The Role of Punishment in Crime Control Does

“The Role of Punishment in Crime Control: Does more severe Punishment help? “ Helmut Kury Athens EPANADOS Workshop on Recidivism 5 th of July, 2019

To Punish or to Prevent? - Since the beginning of mankind we try to reduce crime and antisocial behavior first by punishment. - If punishment does not help, we increase the severity of punishment, especially in cases of severe crime, that is: more of the same. An example is the „War on Drugs“ in the USA.

Is Crime a new Topic? - In The Bibel are cases of morder and other crimes (s. Buggle 1992) - Old Information from Sumer (Keller 1989): „The juveniles don‘t respect elderly persons, shows willingly a bad behaviour, plans to change the society, is not motivated to learn and refuses traditional values“. - Sokrates (469 -399 bef. Chr. ): „The juveniles today like luxury, shows bad behaviour and despises authority, has no respect to elderly people and chats instead to work. The young people do no more get up if elderly persons enter the room. They contradict their parents, swagger in society, swalley at tabel sweets, cross their legs and tyrannize the teachers“. - Aristoteles (384 -322 v. Chr. ): „I have absolutely no hope for the future of our country, when our juveniles will be the men of tomorrow. Our juveniles are unbearable, irresponsible and terrible to view. “ 3

Bible, Old Testament Levitikus 20, 1 -27: Death Penalty - Death penalty for child misuse, stoning. - If the people don‘t use the death penalty god will kill all the group. - Death penalty for adultery and more „crimes“.

Roland Rechtsreport 2019 In cases of juveniles: The punishment More severe punishment today is too mild Pop. alltog. West-G East-G 16 -29 -Y. 30 -44 -Y. 45 -59 -Y. 60 -Y. older 62 % 59 % 75 % 39 % 60 % 61 % 75 % 54 % 52 % 63 % 43 % 55 % 51 % 61 %

Global Prison Trends 2019 - The number of prisoners increased from 2002 to 2015 worldwide by 20 %. - The Death Penalty decreased, also in USA. - Livelong imprisonment increased from 2000 to 2018 by 84 %. - The punishment of Drug users has no preventive effect but increased the number of prisoners. - Private Prisons in USA: a Scandal (business)

More Punishment – Less Crime? Which Effects have severe Sanctions? - The example Germany - The example Finland - The example Portugal - The example USA

Germany

Thomas Morus (1516; 1992): „Utopia“. S. 51: In a discussion a person said, he is very wondering that all over the country there are so many thieves although only few escape the death penalty.

Rates of Killings in 5 Europ. Countries (Eisner 2001, S. 83)

Imprisonment – or not? !

Inhaftierungsquoten (Inhaftierte/100. 000 Bevölkerung) USA Russia Georgien Polen Kasachstan Weißrussland Ukraine Israel Türkei Litauen Estland Aserbaidschan Turkmenistan Tschechei Griechenland 666 420 281 199 275 306 195 240 238 302 218 236 583 192 91 Slowakei Spanien Ungarn Engl. u. Wales Canada Frankreich Niederlande Germany Schweiz Schweden Dänemark Norwegen Japan Finland Island Schleswig-Holstein: 53, 0 (Relation to USA: 1 : 13, 02) 187 140 180 148 106 100 75 77 84 60 61 71 49 57 45

Imprisonment (rates)

R+V-Versicherung 2018 14

R+V-Versicherung 2018 15

TV and crime reports Hestermann Präventionstag 2016

Effects of Diversion – Germany (Heinz)

Effects of Diversion - CH

3 Strikes – Effects (Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, California)

Finland

Finnland (Lappi-Seppälä 2010)

Portugal

The Example Portugal

The Example Portugal

The Example Portugal

USA

USA - Death Penalty - Three Strikes - Zero Tolerance (GB: „No Excuse“) - More strict Policing - Truth in Sentencing - War on Drugs

California Prison Population (1851 - 2010) (Center on Juv. & Crim. Just. – CJCJ – http: //www. cjcj. org/drug/policy/interest/groups/and/criminal/justice/policy)

Inhaftierungszahlen/1000, USA, Australien, Europa (Hinds, in: Pratt 2005, S. 54)

Violent Crime in NY City: „Zero Toler. “ (Jasch 2003)

Crime Drop in different Cities USA (Jasch 2003) Seattle Boston Dallas New York C. Violent Crimes 93 => 94 -11 -13, 6 -2, 2 -8, 8 Los Angeles -13, 3 Violent Crimes 93 => 01 -59, 0 -48, 2 -36, 5 -16, 1 -41, 5 Murder 1993 => 2001 -69, 4 -65, 1 -37, 9 -35, 2 -48, 9

Property Crime Rate (per 100. 000) in Canada and USA (Winterdyk and King, 2001, in Kury and Shea: Punitivity, Vol. 3, p. 104)

Violent Crime Rate (per 100. 000) in Canada and USA (Winterdyk and King, 2001, in Kury and Shea: Punitivity, Vol. 3, p. 104)

The Effects of Sanctions

Death Penalty Information Center (www. deathpenaltyinfo. org/documents/Fact. Sheet. pdf)

Kury, H. , Shea, E. (Eds. ): Punitivity. International Developments. 3 Vols. , Bochum/Germany 2011. - A big research project of the University of Heidelberg/Germany (Dölling et al. 2011) shows: „ … it appears that deterrent effects depend on the risk of being discovered and not on the severity of punishment and that they appear more often with minor infringements of norms. The deterring effect of criminal law must thus be looked at in a differentiating model” – and: „There are cases where deterrence can influence behaviour – the death penalty, however, does not seem to belong to these measures”.

Andrews u. Bonta (2010). Rehabilitating criminal Justice Policy and Practice. Psycchology, Public Policy and Law 16, 39 -55. S. 42: Why has sharp punishment no effect: - Punishment must be hart, otherwise tolerance and only short-time effects - Punishment must be immediately (s. a. Bliesener u. Thomas, ZJJ 2012, S. 382 ff. ) - Punishment must be for all crimes, but: Dark Number Problem! - No chance for gratification for deviant behaviour, but: very often the offender is the „hero“ in his group, especially in cases of juvenile delinquency.

Why is sharp punishment (imprisonment) not helpful to reduce crime rate? - Especially severe crimes are committed in specific unique situations - Problematic socialization experiences reduce the deterrent effect of punishment - Severe offenders very often belong to subgroups, are not integrated in society, they find more positive feedback in their deviant groups - For juveniles especially to „win“ against the „court“ can have a positive reinforcement by the peer-group. - Prisonization effects are contra-productive - Incaceration has the effect of stigmatization (also for family and children), loss of positive networks, loss of family and partnership

What should be done(1)? - Incarceration is useful (necessary) for real dangerous offenders – a relatively small group - For most offenders alternatives should be used – may be after a short imprisonment - The first aim of incarceration should not be punishment – but reintegration: the offender should have this feeling - The behavior of the prisoner should be more related to the „handling“ of imprisonment, „self efficiency“, reinforcement by more and more open the prison - Respect to the prisoners – to reinforce their positive behavior (L. Alison, Liverpool, police-interrogations)

Thank you very much helmut. kury@web. de