Alternative punishment as a suitable alternative to imprisonment

Journal of Education Culture and Society No. 2_2022 39 Alternative punishment as asuitable alternative to imprisonment Lýdia Lešková Faculty of Theology Košice, Department of Social Sciences Catholic University in Ružomberok Hlavná 89, 041 21 Košice, Slovakia E-mail adress: [email protected] ORCID: https://orcid.org/ 0000-0002-8483-0313 Lenka Haburajová Ilavská Faculty of Humanities Tomas Bata University in Zlin Štefánikova 5670, 760 01 Zlín, Czech Republic E-mail adress: [email protected] ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4699-3381 José García Martín Faculty of Political Sciences and Sociology University of Granada, Department of Sociology Calle Rector López Argüeta s/n, 18001 Granada, Spain E-mail address: [email protected] ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7401-0613 Abstract Aim. The philosophy of alternative punishment is based on keeping the convicted person free, while imposing a punishment that will act preventively against committing another felony. The paper focuses on perceiving the importance of alternative punishment as part of restorative justice, and on presenting the results of the questionnaire survey which aimed to identify the public´s preferences in the context of various forms of alternative punishments as an option, instead of imprisonment. Attention is paid to three alternative punishments, specifically: community service, house arrest, and monetary sentence (fine). Methods. The questionnaire survey aimed to find out what forms of alternative punishment are, according to the respondents, a suitable alternative to incarceration. The survey sample comprised of Slovak individuals (N=1078) aged from 16 years and older, thereof 31.3% men (N=337) and 68.7% women (N=741). Results. Based on the analysis of the data collected from the 1078 respondents´ answers to the individual questions in the questionnaire, community service was 40 Ethics identified as the most favorable alternative to imprisonment, whereas the least preferences the respondents gave to the option of monetary fines. Conclusion. The concept of alternative punishment is understood as a form of punishment that fulfills the purpose of a sentence, without deprivation of freedom, but still guaranteeing the fulfilment of a court-ordered unconditional retribution. Compared to traditional forms of punishment, alternative methods of resolving judicial cases do not enforce repression and prefer the individual approach to punishing the accused (convicted) persons with emphasis on corrective aspects of alternative punishment. The results of the survey showed that the respondents strongly prefer one form of alternative punishment, namely the community service. Keywords: alternative punishment, quantitative survey, monetary sentence, restorative justice, house arrest, compulsory labour (community service) Introduction Since ancient times, people have performed acts that were unacceptable to society, and were subsequently subjected to various punishments for them, mostly aimed at isolating the offender from society. Gradually, through the development of society, there was an effort to ensure that punishments did not only serve the function of a sanction in the form of preventing contact with the outside world, but also sought to re-socialise and prepare the offender for reintroduction into normal life in society. According to Howard Zehr (2003), two models of social response to crime have operated in Western history: the community justice model and the state justice model. The essence of the community justice model is described by Martina Urbanová (2006) as the internalisation of community norms of social ethics not regulated by law, and this model is often based on negotiation and compensation. A different philosophy is represented by the model of state justice, which was built with the development of state machinery, public authority and legal norms. Despite prison reform efforts, incarceration is associated with the risks of prisonisation, immobilisation and stigmatisation effects (Lubelcová, 2005). In Zygmunt Bauman’s (2000) view, prisons often function as self-fulfilling prophecies. Prisoners are at risk of being drawn further into crime, as they may become acquainted with other criminals, which can lead a higher likelihood of reoffending upon release (Lerman, 2009; Goulding, 2007). This has resulted in a series of studies that are sceptical towards the idea that prison can rehabilitate offenders (Roberts, 2004; Jewkes & Bennett, 2013; Lešková, 2013; Lojan & Vancáková, 2021). Research results also confirm that social isolation causes discomfort and that people become resistant to more community activities (Maturkanič et al., 2022). Based on these arguments, it was necessary to look for other alternatives that, while punishing offenders, would also eliminate their isolation by offering alternative forms of punishment. Journal of Education Culture and Society No. 2_2022 41 Restorative justice and its philosophy Humans are born into a web of standard processes and patterns of behaviour created and modified over time (Tkáčová, Pavlíková, Tvrdoň, & Prokopyev, 2021). These regulations are universally applicable and compliance with them is controlled by the relevant legislation. In the case of deviations in behaviour and non-compliance with generally applicable standards come sanctions, which can take a wide range of forms. Imprisonment is one of the most serious interferences with fundamental civil rights and freedoms because it constitutes a restriction on them. Some experts argue (Van Ness & Strong, 2009) that heavily repressive punitive measures are failing and missing their purpose. Gordon Bazemore and Mara Schiff (2001) argue against punitive practices based on isolating individuals. Overall, during any isolation, according to several authors (Petrovič et al., 2021), there may be an increase in anxiety and a decrease in personal well-being. Also in an anomic environment, tendencies to the development of pathological phenomena are noted (Tvrdoň et al., 2021). Despite this premise, there is a strong labelling of individuals who are in prison or have completed their sentence and seek to fully integrate into society (Lešková, 2013). The problem of exclusion is also pointed out by other authors (Tkáčová, Al-Absiová et al., 2021), who emphasise that in societies there are problems of stereotyping the other, or others who deviate from generally accepted norms, which can lead to the labelling of individuals while at the same time deepening opportunities for social inclusion. Persons who have served their sentences are included among the groups of people who, for various reasons, are excluded from society and disadvantaged on the labour market, which creates a strong prerequisite for their vulnerability to social exclusion. Social exclusion can affect several areas, it is a multidimensional phenomenon (economic, social, education, housing, cultural, relationships, health,...) (Šuľová, 2015). Caring for the poor and rich, giving each of them what they need most, is based on compassion for every living creature (Králik et al., 2022). There is room for social policy instruments for this target group that would enable them to be included in the labour market and to function better socially in society (Bargel & Mühlpachr, 2010). It is therefore necessary for public policy to help people to live a good life (Murgaš et al., 2022). According to Petr Mareš (2006), it is desirable that a person released from prison is able to function independently socially in society. Ján Praško et al. (2011) argue that stigmatisation can manifest as a feeling of inferiority or as a devaluing attitude of the environment. The authors Hedviga Tkáčová, Martina Pavlíková, Miroslav Tvrdoň and Zita Jenisová (2021) advocate the importance of personal responsibility for the world and sustainable development, which cannot be achieved without tolerance and acceptance of people who are just looking for the right path. At the same time, it is necessary to seek the intrinsic value of the other and to 42 Ethics strengthen his dignity (Roubalová et al., 2021). In this context, according to several authors (Judák et al., 2022), there is room for strengthening the civic responsibility of individuals in society. A commonly used term in criminal justice has become restorative justice, which, according to several authors (Strémy et al., 2015) emphasises the restoration of the victim and society, rather than the punishment of the offender. It has a number of objectives, such as strengthening the offender’s accountability in terms of extending their possibilities to compensate victims not only symbolically but also materially and encouraging the settlement of the conflict between offenders, victims and society. One of its most prominent aims, highlighted by Tomáš Strémy and Jaroslav Klátik (2018), is the issue of alternative punishment. The restorative model of justice is an alternative to the traditional disciplinary (retributive) model of societal response to crime. The punishment imposed on the offender and the way it is carried out should, first of all, enable the restoration of social relations between the offender and the victim that were disturbed by the crime (Karabec, 2000). The restorative model does not only imply the application of alternative sanctions, but a comprehensive change of philosophy in the approach to the offender and the societal response to their wrongdoing. According to Clifford Shearing (2001) and Hennessey Hayes (2007), it does not predominantly seek to punish offenders and isolate them. In this regard, John Braithwaite (2000) stresses that, unlike punitive justice, it is not so past-oriented but future-oriented. Alternative punishments The philosophy of alternative punishment is to keep the convicted person at liberty, imposing a sentence that will act as a deterrent against committing further crime (Lášticová & Vajzerová, 2007). According to Katarína Jakubovich (2020) and Jaroslav Ivor et al. (2016), compared to traditional forms of punishment, alternative methods of dispute resolution emphasise an individual approach to dealing with crime and emphasise the importance of a preventive way of working with the accused (or the convicted). When punishing individuals – offenders, we rank alternative punishments with substantive alternative measures (Jurčová, 2012). The current wording of the Criminal Code (Act No. 300/2005 Coll.) in Slovakia allows for the substitution of an unconditional prison sentence by the imposition of, for example, the following alternative punishments: house arrest (Section 53), compulsory labour (Section 54-55), a fine (Section 56-57), and a ban on participation in public events (Section 62a). From the beginning, the punishment of house arrest has been presented as an effective tool to relieve overcrowded prisons (Ivor & Záhora, 2019). According to Jakubovich (2020), the positives of imposing house arrest inc- Journal of Education Culture and Society No. 2_2022 43 lude the preservation of family and emotional ties with the neighbourhood and a lower financial burden on the state. The court may impose the penalty of compulsory labour with the consent of the offender in the amount of 40 to 300 hours. Lenka Lášticová and Jana Vajzerová (2007) state that it is an alternative to short-term imprisonment. A monetary sentence has the character of an alternative punishment only if it is imposed separately and not in addition to an unconditional prison sentence. It may be imposed by the court from EUR 160 to EUR 331930 on the offender of a deliberate criminal offence by which he/she has obtained or attempted to obtain a pecuniary benefit (Act No. 300/2005 Coll.). Research methodology The aim of the research was to find out people’s views on the perceived importance of alternative punishments in restorative justice and what the public’s preferences are in relation to different forms of alternative punishments as alternatives to imprisonment. Attention was paid to three alternative punishments, namely: the sentence of compulsory labour, the sentence of house arrest and the monetary sentence. To ascertain the views of the public, we created a survey of our own design with identifying questions and statements. Legislation of the Slovak Republic – Act No. 300/2005 Coll. the Criminal Act exhaustively defines punishments and their alternatives. It was this variability that led us to define three statements to ascertain respondents’ views on alternative punishments to imprisonment in custody, namely: house arrest (Section 53), compulsory labour (Sections 54-55) and a monetary sentence (Sections 56-57). We assigned three statements to this area: • statement 1 sought the respondents’ opinion on the alternative punishment of house arrest, • statement 2 sought the respondents’ opinion on the alternative punishment of compulsory labour, • statement 3 sought the respondents’ opinion on a monetary sentence as an alternative to imprisonment. We stated 3 hypotheses for the statements: • H1 (statement No. 1) – There is a significant difference between age groups in the respondents’ views on their preference for alternative punishments of house arrest. • H2 (statement No. 2) – There is a significant difference between age groups in the respondents’ opinion on their preference for alternative punishments of compulsory labour. • H3 (statement No. 3) – There is a significant difference between age groups in the respondents’ opinion on their preference for monetary sentence. 44 Ethics To measure the opinion of the respondents we used a very appropriate tool, namely scaling, which not only detects the fact whether the phenomenon occurred, but also the degree of evaluation of the respondent’s perception of the phenomenon. The scale we set for the evaluation had 5 levels (See Table 1). Table 1 Scale of evaluation of statements 1 2 3 4 5 I strongly agree I agree Neutral opinion on the statement I disagree I strongly disagree Agreement with the statement Disagreement with the statement Source: own research. When evaluating the preference of the scale levels, we considered the selection of alternatives 1 and 2 as agreement with the statement and the selection of alternatives 4 and 5 as disagreement with the statement. To characterize the research population, we used data obtained from quantitative research in terms of socio-demographic characteristics, namely gender, residence, marital status and age of respondents (See Table 2 – Table 4). Table 2 Distribution of respondents by age and gender Gender Men Women Total Age N % N % N % from 16 to 20 years 38 11.3 43 5.8 81 7.5 from 20 to 30 years 96 28.5 129 17.4 225 20.9 from 30 to 40 years 76 22.5 199 26.9 275 25.5 from 40 to 50 years 67 19.9 219 29.6 286 26.6 from 50 to 60 years 33 9.8 116 15.6 149 13.8 60 to 70 years old 21 6.2 31 4.2 52 4.8 70 years and over 6 1.8 4 0.5 10 0.9 Total 337 100.0 741 100.0 1078 100.0 Source: own research. 1,078 respondents participated in the survey, of which 741 were women (68.67%) and 337 were men (31.33%). In terms of age groups, the 40 to 50 age group (26.6%) and the 30 to 40 age group (25.5%) had the largest overall representation. In terms of gender, males were most represented in the 20 to 30 age group (28.5%), while females were most represented in the 40 to 50 age group. Journal of Education Culture and Society No. 2_2022 45 Table 3 Distribution of respondents by residence and gender Gender Men Women Total Residence N % N % N % Village 141 41.8 292 39.4 433 40.2 City 196 58.2 449 60.6 645 59.8 Total 337 100.0 741 100.0 1078 100.0 Source: own research. Table 4 Distribution of respondents by marital status and gender Gender Men Women Total Marital status N % N % N % Single 100 29.7 178 24.0 278 25.8 Married 122 36.2 362 48.9 484 44.9 Partner 80 23.7 103 13.9 183 17.0 Divorcee 27 8.0 86 11.6 113 10.5 Widow / widower 8 2.4 12 1.6 20 1.8 Total 337 100.0 741 100.0 1078 100.0 Source: own research. Research results Respondents’ views on the use of house arrest were verified with a statement: “I consider house arrest to be an appropriate alternative to imprisonment” (See Table 5 and Table 6). Table 5 The penalty of house arrest – an alternative to imprisonment Age limit Choice of alternative Total Ø 1 2 3 4 5 16 to 20 years old - total 8 12 1 25 35 81 3.8 of which men 2 3 0 12 21 38 4.2 women 69 1 13 14 43 3.5 20 to 30 years – total 41 50 54 42 38 225 2.9 of which men 21 20 14 21 20 96 3.0 women 20 30 40 21 18 129 2.9 30 to 40 years old – total 60 75 71 38 31 275 2.7 of which men 21 22 17 7 976 2.5 women 39 53 54 31 22 199 2.7 40 to 50 years – total 67 77 90 33 19 286 2.4 46 Ethics Age limit Choice of alternative Total Ø 1 2 3 4 5 of which men 20 18 17 6 6 67 2.3 women 47 59 73 27 13 219 2.5 50 to 60 years – total 42 39 36 18 14 149 2.4 of which men 10 9 5 5 4 33 2.4 women 32 30 31 13 10 116 2.4 60 to 70 years – total 14 17 9 8 4 52 2.4 of which men 66153 21 2.5 women 8 11 8 3 1 31 2.3 70 and over – total 3 3 2 1 1 10 2.3 of which men 1 3 1 1 0 62.3 women 2 0 1 0 1 4 2.3 Total (N) 235 273 263 165 142 1078 2.7 % 21.8 25.3 24.4 15.3 13.2 100.0 – Source: own research. Overall, the respondents’ opinion on the punishment of house arrest was 2.7, which represents a rather neutral opinion. In terms of gender, we see differences in preferences. The youngest age group, aged 16 to 20, preferred negative connotations and did not prefer the punishment of house arrest (3.8), with this being more pronounced in the male group (4.2). Older age groups of respondents preferred more positive connotations and considered house arrest as an appropriate alternative to punishment. Table 6 House arrest as an alternative to imprisonment (%) Age limit Choice of alternative Total (%) 12345 from 16 to 20 years 9.9 14.8 1.2 30.9 43.2 100.0 from 20 to 30 years 18.2 22.2 24.0 18.7 16.9 100.0 from 30 to 40 years 21.8 27.3 25.8 13.8 11.3 100.0 from 40 to 50 years 23.4 26.9 31.5 11.5 6.7 100.0 from 50 to 60 years 28.2 26.2 24.1 12.1 9.4 100.0 60 to 70 years old 26.9 32.7 17.3 15.4 7.7 100.0 70 years and over 30.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 10.0 100.0 Source: own research. In terms of the percentage of age groups’ choice of alternatives, positive connotations of the alternative punishment of house arrest were more strongly declared by older age groups, while younger age groups tended to prefer negative connotations. The respondents’ views on the use of compulsory labour sentences were verified by the statement: “I consider the punishment of compulsory Journal of Education Culture and Society No. 2_2022 47 labour to be an appropriate alternative to imprisonment” (See Table 7 and Table 8). Table 7 Compulsory labour – a suitable alternative to imprisonment Age limit Choice of alternative Total Ø 1 2 3 4 5 16 to 20 years old – total 55 20 0 4 2 81 1.5 of which men 28 60 3 1 38 1.5 women 27 14 0 1 1 43 1.5 20 to 30 years – total 90 63 41 18 13 225 2.1 of which men 45 29 10 4 8 96 2.0 women 45 34 31 14 5129 2.3 30 to 40 years old – total 127 82 50 10 6 275 1.9 of which men 39 23 9 3 2 76 1.8 women 88 59 41 74 199 1.9 40 to 50 years – total 142 76 44 15 9286 1.9 of which men 33 20 64 4 67 1.9 women 109 56 38 11 5219 1.8 50 to 60 years – total 95 28 19 52 149 1.6 of which men 20 10 3 0 0 33 1.5 women 75 18 16 5 2116 1.6 60 to 70 years – total 33 12 60 1 52 1.5 of which men 16 3 2 0 0 21 1.3 women 17 9 4 0 1 31 1.6 70 and over – total 6 1 3 0 0 10 1.7 of which men 4 1 1 0 0 6 1.5 women 2 0 2 0 0 4 2.0 Total (N) 548 282 163 52 33 1078 1.8 %50.8 26.2 15.1 4.8 3.1 100.0 – Source: own research. Overall, the respondents’ opinion of compulsory labour was 1.8 , representing a rather positive view of the use of this alternative punishment. In terms of gender, we see only slight differences in preferences. Table 8 Compulsory labour as an alternative to imprisonment (%) Age limit Choice of alternative Total (%) 12345 from 16 to 20 years 67,9 24.7 0.0 4.93 2.5 100.0 from 20 to 30 years 40.0 28.0 18.2 8.0 5.8 100.0 from 30 to 40 years 46.2 28.8 18.2 3.6 2.2 100.0 54 Ethics