I have previously written that the only two goals for the justice system should be to keep a person out of society and to discourage both the person and others from committing similar crimes.

If we look carefully at the first of these, it implies that the current balance in deciding the length of a prison sentence between the crime's nature and severity and the person's previous convictions should be reconsidered. At present the crime itself is the main determinant of the sentence's length. However, if you accept my previous assertions about the justice system, you will see that that must surely be wrong: there should be at least as much attention paid to the previous record as there is to the nature of the crime. Also, because of people's different circumstances, there will often be times when a sentence is more severe for one person than for another: a single, unemployed person will be able to spare time for jail more easily than an employed parent. Although the courts do take this into account – going to extreme lengths to make sure that women with small children do not go to jail, if it can be helped, for example – they do not always have the scope to do so. So a millionaire and a student caught speeding pay the same fine; a truck driver and an office worker caught drink-driving after a friend's party both lose their licence.

I'm going to suggest a change from the current system: I think that instead of crime-based justice, we should move to a system of person-based justice. This means that there should be a lot more scope for giving out different sentences depending on the person's position, past record and personality.

There is currently some laxity in terms of sentencing: I recently came across a case in which a young offender who committed a minor crime said that he was hoping to join the army soon. The judge asked the police to drive him 5 kilometres from the courthouse and escort him as he ran back, and he was free to go. But this is the exception, not the rule.

The other advantage of person-based justice is that the punishment can be made to fit the crime. Although I have said that repaying a debt to society should not be one of the aims of the justice system, if it is possible that it can be achieved then it should be attempted. Currently, you go to jail or you get fined, when these are not necessarily the best sentences, in terms of either of the two goals. If part of the sentence can be to make up your transgression to society as best you can. In some cases - sexual assaults, arson, murder - this is either impractical or amounts to retribution, so prison is about the best that the system can manage. Where the crime relates only to money, for example, the most appropriate thing would be for the person to pay it back, with interest. Because there is often a breach of trust or a threatening situation, and because the person may have spent it, it may be desirable to have some additional or even entirely different sentence, but in general this will be a good start.

Even when it relates to something else, money is appropriate as a partial or whole punishment - for example, if the crime was arson, paying for repairs would be useful; similarly, if there is a body set up to prevent or mitigate the effect of the crime in question, a donation to that group - instead of, or as well as, imprisonment - may be suitable. For example assaulting one's wife may call for a donation to women's refuge.

Time in prison doesn't really repay your debt to society, though something else might. In my previous piece I partially covered this off under the heading of Punishment.

Person-based justice also puts paid to one theory that bleeding hearts are often heard to espouse – the theory being that, firstly, some people are genetically predisposed to commit crimes and, secondly, because any crimes committed are not really their fault, so they should not be punished. Indeed, in the current sentencing structure, this makes sense, and some people would agree with this – many people think that it is cruel to send someone to jail for a crime that they cannot help committing.

As readers of my previous articles will probably have guessed, I strongly disagree with this notion. If people cannot help themselves, that is more reason, not less, to send them to jail, and anyone claiming genetic pre-disposition should be given a maximum sentence. As I have opined previously, there are two reasons that you might want to send people to prison, one of which is removal from society. Those who are genetically unable to prevent themselves from committing crimes certainly need to be removed from society.

There are those who believe that this is unfair, that criminals have no choice, so should not be punished. But the emphasis should never be on the victims. I have a right to walk down the street at night, to own a home that is not broken into or burned down and not walk through graffiti-laden public parks. The majority of people have no problem allowing me to do this, and if others cannot stop this, it should be the minority who ruin it for everyone else, not the majority who don't, who should be the ones at a disadvantage.

There is a possible extension to this – namely, that we would not even need to wait until someone committed a crime if it could be proved that the person was genetically programmed for criminal activities. However, I think that this is a step too far: science is not perfect and never will be, so it's possible that what looks like a criminal gene is nothing of the sort. Also, humans can have tremendous willpower, and so even those who were destined for one life may be able to overcome this and lead honest lives.

See Also: Crime and Punishment, Part I; Crime and Punishment, Part II; Crime and Punishment, Part III