David Horton points out that whenever there is a court case involving violence the journalists always want to know whether the criminal has shown remorse.
It is part of the package of law reporting (did the victim cry; was the sentence too light - of course it was; did victim's family achieve closure; did the expression on the criminal's face change when the sentence was read out; will the lawyers appeal; did the criminal show remorse) from the media.
Mr. Horton raises this point in another context, but it has some relevance especially with the renewed 'tough on crime' approach the Federal government is taking.
I have little sympathy with the concept of giving criminals endless second chances -- but I also see no point in being tough on crime for ideology only. Crime should be seen as a costly social ill and dealt with in the most effective manner possible. To say "we were elected to be tough on crime and will be regardless of the evidence" is foolish -- government is there to govern. Leave blind faith the credulous religions.
Remorse, in such a context, is mere theatre. In a typical case a criminal is sorry ... that they were caught. And so remorse is artificial at best. To demand it as a normal part of the criminal process (a 'healing' as it is sometimes called) is to mistake theory for reality.
If expressions of remorse make crime less likely to re occur I'm all for them. But otherwise let's treat crime in an evidence based way and impose such measures -- whether punishment or treatment or just plain separation of criminals from society -- as limits crime.
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
1 comment:
I have little sympathy with the concept of giving criminals endless second chances -- but I also see no point in being tough on crime for ideology only. Crime should be seen as a costly social ill and dealt with in the most effective manner possible.
Quite right - but then you have populist stances that remove reason.
Post a Comment