter-perspective that brings a person to his senses.
To go ahead with a crime in spite of everything denotes madness, garden-variety
sociopathy, or plain stupidity.
Back in the old days, before modernity crept in, the United States used to aspire to uphold the law unbendingly and even to spread an individualistic sense of right and wrong as a social mantra. Punishment was swift and severe as many horse thieves, poachers, and cattle rustlers would attest. After all, the wrongful dispossession of people’s property could literally mean the endangerment of their lives. When people committed crimes, they knew very well how it would end if they got caught, and so they were always on the run. They were outlaws, and they knew their days were numbered.
In recent years, however, criminals don’t even seem to be aware of the concept of punishment. It has sadly become an after-the-fact realization. Why should law offenders be concerned with punishment? They see a lot of crime go unpunished, they see men of power or wealth almost always beating the system. There is mob crime, and Wall Street crime. What is the difference? What the heck?
Then there are the politicians … what piece of work they are? We last had a presidential candidate who:
- vociferously claimed corporations were human beings
-didn’t think 47% of the populace were with him, and that was okay [he didn’t need them, they were
moochers and losers anyways.]
- didn’t want to make public his off-shore holdings as it
was nobody’s business, and
- thought he could lie with a straight face about his
accomplishments [and people wouldn’t see straight through him].
Well, to be sure, things are not perfectly rosy right now, but they
sure would have been a hell of a lot worse if that man had become President.
Think of the message that would have sent across the country: no more need for responsiveness
and what was that ‘responsibility’ thing
you were talking about?
So, in conclusion, there is one undeniably urgent task
for America to undertake. We need to put the horse before the cart: let us emphasize
and enforce punishment ahead of any discussion of a severe antisocial behavior
(i.e. a crime). Punishment of a crime is not a crime. And indeed, the lack of punishment for a crime is far worse than the crime itself.
