Home President's Corner President's Message No TV for a week!... For a month!... For a year!… For life!

President's Corner

President's Message

No TV for a week!... For a month!... For a year!… For life!

Criminalization in Our Society

On the day my son caused a flood in the basement, I understood why the media and the general public often cry out for harsher sentences.

When I opened the bathroom door to find the faucet open and the water still running, I yelled, “No TV for you!”

In assessing the damage caused by the flooding in the basement, my anger increased and I lengthened the duration of punishment: for a week! No, that’s not enough! The computer is damaged: for a month! Oh, no! All the books in the bookcase are wet: no TV for a year…

When I realized that the sofa in the basement had also been damaged, my heart sank… My aunt’s sofa – that did not belong to me – had not escaped the flood. It seemed to me that there was no punishment tough enough to express my anxiety over the losses caused by the flood, the result of the foolishness of leaving a tap open for a whole day. I was just a breath away from saying, “No TV for life!”

Upon reflection, all the theories of scolding and punishment came to mind and I understood the importance of reflecting on the repercussions of the punishment, even if saying “No TV for life!” gave me a certain degree of satisfaction. I reacted in a way that surprised me: I forbade him to leave the tap open for more than two minutes!

The upheaval caused by the damage is understandable, and it is also normal to want to respond with a severe punishment and making it a criminal offence! However, some reflection is necessary.

In many contexts, we are offended by the behaviour of others. Their actions cause or could cause damage. We judge and, often, we “punish” the other person. There is a wide variety of punishments: friends punish one another by not talking to each other. Parents punish their children by forbidding them from watching TV, by temporarily grounding them or even by taking away their weekly allowance. Employers punish their employees by reprimanding them, by eliminating their bonuses or simply by firing them. Anyone who has ever tried to “punish” someone else knows that it must be done with discretion. Using the stick rather than the carrot has an impact on the relationship itself.

Criminalization is like using a big stick. Qualifying an act as criminal means calling on the most coercive elements of our society: the police, the criminal justice system, incarceration or other alternatives. It can be compared to the punishment of a child: one must live not only with the perpetrator of the criminal act as with the punished child, but also with the person who was criminalized as with the child who has been punished.

During the month when my son was forbidden from watching TV, I noticed several side effects. The whole family felt the effect of “criminalization” by punishment: his brothers and sisters monopolized the television and excluded him from conversations. His younger sister felt that the punishment was unfair and too harsh and she was angry with her parents. She gave him candy without my permission and we had to decide how to react to these indirect effects. Should we also punish his sister for providing the contraband candy? We also had to ensure that the punished child was watched. His younger, smuggling sister was very happy to let him watch television when we weren’t there.

After having helped me mop up and clean up the mess, my son had already learned his lesson. I wondered if the punishment was still warranted. Should I grant him “parole” after two weeks of good behaviour? What most surprised me in this whole affair was seeing him excluded from activities with his brothers and sisters and that he was perceived as the bad apple in the family.

In a way, criminalization affects social relationships: it creates outcasts and marginalizes individuals. It is also very expensive: from the cost of law enforcement to the cost or reintegration. It also affects the ability of those who are criminalized to work and contribute to society. Criminalization certainly has its place in some cases, but is it always good to criminalize in order to resolve social problems?

When should we criminalize? What are the alternatives to criminalization? When is it appropriate to use one behaviour modification mechanism over another? How do we use these mechanisms properly?

Such are the questions that the Law Commission of Canada is asking as part of its “What is a Crime?” project. It is a question of clarifying the consequences of the reflex to criminalize social problems. It is also a matter of assessing the alternatives to criminalization, government regulation or that of the private sector. We must also examine the influence of less coercive sectors of our society: is it sufficient to let social pressure, education, culture, religion and the media influence our behaviour? Are there matters for which this intervention is, in the end, more effective?

Please send us any comments you may have on this matter.