Following the discussion above, this paper now must discuss whether imprisonment should be used with executioners. In other words, given a limited budget and the high costs of imprisonment, should executioners be imprisoned? The answer should be negative, as a rule. Even though imprisonment does fulfill some of its purposes, the costs ultimately outweigh the benefits.
Imprisonment can provide some incapacitation, but it does not stop crime. Criminal organizations will always find other mules.457 The incapacitation of the offender can also be achieved by other means, with fewer costs for the government, family and society. Electronic bracelets and house arrest can provide that same effect in a more economical way. For example, using the average cost of an inmate to states presented in the last chapter (US$ 31,268), it is
456 Robinson, supra note 155, at 1106. 457 W
possible to reach a daily cost of US$ 85.66 per inmate. The Florida’s costs of electronic monitoring, for example, is estimated at US$ 105 per week, or US$ 15 per day.458
Imprisonment can be effective to deter others from performing the same crime (collective
deterrence). The magnitude of the effects, however, is limited, especially considering that Levitt
found that imprisonment was responsible just for 12% of the crime reduction in homicide and violent crime and 8% of property crime in the 90s.459 New York University’s Brennan Center found even smaller percentages of crime reduction.460 Further, investing in a mechanism to ensure more certainty in punishment can be more effective than just elevating the severity of punishment. The investment on policing, therefore, is more fruitful, with a greater return for each dollar invested.461
458 M
ARISSA ALEXANDER'S HOUSE ARREST AND THE ISSUE WITH ELECTRONIC MONITORING,
THEGUARDIAN.COM, http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jan/27/marissa-alexander-
house-arrest-electronic-monitoring (last visited Feb. 10, 2015). Although the article reported about some fails of the electronic monitoring system, it is well known that, with the evolution, the system will be improved and also become less expensive, as any other technology.
459 Levitt, supra note 310, at 178-179. 460 Roeder, supra note 321.
461 See subsection 2.3.3.1. 0! 10! 20! 30! 40! 50! 60! 70! 80! 90! INCARCERATION! ELECTRONIC!MONITORING! 85.66! 15!
Daily)costs)in)US$)
Imprisonment, as it has been used in Brazil and in the United States of America, is not effectively preventing new crimes from being performed by offenders released from prison. Recidivism rates speak for themselves. Therefore, imprisonment should not be the first option when choosing the correct punishment for executioners in terms of individual deterrence and
rehabilitation.
There is no doubt that these offenders will suffer if imprisoned and, therefore, imprisonment can be efficient in terms of retribution. However, proportionality is an important characteristic of a fair system that is not taken into consideration if imprisonment is used for all members of the criminal organization, indistinctively. It is even more important to consider in environmental crimes, which may be “seen as morally neutral.”462 The general population does not always see poor people who extract their livelihood from nature as criminals, for example. Even if the heads of the criminal organization were punished more harshly (meaning more prison time), this would still reduce stigmatization, because, for the layperson, imprisonment is used in both cases. For those persons, imprisonment is the division between the serious and not serious crimes. Consequently, imprisonment cannot be used in most cases without losing some of its social significance.463
On the other side, even the specialists would lose their faith in the system with the use of prison to provide retribution. The quality of punishment is as important as quantity, especially in the case of prison. In that sense, it should be remembered that the intensity of imprisonment loses strength with the passage of time.464 An executioner might leave the prison feeling more pain
462 M
ICHAEL KIDD, ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT IN SOUTH AFRICA 242-
234 (ed. Alexander Paterson and Louis K. Kotze 2009).
463 Robinson, supra note 155, at 1106. 464 Id. at 1095-1096.
than the leaders if he served a shorter sentence that will not allow him to get used to the pain of incarceration. In other words, with respect to executioners, imprisonment is not very effective even for the purpose of retribution.
In conclusion, given that the purposes of punishment are not met with regard to imprisoning executioners, imprisonment is not a good option for executioners as a rule. Where imprisonment has not worked for drug traffickers, it follows that it likewise cannot be an effective solution for wildlife or pesticide smugglers. Of course, if the criminal is not a first offender and other forms of punishment were not effective previously, there may be no option except imprisonment because the punishment needs to be more severe, as the acts are even more censurable (retribution). Furthermore, incapacitation is not such a guess anymore. The offender committed another crime and segregation starts to be an assurance for the society. Although imprisonment would not be an efficient solution for the purposes of deterrence and rehabilitation, it is no longer a cost-benefit question. Prison might be the only more severe punishment available. The same can happen if the magnitude of the crime is larger than normal, such as when a huge amount of endangered species are trafficked. In such a case, another punishment would be just considered a slap on the wrist.