Sanctions are a relevant element in wrongdoing. Relevant but not essential. Our conscience is defined by our risk appetite and our risk perception (see my October 9 blog). Sanctions represent only one dimension in our risk perception. The other main dimension is the likelihood of getting away with the wrongdoing. The nature of the sanction is another dimension in our risk perception. Some sanctions have zero impact in our decision making.
Sanctions should comply with the so called SMART criteria (i.e., Specific, Measurable, Assignable, Realistic and Time-related) in order to have an impact. Else it may even be counterproductive. Generic sanctions, which involve others than the perpetrators, may even cause sympathy for the perpetrators. The perpetrator becomes a victim. Ideally, the perpetrator should feel that the imposed sanction is justified (SMART). This would however first require accountability and responsibility.
Monetary sanctions (e.g., fines) comply with 4 out of 5 SMART criteria but lack realism. For some people the monetary sanction will be far too much given their financial background and for others it’s a total joke. Economic sanctions are likely to affect far more people than the ones responsible and are likely to become counterproductive over time. Given its irreversibility, a death penalty must be in full and utter compliance with each SMART criterion, especially the “Assignable” criterion. Any shadow of a doubt on that criterion should be good enough reason for not applying it.
In case of taking accountability and responsibility by the perpetrator, a sanction could even by self-imposed by the perpetrator. A judge – or a jury – could then assess the SMARTness of the self-imposed sanction. In case of an (alleged) perpetrator not assuming accountability and responsibility, sanctions should be much more severe – at least in case of a conviction. Such a system may actually work much better for the victim, the perpetrator, and the likelihood of recurrence.
The word sanction has a double meaning in the English language as it can either be openly restrictive or secretly permissive in nature. Vocabulary.com gives an interesting example of this double meaning. In Dutch, we use the word “gedogen” for the secretly permissive nature – in spite of an official sanction policy. Gedogen is not the same as tolerating. It’s about not enforcing sanctions.
Why do people obey the law? The two traditional theories are based on ‘deterrence’ (i.e., people obey the law to avoid legal consequences and sanctions) and ‘legitimacy’ (i.e., people obey the law because it possesses legitimate authority in their eyes). These two explanations have dominated legal discussions for decades. In recent years, however, Professor Richard McAdams at the University of Chicago Law School has been developing new theories about how the law works. Professor McAdams argues that in addition to deterrence and legitimacy, the law works “expressively” by allowing people to coordinate and by signalling new information and beliefs. (PsychologyToday)
The essential intention of a sanction is to change our behaviour in order to prevent recurrence. In reality, sanctions are much more like an indulgence (NL: “aflaat”) to pay for our wrongdoing. There is hardly any behavioural impact anymore. The behavioural impact of a sanction should affect the risk appetite of the perpetrator rather than being a – more or less – neutral component in the risk perception.
People talk about smart sanctions and crippling sanctions. I’ve never seen smart sanctions, and crippling sanctions cripple everyone, including innocent civilians, and make the government more popular. Quote by Mohamed ElBaradei
0 Comments