audrey’s Weblog

A crime is seen as an offence, serious wrongdoing or sin. [1] This can be largely attributed to modernization and the materialization of socio-cultural life. Technological production creates alienation and everyone is forced to be part of this mass consumption society where people are forced to make money for survival. This results in crimes such as street crime and youth violence. Other reasons for crime are aplenty, and the types of crimes that can be committed, numerous. Punishments are put in place in an attempt to curb such crimes, to enforce proper behavior as defined by society. Thus, the issue I would like to address today is whether showing compassion for a criminal is right.  

Compassion for a criminal is a sense of mercy and leniency. I believe not all criminals deserve harsh punishment, and we need to show compassion.

Street crime, for example, is usually a result of poverty and inequality. These people feel threatened by unfriendly conditions of the city and are envious of the wealth they see around them. Hence, crime is seen as the only opportunity. Punishing such criminals would not solve the problem of vivid inequality; neither would it serve as a practical deterrence. In this case, compassion should be shown! Similarly, youth violence is also largely a result of huge social and cultural dislocation. Social marginalization and alienation has resulted in youths feeling envious, which can easily lead to violence. They see crime as a way of getting back at society, and to show their existence. It can be said that punishment for these youths is a form of deterrence. However, this does not serve to solve the problem, neither is it seen as deterrence by many of these rebellious youth. I believe compassion could be shown, in the form of lighter punishments, such as counseling or community service, instead of jail terms. This would be beneficial for these easily influenced youth who have the opportunity of setting their paths right again.

Moving on to the handling of more serious crimes, the issue of capital punishment comes to mind. Singapore is known for its stand on capital punishment. It imposes the death penalty for what it considers very serious crimes, those of drug trafficking and murder. I believe some form of compassion can be shown in this issue of capital punishment. Killing a person brings about many ethical issues – is a life for a life justified? Taking a religious stand, who are we to decide who lives and who dies? In some countries, fairness is questioned. People in the death row could be poor, and unable to afford the best defense for their trial. Hence, showing compassion and not imposing the death penalty could prevent the loss of innocent lives.  Life imprisonment as an alternative to capital punishment might allow criminals to change their ways with help. They could contribute to society by doing some form of work within the prison walls, with the small probability of them returning to society again.  

However, I have to agree that misplaced compassion can bring about tyranny. Capital and other forms of harsh punishment do serve as a form of deterrence for some criminals. Having them in place could serve to reduce crime rates. Compassion also should not be shown to mass murderers or premeditated murderers. It is difficult to change people who cheapen the value of life and believe in what they do. A hard-line stance is required.

In conclusion, compassion is required for society to lose its reservations and embrace criminals who want a second chance. Showing no mercy would only serve to perpetuate the cycle of revenge and anger. I must emphasize, however, that this cannot be said for all criminals. Hardcore criminals and mass murderers deserve punishment. Compassion should not be at the expense of putting our lives in danger.

Picture taken from: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Crime.svg