Criminal law is defined as "the whole of principles and rules with regards to the imposition of penalties by a public judging person or body".1 Through criminal law the government arranges penalties for delicts.
Worldwide by different governments a great variety of penalties are being imposed. Outside of the Netherlands for instance death penalties and corporal penalties are being imposed. In the Netherlands itself the prison penalty counts as the most strict penalty. Banishment can be imposed when the delinquent does not have the Dutch nationality. Also service penalties are applied, which can be divided into work penalties and course penalties. And as mildest penalty counts probably the fine, which can be paid to the government or, in case of a compensation, to the victim. And then in the Netherlands are also known the re-education and disposal impositions for cases wherein the delinquent is a minor or is considered as less accountable.
For these penalties different justifications can be given. A penalty may for instance be justified as a deterrent, which aims to have a preventive working.
An among people popular justification regards the retribution.2 The giving over of retribution to the government may prevent a vicious circle of mutual retributions.
Closely related to the retribution is the reparation. Where however retribution is directed at the paining of the perpetrator, there reparation is directed at the soothing of the victim. Also the reparation through the government can prevent a personal retribution.
An among people less popular justification for penalties regards the correction, which is directed at the correcting of criminal behaviour. The goal thereby is indirect prevention of recidivism.
Direct prevention may be given as justification when a delinquent is explicitly banned from society, for instance by keeping him in clinics or removing him from the country.
Penalties may further also be justified with religious prophecies, as practised by theocratic governments.
More philosophical than religious, to conclude, is the justification of the quickly working out of karma. By committing delicts, according to the ageless wisdom, a karmic debt is created, which once shall have to return to the perpetrator.3 By immediately penalizing the perpetrator he is able to, partly or not, immediately work off his created karma. Therewith a government may thus act instrumental for ruling metaphysical laws, exactly as is aimed at in the metaphysicratic agenda.4
The above paragraph was closed with the mentioning of the metaphysicratic agenda, and therein are upbringing and education put central.6 And with a penalty prescription in line with this agenda these shall thus too be put central. However because in the present society other justifications for penalties also still play an important role, these must with a practical penalty prescription also be included. Under this paragraph thus a penalty shall be prescribed which deters, retributes, repairs, corrects and prevents recidivism.
And in this prescription a judged delinquent is for a suitable time period set to work with an employer who in principle pays him the pay in line with the prevalent collective labour agreements. This pay is by the government however skimmed until benefits level, and this skimming is in percentages allocated to victims, employers and the government.
Such a penalty is deterring because a skimming of earnings until benefits level is unpleasant, and this skimming then also counts as a retribution. The paying of a percentage thereof to the victim then subsequently serves as a reparation. And this penalty then also works correcting, because the delinquent while working learns to adjust to the in the legal society prevalent norms. After his punishment he then has the possibility to stream into that society, and this then helps to prevent a recidivism.
This work penalty on benefits level has for all those involved positive implications. For the government cell shortages are solved, prison costs minimalized, and the government may even become a nett receiver with the received skimming percentage – income which of course firstly has to be used for the organising, administrating and controlling of the work penalties. For the victim is not only middled in retribution, but also in reparation through his own skimming percentage. And the skimming percentage for the employer gives him advantages with the making available of penal work places. And for the delinquent, consequently, this penalty offers also advantages, for the aforementioned keeps within the boundaries of his penalty life perspectives in both the present and the future.
And even for the other citizens this penalty imposition can offer advantages when a percentage of the skimming amount is going to be used for the execution of reward laws for good behaviour. But that’s a subject for another contemplation.
Of course by politicians and law makers practical details have to be further worked out and things smoothed over. This is not for here. This contemplation aims at best to be an incentive for a better penalty system for all.