Graeme Newman’s Theory
The theory of the just and the painful is based on what form of punishment is relevant rather than how much of the punishment is equal to the crime committed. The theory desires to keep criminals in prisons as a punishment for the charged laid against them. According to the theory, crime rate is increasing, forcing the prison officers to free some prisoners so that they can undergo rehabilitation while they are free. These same people go back to the society and become worse than they previously were. Eventually, more taxpayers’ money is wasted in the prisons without much result. According to Newman (1985), sending criminals to prisons is a waste of money and a wrong method of punishing the wrongdoers. This is because prisons have not succeeded in rehabilitating the prisoners or even punishing them for the wrongs committed. He asserts that every lawbreaker should pay the penalty for the wrong committed. He is stress on this replacement by corporal punishment.
According to the theory of cruel and unusual punishment, a criminal is not to be punished disproportionately compared to the crime committed. This theory seeks to protect criminals from going through violent and cruel punishment for the minor crimes committed. Previously, the punishments received were cruel as compared to present standards. This has majorly been contributed by the eighth amendment (Ten, 1987). Therefore, the kind of punishment necessary to prevent a given crime is changing with time. More and more prisoners go for rehabilitation rather than face the full punishment.
Similarities
Both theories are controversial. The law enforcers are yet to find a solution to both situations. These theories agree that a person guilty of a crime should be punished. Both of these theories are concerned with the issue of security and morality within the society.
Contrasts
The theory of just and the painful overlooks the issue of human justice and the rights of human beings. The just and the painful emphasizes the need to restrict prison terms for the hard-core criminals. The theory emphasizes the need of using the short-term electric shock as a fair efficient and meaningful punishment than allowing the hard-core criminals to undergo the long-term terrorizing and violent prison life. The author emphasizes the economic and the social breakthrough the society will experience by eliminating more prisoners. The theory prefers human torture and second chances to wrong doers in the society. This is depicted by the terms used to refer the electric shock for punishing the criminals. The author calls them humane and meaningful alternatives. The desire of the author is to solve the problem that has faced humanity for years. He desires to end crime. His desire is also to make good use of the voter’s money.
However, the theory of cruel and usual punishment is concerned with humane acts (Farina, 1979). This is the reason for the fight for less severe punishments. This theory emphasizes that the punishments given should not be too severe to be degrading human rights and privileges. This condition is very controversial as the laws are silent on some other issues, which have raised eyebrows. For instance, a person may face the same charges with the murderer for being in their company. This is deemed as controversial as they may not have participated in the acts.
References
Farina, C. R. Escape from Cruel and Unusual Punishment: A Theory of Constitutional Necessity: Cornell Law Faculty Publications. 1979. Vol. 59(2)
Newman, G. (1985). A Case for the Corporal Punishment of Criminals: Just and Painful. London: Collier Macmillan Publishers
Ten, C. L. (1987). Crime, Guilt, and Punishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.