Social acceptance of punishment has varied over the centuries. The reconfiguration of the exercise of authority and power has continuously reassessed its form, increasingly circumscribed by the guarantee of universally recognized human rights, such as the right to physical and moral integrity and protection against torture.
Nevertheless, punishment continues to be commonplace in Catalonia as a disciplinary tool, both in the private and public spheres, and its appropriateness in areas such as education, justice and public safety gives rise to much debate. In fact, the origin and evolution of criminal law and punishment, as well as one of its greatest exponents, prison, has been one of the topics that has generated the most interest and discussion in the fields of political philosophy, criminology and sociology. This attention contrasts, however, with the lack of scrutiny carried out by political parties and citizens. Often, in the face of an unprecedented violent act, a vengeful attitude is adopted and advocacy emerges from quite an uncritical position in favor of more control and repression or for a tougher stance regarding criminal punishment, which is known as punitivism.
How is punitivism expressed in security and justice?
First of all, it is important to point out that defending the punishment of a crime is not the same as upholding a punitivist logic. While the former refers to the ordinary penal or formal coercive response to combat violence and impunity, punitivism is a system of beliefs and practices where punishment and its endurance is always the main appeal and the only essential means for the resolution of conflicts. The institutionalization of punishment is represented by the punitive power of the state. The so-called ius puniendi is the state’s power to punish by means of the two existing repressive orders in our law: criminal law and administrative punitive law. This punitive power is subject to certain limiting axioms, such as the “principle of proportionality of the sentence” and, in theory, it must also act as an ultima ratio; that is to say, it can only be applied by the state as a last resort, when other mechanisms have proven to be inefficient. However, punishment is often imposed for behavior considered uncivil or violent by a conservative ideological framework. Additionally, it also fulfills a symbolic function before being applied: the generation of fear as a deterrent. The threat of punishment, and of an even worse consequence, is one of the most common tactics to guarantee social order.
On the one hand, deterrence is based on the idea that the latent warning of negative consequences can mitigate the motivation to act. Thus, fear would not only prevent criminal behavior, but also avoid dissident behavior and maintain the status quo. On the other hand, fear also plays a decisive role in everyday life when the possibility of being the victim of a crime, even if it is minimal, conditions one’s own perception of security. As a result, political parties often exploit fear and defend vague analyses and urgent measures to tackle violence or other conflicts of coexistence as a miraculous solution even though this may imply a curtailment of democratic guarantees and of rights and liberties.
At the same time, the current flow of information facilitates the rise of punitive populism – the increase of social demands in favor of punishment – based on standardized arguments devoid of reflection. News spreads quickly and often goes viral, with numerous legitimized voices, especially on social media, that become opinion makers. Thus, in the face of any conflict, citizens also often demand tough and visible responses, such as a larger police force, more security and a toughening of sentences.
In order to analyze the social appropriateness of punishment, we must ask ourselves: What do we seek with punishment? What is the objective? If the aim is to neutralize a violent outbreak, it can have an immediate effect. However, if we broaden our view, we should bear in mind that there is no data that supports it as an effective measure to transform conflicts positively or reduce crime rates in the medium and long term. In the end, punishment is established as a violent relationship per se. This is the origin of the expression “two wrongs (crime and punishment) don’t make a right.” Since it does not focus on the cause or take into account other underlying forms of violence, it is often applied to people who are socially discriminated against or who are in a situation of greater vulnerability. In addition, since it does not seek positive transformation, violence simply changes its form, moves from one place to another or repeats itself over time.
Punitivism is therefore a simplistic and highly ineffective way to address the complexity and multicausality of violence, but it is true that it feeds a vicious circle between the political and personal spheres: In the absence of other relational models of reference, we often reproduce punitive impulses, we sentence quickly and we turn our thirst for revenge into our horizon of action, and we embrace it without caution or moderation. When we dedicate more energy to seeking an immediate release than to figuring out how we can prevent certain behaviors from repeating themselves, we are contributing to the perpetuation of violence. We need to be aware that, from an individual perspective, punishment leads to discomfort, resentment and progressive withdrawal; from a social perspective, it generates insecurity and mistrust and, consequently, the breaking of social bonds and individualism.
What are the alternatives?
In the area of security, the proposed alternatives are based on an investment in social policy as opposed to punitive policy. This implies strengthening the prevention of violence by dealing with its causes and the contexts in which it occurs, and promoting conflict prevention, that is, fostering the acquisition of the skills needed to deal with conflict peacefully. This anti-punitivist framework also implies the launching of processes of dialogue and participation with the population, and the promotion of coordinated responses at various levels – institutional, social and policing. It has been demonstrated that professionals not traditionally linked to security, such as street educators or community mediators, can promote projects with a clear impact on improving the quality of coexistence and reducing violence.
In the field of justice, and in contrast to retributive justice, the promotion of a restorative approach focuses mainly on finding the most appropriate and constructive way to repair the damage caused by the action, and to restore, as much as possible, the welfare of everyone involved. Restorative justice promotes the active participation of both the victim and the accused and, if necessary, also of the community. Its aim is to promote a comprehensive approach to violence, understood as a violation of people’s relationships and rights. Although it is unusual to speak in terms of punishment, it does not absolve anyone of obligations and responsibilities. Along these lines, the Restorative Justice Framework Program was approved in Catalonia in 2024, and restorative actions complementary to sentencing have been implemented for years. These actions include penal mediation, accountability interviews with the perpetrators and dialogue circles. Additionally, less severe mechanisms than imprisonment or fines are applied, such as Alternative Penal Measures (MPA) and Alternative Measures to Economic Sanctions (MASE). These measures have a clear and explicit educational purpose and they seek to strengthen the bond with the community through work, cultural engagement or training. All these actions are obtaining very positive results in the reparation of victims, the improvement of coexistence and the reduction of recidivism.
In any case, anti-punitive practices highlight the importance of interdependence and are based on the ability of individuals and communities to act creatively and collectively in promoting a culture of peace as opposed to one of punishment. Although we all experience punitive impulses, and they are understandable and even inevitable at times, they are not rationales to be accepted uncritically or legitimized if what we seek is to not exacerbate the conflict or to obtain guarantees of non-repetition. Our sense of justice and our way of seeking security cannot be an excuse to dehumanize others, and to enjoy doing so, because then we reproduce abusive patterns. We must be clear: violence always begets more violence. Proposing reactive and coercive measures is the quickest and easiest option, but not the most effective. The use of punishment as an imperative fuels a state of permanent alarm and, at the same time, promotes segregation, inequality and disengagement, which are risk factors in the commission of reprehensible or criminal acts. Slow and deliberate comprehensive responses are more time-consuming and complex, but they are the only ones that can ensure more transformative results.
Article originally published in Catalan in the journal Valors on 18 December 2024.