This week a Brazilian man was released from prison after having served 7 years for the murder of a woman (whom he then dismembered whose parts he fed to dogs).  Only a few days after his release he is being scouted by football teams that wish to sign him, teams who play in the top division for men’s football in Brazil, for this man was once a footballer capable of playing at the highest level in the sport.  The question I have is, should we be appalled?  And should the nature of the job being proposed have a bearing on this judgement?  (In this case, the job being proposed is one which is both very well-paid and in the public eye.)  This is not the only example of such situations, and indeed this sort of situation is not limited to the world of football.

On a very simplistic level, should we not consider that someone who has passed through the penal system has ‘paid’ their debt to society and thus once liberated, they should be entitled to the same rights as all other citizens?  After all, that is the point no?  Penal systems are set up to ensure that those who do not abide by the rules are penalised in some way.  The penal system imposes certain penalties for certain activities, and since these penalties are set out by the judicial systems themselves, it is (presumably) fair to assume that the penalties are considered appropriate and definitive in of themselves.  Once completed therefore, the penalty has been paid, and should not be continued or extended (unless some other infraction has been performed).

This being the case then, do we have any right to be outraged that someone who has completed their passage through the penal system should seek to become once again an active member of society?  I would argue not.  It seems logical that once a penalty has been completed that the person in question should be considered to be free from additional penalty for the original crime.  In many judicial systems, a time spent incarcerated is not however the limit of the penalty, and those convicted find themselves restricted in their rights even once released from prison.  I would argue however, that any judicial system which declares the penalty to include a perpetual reduction in rights is fair – at least in as far as it is only asking people to pay the original penalty, and not to keep on paying whatever the society demands at a later date.

However, in this specific example, we are not talking about a continuation of an existing penalty, since the man in question was not sentenced to X years in prison plus then never playing professional football again, he was sentenced simply to X years in prison.  Furthermore, it is probable that had he sought a job that was not high-profile, and did not place him in the media from where he could become a role model to others; then this debate would not ensue.  Given therefore that we experience this outrage only in situations where the person gains a job in the public eye, or with a direct influence over the development of others (such as teaching), should we not modify our judicial systems to the extent that certain positions/ posts and opportunities are denied to those who have proven themselves (in at least one circumstance) capable of stepping outside of the law?  Perhaps if we consider that a penal system operates as a deterrent then this is a valid argument – if indeed someone about to commit a crime reconsidered because of the penalty then the introduction of a limited acceptance into society as a penalty would indeed prove beneficial (although were the punishment truly an effective deterrent then the death penalty would surely ensure that there were no more murders)?.

However what about allowing people another chance?  There can be a positive message sent by such a person taking up a role; the message can be sent that people are not branded for life by one mistake, that it is possible to err and in recognising this to then adapt one’s self to better integrate into the society.  If we are not capable of considering that once the penalty has been paid, then the slate can be wiped clean, then the message we send is that for even one mistake you will be forever branded and ostracised.  Furthermore, in restricting the operations of individuals who have committed crimes, it is conceivable that we only push them further out of society – after all, if they are not allowed to participate, then when should they follow the rules?

Ultimately, the important factor here is that we are consistent in our approach.  It is confusing I think to say to people, this is the price we ask you to pay for your crime, and then to return some time later and ask them to pay some more.  We therefore cannot permit ourselves to be outraged at any member of society taking up any post once they have passed through the penal system – the end of the penalty is the end of the penalty; if our penalties are inappropriate then it is this which should be changed.