Ideally of course things should be organised in such a way that people are able to have their legitimate concerns addressed without resorting to crime. But when a crime does occur it requires punishment. The best punishment is that which is just, and acts as a deterrent for any future crime.
So, what is crime?
A crime is an intentional act that is socially harmful.
And what is justice?
In its most basic definition, justice is ‘the principle that people receive that which they deserve.’ And an aspect of justice is the relationship between a crime and its punishment. Every punishment or penalty must fit the transgression or crime for which it is prescribed, otherwise it is unjust. An extension of this is that the punishment should discourage or prevent other similar transgressions or crimes from taking place.
The current government, like previous governments in this country, can claim a handful of achievements. The vaccination drive against covid-19 is one of them. The drive has been well organised, and many people have been vaccinated, but still many more are refusing vaccinations.
In a society where punishment is reserved for the certain few, where a certain set of persons escape punishment every time because they happen to have the right contacts, a healthy bank balance and position, can this and other punishments ever be a deterrent, or will it simply produce more resentment, more resistance to what is right?
Certain penalties seem to have been prescribed for non-compliance just now. Are those penalties just? Do they fit the crime? And will they discourage or prevent other similar transgressions? This is why this discussion is taking place.
Those refusing vaccinations are in many cases doing so without knowing a thing about the science involved. They imagine they know better than the medical experts.
For others, vaccination figures low on their list of priorities which in many cases concern where the next meal is to come from, which area to use next when nature calls, how to afford a child’s marriage, and so o Given such matters, fending off an invisible bug seems almost a laugh.
Is not being vaccinated a crime? In other words, is non-compliance with the directive to be vaccinated a crime?
It is, indirectly. Covid-19 is a deadly disease. It has killed millions of persons worldwide and it has had untold economic fallout. An unvaccinated person is much more prone to infection, so is much more likely to die from the disease and is likely to pass on the virus to others. Therefore non-compliance with regards to vaccination against covid-19 is tantamount to self-harm and murder, which are both crimes.
In the case of not getting vaccinated because there was not enough information extended in a fashion appropriate to the audience, or if there are matters to do with basic survival that take precedence, the fault lies with the authorities. Do we have any penalties against them?
The government has come up with some penalties against non-compliance.
According to the news ‘an official’ says that ‘the Punjab government decided on Thursday to block the SIM cards of people refusing to get vaccinated against the coronavirus’. Since then a spokesperson for the Ministry of Health Sajid Shah has refuted the report regarding SIMs saying that no such proposals are under consideration. Neither news has been confirmed. It is either yet another U-turn, a hallmark of this government, or the matter is still under consideration, despite the assurance. We will find out.
Meantime in Sindh it seems it has been decided that government servants who do not get vaccinated by July will not be given their salaries.
Should either penalty using SIM or salary be allowed? Are these penalties just or even legal?
The Oxford handbook lists punishments under the following categories: Retribution, Deterrence, Rehabilitation, Incapacitation, and Restoration.
They’re all fairly self-explanatory:
Retribution is the traditional eye for an eye which tends to satisfy the anger that is produced by a crime. It is open to judgement, to a consideration of what equates what. It is considered to be an effective deterrent – if it is used responsibly, and can be an effective deterrent.
Incapacitation is another traditional penalty which means putting the culprit in a place where no harm can come to others. That means anything from prison to execution, both of which are a huge deterrent to others but like all other punishments, and perhaps more than others, it requires justice and equity.
Deterrence is the knowledge that punishment will occur if a certain crime is committed. It depends on being aware of the consequences of a crime, and like retribution it works if it is used responsibly.
Rehabilitation is not a deterrent. It takes place alongside the punishment and seeks to mitigate the reasons that made that person commit the crime. The reasons may be psychological or financial, or they may be linked to a lack of understanding, in which case education and information are provided. In other words the person committing the crime is helped to find ways of dealing with his or her problems, ways that are legal and not harmful.
Restoration calls for the person committing the crime to see for him or herself the results of his actions, to hear about them from the victims themselves, and then to try and make amends, which may take anything from saying sorry to doing something to resolve the matter if possible, or to at least try and lessen the fallout. It is a positive approach to punishment, and once again, it works only if it is implemented responsibly.
A penalty must have a direct bearing on the crime, and have a relationship to it, and the consequences of the penalty must not worsen the situation.
To return to the matter of SIM or Salary, do either of those penalties bear any relation to the crime. If a man refuses to be vaccinated, do we have a right to starve his family (holding back the salary)? What’s more, since the salary is linked to the performance of a job, if that job has been performed it requires payment. To withhold that payment is morally and legally wrong and also not allowed from the religious point of view.
If people have not been sufficiently educated as to the importance of this vaccination does the fault lie with them?
No.
Will taking away the SIM card on a person’s phone and not allowing him or her to possess another solve this particular problem? Will it force him to be vaccinated if he does not believe vaccination is required? Can he not borrow someone else’s phone? What’s more, in a country where fake documents are the norm rather than the exception, would a fake vaccination document be a surprise?
Will either of these penalties educate people as to the importance of being vaccinated?
The answer is no to all of those.
These measures could have been classified as a deterrent for non-compliance that’s the only one, and once again, in Pakistan there is always a way around.
In a society where punishment is reserved for the certain few, where a certain set of persons escape punishment every time because they happen to have the right contacts, a healthy bank balance and position, can this and other punishments ever be a deterrent, or will it simply produce more resentment, more resistance to what is right?
There are intelligent minds in this country which disappear at crucial moments. You wonder if this is because they are not where they should be, or if they are not permitted to function.
