Disturbing scene occupying the social media as part of the enhanced community quarantine are various punitive ways or consequences imposed by local government units to violators of ESQ. Assuming that no imposed preset guidelines and so LGUs come up with varying ways of handling violators, from letting them violators recite a prayer, pushing patrol cars, lying in a coffin, saying prayer in a cemetery, performing lewd acts, standing under scorching heat of the sun, to being put inside dog’s cage. And I am not certain as to the reactions or effects of these “forms” of punishment.
The very aim of imposing such punishment to the violators is the basic realization that what they did violate the policies, rules and regulations, and that they don’t have to repeat same offense for there are certain consequences they have to face.
As rational beings, people are capable of making educated choices, and thus rule breaking is a rational, conscious decision. And if such laws have been broken, the punishment for the violation will depend on the local government unit’s regulation or the provisions of the law.
Positive punishment, as experts term it, operates by providing an aversive consequence to undesired behavior, making it less likely to happen in the future. A man is liable because he is responsible for his actions, and the size of the punishment should be commensurate with the degree of his responsibility.
However, it is still difficult to see the balance, for one to say that such consequence is fair and justifiable. And so the imposition of excessive punishment is strongly being discouraged to the violators of the enhanced community quarantine, which could lead to maltreatment, and much more, to death. Death, as a consequence, should never be an option as taking from the violator the opportunity to change for the better.
What are the social roles and ethical rationale of punishment? We have argued that punishment can be justified only on the grounds of utility, never on the grounds of reprehension, even though reprehension is euphemistically called revenge.
Punishment is never called for unless it can be shown: firstly, that it will lead to the moral regeneration of the criminal; secondly, that it acts as an example and thus a deterrent to others; or, thirdly, that it protects society from real or future wrongdoers. If one or more of these goals are not met, it should never be resorted to.
A general appraisal of the ethical and sociological significance, of punishment will have to recognize that punishment is an evil albeit a necessary evil-of an imperfect society. It is the correlative of crime and can at best aid in the prevention and cure of criminality.
Punishment, like therapeutic medicine, is required only by a diseased social organism; it is part of the technique of social pathology, but, unfortunately, like much medical practice, it cures the symptoms while it leaves the disease untouched. For this reason, punishment should be a supplement to more drastic curative measures which get at the root of the evil.
I refer, of course, to social reforms, such as the alleviation of poverty and unemployment, saving the environment, the control of disease, the sterilization of the unfit, the protection of women, children and other vulnerable sectors of the society. But, in the present state of society, punishment is, and presumably will long remain, a necessary social expedient.