To consider statute as firm and fixed, it is ignorance in its most tangible state. Anders Herlitz presents Time to Reconsider the Penal Code? a motion that posits the idea that the internet age has put forth unfair treatment towards convicted individuals. Herlitz argues that the public exhibition of criminal records accentuates criminality and sustains additional unintended punishment. For example, if an individual has been denied housing for having a felony on record, that external punishment supplements his criminal status beyond his sentence. Herlitz expresses that “a sentence previously equivalent to punishment X, today is X+Y” Herlitz postulates in the article that if punishment is not consistent and proportional, it poses injustice towards
…show more content…
These two cases pose different social and external consequences for each individual, the degree of consequence is up to the discretion of the reader. Even beyond societal expectations, what if the mother with cancer was abusive and neglectful? What if the father of the family was a divorced father of adoption, willing to support his previous family? What if their mental health poses an additional consequence? What if they cry that their religion inhibits them from being imprisoned? Proportionality is automatically dismissed, as levels of privilege between each individual is different, i.e. their respective socioeconomic status. Herlitz fails to define—in my opinion—that external punishment enacted by the public should constitute a form of additional punishment. However, if there is a degree of influence i.e. popularity increases external punishment, then how is that consistent between all convicts? An individual human has a variety of multiple facets, relationships, ideals, and beliefs. To consider consequence as punishment brings forth a plethora of technicalities that would unfortunately immobilize the criminal justice
These two cases pose different social and external consequences for each individual, the degree of consequence is up to the discretion of the reader. Even beyond societal expectations, what if the mother with cancer was abusive and neglectful? What if the father of the family was a divorced father of adoption, willing to support his previous family? What if their mental health poses an additional consequence? What if they cry that their religion inhibits them from being imprisoned? Proportionality is automatically dismissed, as levels of privilege between each individual is different, i.e. their respective socioeconomic status. Herlitz fails to define—in my opinion—that external punishment enacted by the public should constitute a form of additional punishment. However, if there is a degree of influence i.e. popularity increases external punishment, then how is that consistent between all convicts? An individual human has a variety of multiple facets, relationships, ideals, and beliefs. To consider consequence as punishment brings forth a plethora of technicalities that would unfortunately immobilize the criminal justice