COMMENSAL ISSUE 95

(Review of Mensa at Braziers Weekend, September 1998)

The Mensa conference on Crime, Punishment and Society held at Braziers on 25-27 September was one of the series originated by the late Eric Hills. Members of the PDG were invited, would have been very welcome, and would certainly have enhanced the proceedings with their ideas, but none, apart from myself, attended. Theo, who was to have presented a paper, had to drop out because of a surge of work.

The six men and seven women from many different backgrounds generated a wide diversity of ideas in the course of over ten hours of formal sessions. There was little by way of polarisation, e.g. between "left-" and "right-wing" views, as might have been expected with such an emotive subject. At one stage, we split into two smaller groups which led to the more active participation of some members who seemed rather shy of discussing in the full sessions.

In my introductory talk "Society gets the Crime it Deserves" I asked why some members of our society commit crimes? Although quite prevalent in "folk" morality, it seemed to me unnecessary to invoke some supra-natural agency. In my view, we are not born "evil" (or indeed "good"), but morally neutral; nor should we assume that some form of "en-devilment" has to occur later in life to account for criminal behaviour. I take an agnostic view on religious matters, and do not see how the idea of the soul answers the question. Again, I believe that our genetic inheritance is morally neutral, and I am sceptical of some recent reports which attempt to relate certain gene-patterns to later criminality.

We are therefore left with environmental factors in the individual’s nurturing processes. Some of the most powerful factors that determine an individual’s eventual character and personality probably occur in infancy and early childhood, when the parental influence is greatest. This process is extremely complex and little understood. It is normally followed by about a dozen years of family life and schooling. Essentially, parents and teachers are expected to take children having widely varying basic physical, mental and emotional characteristics, which are inherited but which are only vaguely understood, and to convert them into socially-adjusted, moral beings. There is almost infinite scope for things to go wrong, and for undesirable characteristics of personality development, including criminal tendencies, to be produced. Mistakes can occur, and remain unrecognised and uncorrected, through accident, neglect, or ignorance, but the results can be profound.

But crime is not usually considered in this light. Someone who has committed a crime is regarded as a "person", an independent entity who is expected to know right from wrong, is therefore "guilty", and has to be "punished". How do these terms in quotes relate to the process described in the previous paragraph? In the face of misbehaviour (whether of childish naughtiness or serious crime) the popular reaction is to reject the nature-plus-nurture view, and to return, implicitly, to an image of the person as having a supra-natural or spiritual source - an autonomous being upon whom guilt can be attached, and punishment inflicted. This attitude clearly has religious overtones, but I suspect its prevalence has more to do with the reluctance of parents, teachers and others to accept that they themselves played a part in the process leading to the individual’s behaviour. (They may, of course, admit to having admonished the culprit at various times, and not having been listened to.) The media and public seem to divide the law-abiding and the criminals into two quite separate species, rather than as being members of the same community, and to build up the problem of crime around that distinction.

In the conference, John Maxwell led a discussion on the problems of imposing punishment, of the difference between the utilitarian and the retribution approaches. We debated the special cases of child-killers, and killers of children, and of how to deal with compulsive behaviour like paedophilia. (If the behaviour is compulsive, what is the point of punishment?) We discussed the views of Stephen Tumin (ex-HMI of Prisons), relating to the commoner types of crime - that from the moment the convicted person goes to prison he should be actively helped to lead a law-abiding and useful life [on release].

However, just as the moral majority is reluctant to accept a share of responsibility for the production of criminals, they are generally no more ready to share in eventual reconciliation. They, and especially the victims of such serious crimes as murder, rape, etc., have the right to expect the state to carry out retribution on the offender, e.g. to impose a term of imprisonment. But should not that the same public, including the victims, have the responsibility to try to re-absorb the individual after his imprisonment back into the community, and to bring about a reconciliation? This process may not come naturally, and cannot be easy. The media could do much to guide public opinion in that direction. Instead, the media, especially the popular press and TV, more often exacerbate the situation. Given any opportunity, perhaps years later, they will interview the victims or their relatives and obtain from them assertions of continuing grief and implacability. Even the churches, whom one might expect to preach repentance and forgiveness in general, seem to make little headway in this area.

In summary, then, while deploring the prevalence of crime, we regard criminals as some kind of aliens, rather than the result of failures by society in the processes involved in producing its future citizens. And when a criminal is brought to justice, and duly punished (assuming that is the proper response) we are reluctant to re-incorporate him or her into the community. In both these areas, the media and other agencies that form public opinion tend to reinforce this attitude, and resist changes which would improve the whole moral climate.

One wonders whether crime has not become an essential part of our diet. How would our appetite for crime and punishment be satisfied if by some miracle there were a real, major reduction in the crime rate? Perhaps my talk should have been entitled "Society gets the Crime it Desires".

Leslie Haddow

Leslie : I evidently missed a lot by my absence ! I strongly agree with you that "criminals" are not some sort of pestilential sub-species to be exterminated, which seems to be the prevalent view in some US circles. However, I disagreed with you over your apparent willingness to deprive us all of our myth of autonomy.

The maintenance of this myth is essential as a motivator. If we’re successful at anything, we want to take some responsibility for those of our actions that lead to our success. We do well, usually, because of a combination of natural ability and hard work. We resist the view that it’s all due to our genes and environment and nothing to do with us. So, if we’re to be responsible for the good that happens to us, or that we do, we, and therefore others (unless we consign them to a sub-species) have to take responsibility for the bad. I must say that I’d like to think that I’d "take the rap" for something I’d intentionally done, rather than plead insanity, diminished responsibility or make myself out to be a victim of society. I can’t bear victims who the day before were autonomous menaces ! Something for discussion at the Determinism vs Free Will debate ?

I was astonished by your throw away line on compulsions as exceptionally not being subject to punishment. We have compulsions to bite our nails and do other minor anti-social acts that we either manage to bring under control ourselves or do so with the assistance of punishment. Why should major compulsions like paedophilia be anything different ?

I think the problem with punishment as retribution is that it has to be "an eye for an eye ..." for it to work. The problem these days, if you take a retributive stance on punishment is that the punishment no longer fits the crime, so the criminal doesn’t "pay his debt to society", let alone to those bereft of the victim. Killers aren’t killed, so there’s no catharsis. I agree that forgiveness, or else taking the law into one’s own hands, is the only way forward for the individual. All else just ends up as an impotent and festering rage.

Theo