Amit asks:
“This leads me to wonder why people in jails should not be allowed to throw parties and suchlike with their own money, if they disturb no one else in the process. Sure, jails are meant to confine criminals, but besides free movement, should all the other rights that an individual normally enjoys also be suspended?”
Umm.. as long as he is talking of convicted criminals, is “Because we want criminals to suffer” a sufficient answer?
Amit’s question betrays a strange sort of clinical detachment. The question assumes that the only reason we put people in jail is to keep them out of circulation for a period so that they cannot commit crimes for that period. That is of course one reason why we put people in jail, but there are other reasons too. We want their stay in jail to be unpleasant, so that they are deterred from committing crimes in future. We also want it to be unpleasant so that others see their unpleasantness and are deterred from committing crimes.
But apart from these pragmatic points, isn’t there a real human imperative to seek justice for those they have wronged? I know that people frequently look down upon this very human desire, and its supporters often use the term “retributive justice” and try to distinguish it from “revenge”. But I don’t see the difference and which is more, I don’t see it as wrong. I was watching NDTV yesterday and they were carrying an interview of Manjunath’s parents, and his mother said between tears that she would not rest satisfied till her son’s killers were hanged – and I couldn’t bring myself to see anything wrong or despicable about her very human desire.
I am not offering her emotions as a rational justification for my point – ultimately it is a clash of value judgements. I see the need for revenge as completely human and you probably find something indecent about the desire. Neither of us can give logical justification for our positions. In addition, it is not that I feel no revulsion at all at when I look at the desire for revenge. I can understand both points of view because I can in fact “feel” both sides. I would be horrified if someone suggested that we should torture our prisoners. In fact, I know that criminals and undertrials are routinely mistreated and tortured in our jails, and I am disturbed at that. But I cannot share the cold-blooded view Amit takes to analyse if prisoners can have parties in jail.
(edit: through an oversight, I had not linked to Amit’s post.)
I largely agree with your point. There is however one other reason we put people in jail – to reform. Reforming a person will not be possible if we do not let him live a “happy” existence. The happy is in quotes because It is supposed to mean a state in which a person would feel at peace with his new incarcerated self. I am sure there is a difference between partying with friends and family and a party with the inmates of a jail – Later is not pleasure – but a temporary recluse from an otherwise isolated lif
Ravi Sahab ji!
Someone wise told that man’s mind is such that it can justify his any action and thought.What I seem to perceive in all your blogs and counterblogs is or may be the same phenomenon.Everyone is justifying and jumping on to conclusions.
However, I read your thoughts at your blogs, and they are …..
Abhishek
Also, (atleast in Abu Salems case) it could possibly be argued that the money potentially came from criminal activities and therefore should not be used for “partying” until rightful claimants get a say or it can be asceratined that own money was got lawfully.
A bit off topic (thats the way I am!) …
Reminds me of the time I was in the Pediatric ICU (quite like a jail) with my kid. I was o so upset when one day, from afternoon onwards balloons and streamers were strung around and believe it or not, there was a birthday party for a 14 year boy with his parents, grand parents, chacha-chachi, bua-whatever, mama-mami, cousins and even a cutesy girl friend! I got into my infamous mom-from-hell mode and created such a shindig about infections ICU protocol & what have you. I’d managed to scare and embarass nearly e.one with my performance till the mother of the boy (who’d been in the same ICU bed for over 9 months) came upto me and said, “This may well be the last birthday party my son has, please have a piece of cake”. Needless to say the m-f-h sublimated into a simpering so&so.
Just a perspective on a party in a not so pleasant place.
Ravi, there is no question that criminals should be punished for their crime, and on that issue I agree with you entirely.
But since you said “[w]e want [criminals’] stay in jail to be unpleasant,” may I ask you to define the scope of that “unpleasant[ness]”? Not defining the limits of that unpleasantness opens up scope for abuse, doesn’t it? For example, I think prison guards should protect prisoners from being forcibly sodomised inside prisons. And I am sure you’d agree with me on that count, no matter how much unpleasantness we want to inflict on the people concerned, most of whom will be in there for petty crimes. So where do we draw the line of how much of his rights a criminal gives away on conviction?
Somewhere.
That is the best one word answer I have heard in a long time! Too good.
I hope you weren’t being sarcastic Chetan, because I wasn’t being flippant. My point was that yes, we do need to draw the line. But the question was what factors to consider while drawing the line.
I think the way my future comments are perceived will always be tinted (tainted?) by that long comment. This comment wasn’t meant to be least bit sarcastic. If at all, it was a pot-shot at my own habit of ramblng to get my point across.
I just wished to appreciate how that one word answer encapsulated everything. It sort of acknowledged the problem, gave brief nod to the complexities and left the space open for propositions working towards a solution.
Regarding the solution. I do not agree with you completely about the necessity to take additional efforts to ensure unpleasantness. Cutting someone away from society and family/friends for a limited time and the shame it brings is by itself unpleasant. Another thing is, if the focus in on making the stay unpleasant the larger goal of reforming the criminals is lost. Programs like what Kiran Bedi did in Tihar jail might offer pointers. These programs like yoga, outdoor games, regular readings etc. made the stay for the prisoners pleasant and yet managed to achieve better long term results than any unpleasant measures adopted in Tihar jail earlier.
This might be another solution. It may sound juvenile, but I think it has some potential if implemented well. For drawing the line bring incentives into the picture. For instance, those who are serving rigorous punishment have to do productive work anyways. Make the pleasantness/unpleasantness of their stay commensurate to the amount of work they put in and the revenue it generates. The harder they work (measured through economic means) accord them better living conditions. So the least productive worker will be holed up in the worst cell. This way they have an incentive to be involved in a productive activity thus taking time away from scheming and indulging in nefarious activity such as sodomising or picking on other prisoners, fighting etc. They might learn some new skill that they may be able to apply once they come out in the real world. And for the highest class of prisoners (based on their status inside the prison depending on the revenue they have earned and not their status outside) allow partying as well. The performance can be reviewed monthly and the cells distributed accordingly for the month. For this to succeed you will have to give the prisoners the choice of which work to choose. Otherwise a person with a smaller frame may lose out if he is assigned to a physically demanding job. Now one may ask how different is this from working in a factory. The difference is that you are away from the family.friends, there is always police guarding you, you are scorned by society till you are in and most importantly you are not free.
After reading Henri Charriere’s Papillon I got convinced that unpleasantness rarely does any good. He underwent the worst case scenario, yet it hardly reformed him. If at all, unpleasant stay hardens a criminal. Besides this strategy has not worked well in reforming prisoners if one were to go by the number of repeat offenders. So its time to try a new approach. I am not suggesting this is an excellent alternative, but thought I might as well bounce off this idea.
I completely agree with you on this post. If all the provisions, that Amit pointed out, were provided to me in jail, then jail would be more comfortable than I am living on my own outside of it.
As I do not go out very much, the only time I go out is to go my office. So when I am in a jail, i do not have to go to office so no traffic problems. (I can still work from my jail cell, as i am allowed to get a broadband connection from my money, as per Amit) And yeah I do not have worry about rent and food.
So that leaves my free time to concentrate on how can I enjoy my life. Isnt it better for a convicted criminal? So what do I suffer for commiting a crime, nothing. Instead you offer me better life for being a criminal 🙂
Well, I want to add a few lines to what should happen to those who have been convicted
1) First, apart from the term they spend in Jail, they should be caned for whatever crime they have done. This will ensure that the Poor and the rich get the same kind of treatment. Because a 10000/- rs bail may not be a taxing for a rich man, but the caning would get some sense into his head.
2) Caning should be in public
3) The inmates should be used in some kind of manufacturing/production activities to generate revenue for the prisons to sustain themselves. Moreover, this will help in the inmates changing categories to skilled labor when they come out of the jails. This ofcourse, does not have relevance to the richer inmates.