• No se han encontrado resultados

6 Funciones disponibles del MiniApplet @firma

6.4 Firmas electrónicas múltiples

6.4.2 Contrafirmas

 

(1)  Increased  sentencing,     (2)  Harsher  penalties    

(3)  The  use  of  capital  punishment     (4)  The  use  of  indefinite  sentences  and     (5)  Intrusive  video  surveillance    

In  addition  to  such  characteristics,  Monterosso  (2009:16)  added  the  “abandonment  of   procedural  safeguards  that  serve  to  protect  people  from  the  abuse  in  the  legal  environment”.   This  section  will  examine  how  Lebanon  fits  in  with  these  characteristics  of  punitiveness,  and   later  provides  the  finding  surrounding  the  Lebanese  criminal  justice  system  to  further   strengthen  this  standpoint.    

6.1.1  Lebanese  Policing  and  Punitiveness  

A  part  of  this  popular  punitiveness  climate,  is  the  populist  policing  and  populist  security  (Jones,   2010).  Populist  policing  includes  things  such  as  ‘zero  tolerance  policing,  and  visible  foot  patrols’   while  populist  security  includes  “favouring  gated  communities,  ‘anti-­‐terror  control  orders,   water  boarding  and  other  physical  interrogation  methods”  (Jones,  2010:335).    Because  physical   interrogation  methods  are  considered  to  be  part  of  the  popular  punitive  climate,  Lebanon  can   be  seen  to  be  part  of  this  climate.  Both  this  chapter  and  Chapter  Five  touch  upon  the  use  of   physical  methods  during  interrogations.  These  methods  included  the  use  of  torture  on   detainees.  The  use  of  such  methods  falls  under  the  ‘populist  security’  phenomena  and   therefore  result  in  Lebanon  being  part  of  the  popular  punitive  climate.      

6.1.2  Lebanese  Laws  and  Punitiveness  

In  relation  to  Lebanese  laws  and  sentencing,  on  the  surface,  Lebanon’s  sentencing  (examined  in   Chapter  Three)  does  not  seem  to  be  very  punitive  in  nature  except  for  the  laws  that  criminalise   homosexuality.  According  to  numerous  prison  guard  participants:  

 

“Homosexuality  is  a  moral  offence,  against  religion.  If  they  are  not  in  prison  they  should  be  

treated,  this  is  not  what  God  designed,  it  is  not  nice  for  society…  We  are  different  societies,  it   [homosexuality]  destroys  society…”  (Prison  Guard  9)    

 

“Homosexuality  should  be  a  crime,  I  don't  care  if  in  other  countries  if  the  government  allows  it…   we  don't  accept  it,  no  one  will  accept  it,  it  gets  diseases  so  should  be  punished  so  they  know  it  is  

wrong…”  (Prison  Guard  7).  

 

A  sign  of  popular  punitiveness  is  the  harshening  of  laws,  when  laws  are  examined  within   Lebanon  there  is  no  argument  that  claims  that  sentencing  has  in  fact  harshened.  One  reason   why  this  has  not  yet  occurred  is  because,  laws  within  Lebanon  are  out-­‐dated  and  therefore   have  not  been  amended.  It  can  therefore  be  argued  that  laws  are  punitive  due  to  the  failure  to  

amend  and  modernise  them  leaving  criminal  justice  agents  with  the  ability  to  criminalise  acts   which  according  to  international  standards  are  not  criminal  (i.e.  homosexuality).    

 

“These  articles  were  written  but  they  are  extremely  old,  and  they  have  not  been  developed  with  

the  development  of  society,  international  societies  and  with  the  development  of  laws.  There  are   articles  that  are  used  that  are  not  even  understood  well”  (Lawyer  1).  

 

In  addition  to  out-­‐dated  laws,  Lebanon  still  uses  capital  punishment.  This  is  despite  the  fact   that  there  is  no  link  between  capital  punishment  and  repressing  homicide  or  violent  crime   (McGuire,  2002).  From  a  total  of  twenty-­‐six  prisoner  participants,  one  participant  was   sentenced  to  death  for  attempted  rape  and  murder.  It  is  important  to  note  however,  that   although  Lebanese  courts  still  issue  the  death  sentence,  these  sentences  have  not  been  carried   out.  The  last  execution  was  in  2004  when  three  people  were  executed  in  Roumieh  prison,  one   by  hanging  and  two  by  firing  squad  (BBC  News,  2004  January  17).  In  regard  to  the  law  and   punitiveness,  it  can  therefore  be  argued  that  due  to  the  out-­‐dated  laws,  criminalisation  of  acts   based  on  perceived  morality  and  the  use  of  capital  punishment  laws  are  in  fact  punitive.  

6.1.3  Lebanese  Courts  and  Punitiveness  

Examining  the  court  process  combined  with  the  human  rights  violations  mentioned  in  Chapters   Three  and  Five,  there  is  an  argument  towards  describing  Lebanese  courts  as  punitive  in  nature.   The  reason  for  arguing  that  Lebanese  courts  are  punitive  in  nature  is  due  to  the  lack  of  rights   provided  to  suspects  throughout  the  various  courts.  The  lack  of  legal  representation,  the  lack  of   the  use  of  witnesses  and  opportunities  for  suspects  to  defend  themselves  are  all  violations  that   result  in  mistrials.  In  addition  to  the  lack  of  defence  another  aspect  that  results  in  punitiveness   is  the  focus  on  confessions.  Some  of  the  judges  within  Lebanon  tend  to  over-­‐rely  on  

confessions,  despite  the  fact  that  many  of  these  confessions  are  a  result  of  torture.    

“There  is  no  honourable  judge  in  Lebanon,  look  at  my  case,  they  have  seen  the  report,  the  

statement  my  wife  has  made  and  the  police  report  which  they  forced  me  to  sign”  (Prisoner  10).  

 

“They  [the  police]  wrote  in  the  report  that  I  have  had  sexual  relations  with  three  men  and  I  work  

as  a  prostitute.  I  accepted  all  these  allegations,  because  if  I  don't  they  will  kill  me”  (Prisoner  25).  

As  was  previously  mentioned  in  Chapters  One  and  Five,  the  use  of  torture  is  a  form  of  

punishment.  Therefore,  the  use  of  torture  to  obtain  confessions  further  reinforces  the  punitive   nature  of  not  only  the  police,  but  also  the  judges  that  rely  on  the  confessions  as  the  main  piece   of  evidence  to  convict  offenders.  In  general,  most  prisoners  felt  like  the  “Judge’s  don't  care  

about  us,  they  just  see  our  crime  not  us”  (Prisoner  2).  This  shows  that  they  are  punitive  in  

nature  as  the  whole  side  of  humanity  is  taken  out  of  the  process.      

In  addition  to  the  punitive  nature  of  the  courts  and  punitive  attitudes  of  judges  towards  sex   offenders,  xenophobia  was  also  seen  to  play  a  role  within  the  courts.  One  prisoner  claimed,   “The  judge  was  xenophobic,  he  told  me,  you  are  Syrian  go  back  to  Syria.  He  spoke  to  me  in  a  

really  bad  way,  it  was  all  because  of  my  nationality,  that  is  why  I  was  in  more  trouble…”  

(Prisoner  2).  This  xenophobia  towards  Syrians  is  a  result  of  resentment  against  the  Syrian   regime’s  control  over  Lebanon  after  the  civil  war  (Nayel,  2013).  A  total  of  six  out  of  twenty-­‐six   participants  within  this  study  were  Syrians  and  felt  that  the  criminal  justice  was  more  punitive   towards  them.  For  example,  Prisoner  24  claimed:  “Why  am  I  still  in  prison  when  the  others  have  

done  worse  crimes  and  are  out  before  us?  I’ll  tell  you  why  its  because  we  are  Syrian,  if  we  were   Lebanese  accused  of  prostitution  we  would  already  be  back  home  now”.  

6.1.4  Lebanese  Prisons  and  Punitiveness  

Lebanese  prison  conditions  are  extremely  bad;  all  participants  within  this  study  highlighted  the   poor  conditions.  For  example,  one  judge  stated:  “Prison  conditions  are  very  bad…  they  are  

extremely  punitive  and  there  is  no  rehabilitation.  In  terms  of  it  being  punitive,  it  is  inhumane,   many  of  the  Lebanese  prisons  not  all  of  them  are  inhumane…”  (Judge  6).  Prisons  are  inhumane  

in  the  conditions  but  also  in  the  fact  that  they  do  nothing  to  help  prisoners  lead  an  offence  free   life  once  released.  This  is  due  to  the  lack  of  rehabilitation  and  support  within  as  well  as  outside   of  prisons.  The  lack  of  rehabilitation  can  be  due  to  numerous  factors,  which  includes  the  lack  of   faith  in  its  success,  the  lack  of  resources  and/or  a  punitive  mentality.  One  police  officer  

highlighted  the  punitive  mentality  when  he  claimed,  “let  him  [prisoner]  be  punished  and  then  

after  punishment  be  rehabilitation”  (Police  Officer  2).  It  is  due  to  such  a  mentality  that  

rehabilitation  fails  to  gain  importance  within  countries  such  as  Lebanon.      

Moreover,  such  beliefs  results  in  Lebanon  being  part  of  this  current  global  shift  towards   punitiveness  and  a  “culture  of  control  where  criminal  justice  system  have  become  more   punitive  and  less  oriented  towards  rehabilitation”  (Phelps,  2011:2).  Numerous  criminal  justice  

systems  (not  just  Lebanon)  rely  on  eliminative  strategies  where  it  is  believed  that  in  order  to   deter  crime,  criminal  acts  need  to  be  linked  to  negative  consequences.  “In  criminal  justice   decisions  this  is  represented  by  deterrence-­‐based  sentences  or  punitive  sanctions”  for   example,  fines,  use  of  custody,  surveillance,  shock  incarceration  and/or  demanding  physical   regimes  (McGuire,  2002:4).  This  punitive  stance  has  lead  to  a  decline  in  rehabilitation  and  “in   place  of  rehabilitation,  deterrence  and  incapacitation  became  the  explicit  goals  of  prison  in   political  discourse”  (Phelps,  2011:2).  

6.1.5  Release  and  Punitiveness    

Finally,  another  indication  of  Lebanon’s  punitive  criminal  justice  system  is  the  lack  of  support  in   the  community  for  ex-­‐prisoners.  This  lack  of  support  may  be  a  result  of  the  Lebanese  criminal   justice  system’s  focus  on  punitiveness.  It  is  evident  from  the  narratives  of  participants  that  this   focus  on  punitiveness  can  be  seen  throughout  all  the  levels  of  the  criminal  justice  system  (i.e.   from  the  point  of  arrest,  to  prison  and  even  upon  release).  Criminal  justice  agents,  it  seems,  fail   to  take  into  consideration  what  happens  after  the  offenders  serve  ‘their  punishment’  for  the   crimes  as  within  Lebanon  sex  offenders  are  released  back  into  the  community  with  no   surveillance  or  monitoring.  It  seems  like  the  criminal  justice  agents  are  focusing  on  the   punishment  of  offenders  and  almost  forget  what  happens  afterwards.  Judges,  lawyers  and   police  officers  all  claimed  that  once  a  sex  offender  is  released  he/she  is  left  on  their  own  with   no  supervision.  Judge  3  for  example,  highlighted  this  when  he  claimed  once  an  offender  is   released:    

 

“then  he  goes  back  to  his  house…  we  have  no  organisations  following  up  on  prisoners,  they  only   have  psychologists  if  the  individuals  want  to  see  them…  if  he  is  released,  he  returns  to  the  home  

where  he  can  re-­‐abuse  his  children.  There  is  no  one  out  there  to  help  the  families  nor  the   offender…  we  don't  know  what  happens  when  they  are  released”  (Judge  3).  

 

This  focus  on  punitive  measures  is  not  specific  to  Lebanon  and  instead,  people  across  the  globe   are  supportive  of  punitive  measures.  This  is  despite  official  statistics,  and  studies  of  the  impact   of  imprisonment,  that  do  not  show  any  unambiguous  link  between  the  severity  of  penalties   (e.g.  prison  versus  community  sentences)  and  recidivism  outcomes”  (McGuire,  2002:5).      

6.2  The  Trajectory  of  Sex  Offenders  Through  the  Criminal  Justice  System