Nigeria’s punishment of offenders: useless

The Lagos state police command of the Nigeria Police Force on the 11^th day of June 2017 paraded one Onuamalike AKA Evans as a most wanted kidnap kingpin in Nigeria who had evaded arrest since 2013. Evans is said to be the wisest kidnapper in Nigeria’s history who not only collect his ransom in millions but forces victims to pay same in dollars. The highest ransom he has ever collected is said to be one million US dollars. Apart from kidnapping, it is also alleged that Evans is involved in high profile armed robberies within Nigeria.

As not unexpected, this particular arrest has generated a lot of uproar from the media, social commentators and the public. Opinions have been canvassed even without formal trial and conviction of Evans on the appropriate punishment that should be meted out to him even when he remains an innocent before the eyes of the law.

The public is always quick to forget how porous our prosecutors can be in handling criminal cases particularly high-profile criminal cases. The onus is always on the prosecution to prove all the ingredients of an offence or offences to the court and this, the prosecution must do beyond reasonable doubts for there to be a conviction of the defendant.

Thus, in the right sense of it, what should preoccupy the mind of the public at present should be that Evans gets prosecuted professionally for his conviction and not the type of punishment that should be meted out to him- an innocent man(before the Law)

Be that as it may, since Nigerians appear to be more concerned with punishing Evans and what such punishment should be, my chore in this essay is to offer a decipherment of what punishment of offenders entails, with slight reference to Evans.

In sociology, punishment of offenders could be broadly classified into three (3) general philosophies and they are- the utilitarian philosophy, retributive philosophy, and denunciation philosophy.

Let’s look at them seriatim:

Utilitarian philosophy on punishment of offenders seeks to punish offenders to discourage nay to deter the offender or any other person from such future wrong doing. Accordingly, to this philosophy, laws should be used to maximise the general well being of the society. This is because crime and punishment are both inconsistent with the general well-being of the society.

Thus, both crime and the resultant punishment should be kept to a minimum. Utilitarian philosophers are of the view that a crime free society (Utopian) does not exist and as such, society should strive to inflict only as much punishment as is required to prevent future crimes as anything above this is unhelpful to the society. That is, punishment under this school of thought should not be mere consequencial, it must be utilised to achieve the primary need of punishing offenders which is reduction of crimes in the society and not to merely quench thirst for vengeance.

In this way punishment must not be unlimited. Its total good to the society should exceed the total evil. Utilitarian philosophers recognise rehabilitation as rationale for punishment, the goal being to prevent future crime by giving offenders the ability to succeed within the confines of law.

These rehabilitation measures may include using medical, educational and psychological measures to cure offenders from afflictions of chronic violent behavior, chemical dependency or mental illness. Using educational programs that give offenders the knowledge and skills needed to compete in healthy rivalry with others in the society is also part of rehabilitation.

Retributive philosophers on their part are of the view that offenders should be punished for their criminal behaviours simply because they deserve punishment for their evil doings. While utilitarian philosophers anchor punishment on social benefit, the retributive philosophers focus on the crime itself as the reason for imposing punishment.

Retributive pPhilosophers see humans as having free will and as such are capable of making rational decisions. Thus an offender who is of unsound mind or incompetent should not be punished. To the retributivists, punishment is justified as a form of vengeance i.e an offender should be forced to suffer because he had forced others to suffer (an eye for eye, tooth for tooth). Nigeria and Nigerians tilt towards this philosophy.

Denunciation philosophy is a combination of utilitarian and retributive philosophy. This philosophy promotes the idea that offenders deserve to be punished as a matter of course however, it also promotes the idea of rehabilitation as espoused by utilitarian philosophers. For example, a convict may be sentenced to prison for several years to quench the victim’s (society’s) thirst for vengeance, and at the same time psychological/educational programs and other training inside the prison reflect the goal of rehabilitation.

It is clear that Nigeria largely adopts retribution principles in punishing offenders. This is explicit in her various laws on crimes, the courts approach to sentencing and what obtains in our prisons across the country. But the questions that beg for answers are– are retributive punishments providing Nigeria with the required result? Are crimes actually reducing in our society? The primary aim of punishment of offenders in the society is the reduction of crimes and criminal tendencies.

Thus, any approach that will produce the needed result should be adopted. It is obvious that the present retributive system of punishing offenders as currently practiced by Nigeria is not yielding the required result as crimes are on the increase on daily basis, it is on this ground I advocate for the adoption of denunciation principles of punishing offenders as espoused above with particular emphasis on utilitarian philosophy to punishment of offenders. This will surely produce the needed result which is reduction of crimes in the society – the primary the aim of punishing of offenders. The extant approach is merely sacrificing societal progress on the alter of thirst for vengeance alone without the corresponding needed result.

A man’s nature is determined by three fundamental factors. They are biological, environmental and psychological factors. No man is born great just as no man is born a criminal. A man is a product of the combination of the above factors. There are circumstances where a criminal does not deserve punishment no matter the height or magnitude of the offence committed. Where there exists some particular reason(s) for committing an offence apart from insanity, tender age and provocation as currently recognised by Nigerian laws, such offender should be assisted or granted help in stead of core punishment which actually produces little or no result.

It is high time Nigeria started taking offenders’ background into consideration in dealing with offenders. Where an offender comes from a broken home, lacks proper upbringing or lacks education etc., rehabilitation approaches should be accorded such offender. No doubts, many have passed through most life challenging problems from broken homes, some were even orphans, yet made it as responsible and respectable members of the society. But the truth is the number of those who made it despite these foundational challenges are microscopic compared to those that did not. Record has it that crimes in the society are often perpetrated by the less privileged of the societies particularly those with childhood and foundational problems.

From the piecemeal information about the now popular Evans both in print and electronic media, it is explicit that Evans had very poor parentage and childhood. In fact, it is explicit that Evans was trained on how to crawl, walk, eat, sleep and talk crimes by the Nigerian society, yet the Nigerian society wants him dead as a result of being an expert in what it has painstakingly trained him to become.

Many would certainly be against this view but the truth remains that- how many of you who are Christians or Muslims today as a result of either parental or environmental upbringing can easily dumb those embedded ideologies or doctrines in your respective religions easily? Is it incorrect that had it been that a particular Muslim today was actually raised by Christian parents and in Christian values and morals hardly would such a ward abandon these values for those of the Muslims upon reaching majority? And vice versa?

No one is saying conclusively that Evans’ parents trained him to be a criminal rather the situation surrounding his upbringing suggests that he was trained by the various bad eggs of the society as a result of poor parentage through his exposure, association and interaction with deviants at his very tender and formative years. It is indisputable that we are who we are in the society due to the kind of parentage we had,  the kind of exposure we have, the kind of education/no education we had etc.

In conclusion therefore, instead of troubling our heads with kind of punishment that should be meted out to Evans or offenders generally, Why not let’s start thinking about taking responsibility for instilling good values and behaviours on every child that comes in contact with us? Why not let’s start thinking about monitoring teenagers around us? Why not let’s start monitoring our neighbours on the type of training they give their wards? Why not let’s start thinking about the fact that that out of school child today might be a threat to our lives tomorrow?

PS: THIS IS NOT A CALL TO FREE EVANS! It is a call to awaken our collective consciousness to the roles the individual, the family, the parent and the society at large play in breeding/reducing criminals and criminal tendencies in our society.

Ernest Nkwocha, Esq.(Legal Practitioner).