‘I think the longest a lifer ever spent in jail was 26 years.’
Since 1945 or something like that. Not the dawn of time.
So long as I’m judged by the same standards…fine.
Marc
It’s really late here, so I’ll address the OP in detail tomorrow, but I thought people might find this article on the methods used to predict the likelihood of an individual re-offending interesting as it discusses the flaws and limitations of those methods (it also has a bibliography, for those interested in reading the original sources).
I have a very simple solution to crime & punishment. The basic principal is that the perpetrators of all crimes are punished but nobody goes to jail. How is this achieved?
Every crime is given a score of between 0.1 (e.g. Burgalry) and, say, 3 (e.g. Murder, spitting gum on the pavement 
).
On conviction, a criminal is rewarded with the point score for his crime. When a criminal’s score is in the range of 1.0 to 1.9 (1.n), he is entered into the National Criminal Lottery. The draw can take place as often or as rarely as desired.
With a score of 1.n the odds of losing are 1:1,000,000. If the criminal loses, he is executed. The winners keep their scores until they next commit a crime. The score for that crime is added to the criminal’s total and she is entered into the next National Criminal Lottery draw.
Scores of 2.n have odds of 1:100,000
Scores of 3.n have odds of 1:10,000
Scores of 4.n have odds of 1:1,000
Scores of 5.n have odds of 1:100
Scores of 6.n have odds of 1:10
Scores of 7.n have odds of 1:1
Children accumulate scores as if they were adults, but at a reduced rate (Special offer: half price for children). They are never entered into the draw until they commit a crime as an adult, when their juvenile (half-price) score is added to the new crime and they are entered in the appropriate odds draw.
Pros
- cost effective, no more jails
- recidivism brings its own reward
- the odds of losing or points per crime can be adjusted as required
- gambling on the National Criminal Lottery can fund the entire system and provide money for good causes
Cons
- execution is a bit permanent
Now, wait until you see my plan for reforming the government…
Reprise, we’re waiting…
[hijack]I remember reading Papillion or maybe it was the sequel Banco about 25 years ago. One thing I’ve remembered is that the author thought it should be 20 years or the death penalty. This was the case in whatever S American country they landed in on one of his escapes. [/hijack]
OK, you asked for it.
Warning - the fololowing contains opnions of an adult nature
Step 1 - sack every third person employed by central and local government (federal & state for non-UK viewrs) . Exceptions - teachers, police, doctors, nurses, armed forces. To be done alphabetically, starting with Mr/Ms Aaa and ending with Ms/Mr Zzz irrespective of rank, position or job description.
Step 2 - quotas for politicians. Not by race/sex/hair colour but by occupation. Anybody with a legal qualification is excluded. Anybody working as a civil servant (i.e. supplier of government services) is excluded. Anybody under the age of 30, i.e. totally lacking in the good and bad parts of life’s experience.
Step 3 - define what government is supposed to do, rather than asume it has to do everything, allowing it to take excessive powers.
I suspect there is the potential for about 3 new threads here.
Curses, hit Submit instead of Preview. Sorry about the shambolic spelling.
I think most all the points to now have been very thoughtful and valid (gee, I hope I don’t break the string).
One argument against reduced sentences for heinous murderers because they show a dramatic conversion in prison is the subjectivity of judging that conversion.
A prisoner is living in a controlled environment. It no doubt is a life that has its own unique stresses and interactions with others, but those are in many ways different from the kinds of stresses and interactions a person would have in the outside world.
Judging a person’s productivity and good deeds while living in such an environment can only take you so far.
And an awful lot of the judging of the prisoners’ conversion, be it direct or indirect, seems tied to a religious epiphany, particularly of the Christian variety. It stands to reason that as the vast majority of this country identifies itself as Christian, that the majority of people on a parole board would be, too.
How fair is that to an atheist, agnostic, Wiccan, etc., who would not commit another crime were he or she released from incarceration?
Some interesting words on that subject here:
(FWIW, I’m a Christian.)
Sit through a few murder trials. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen one where the person - hell, any person convicted of any crime - doesn’t have remorse and recognize the wrongness of their actions in hindsight.
The heinousness of the crime, the punishment and protection of society against people who don’t make those realizations about the wrongness of their actions before acting, needs to be preserved.
Weighing the other factors of how little can really be gleaned from a person’s actions in an incarcerated situation, and the subjectivity of judging whether to release them and what standards to use, tends to make me support true life imprisonment in situations like first-degree murder.
I could see it becoming a confusing, complicated, self-contradicting mess if you don’t truly stand by penalties based upon the harshness of the offense against society.
Woah, let’s back up for a second.
This statement abrogates a fundamental underlying purpose of the criminal justice system.
One of the compelling reasons for the development of public criminal justice was to take revenge out of the hands of the victim of a crime and/or the victim’s family, and place it into the hands of society. There are extremely good reasons for this. First, by making revenge a public business with due process of law, it minimizes the chance that the family will err and seek revenge on the wrong person. Second, the serves to help ensure that the revenge enacted is proportionate - that the family doesn’t kill the perpetrator of a simple mugging, for example.
This is the “retribution” function of criminal justice. The other functions are deterrence, public safety and rehabilitation.
In the specific, you are partially correct. But in the general, you are dead wrong.
Harking back to the retribution function, if the punishment meted out to a criminal would not be considered sufficient by reasonable persons, then the willingness of victims and there families - across the board - to defer their desire for revenge to the public organs of justice will be compromised. And that is something we definitely do not want.
What this GD is about is setting the balance between the retribution and rehabilitation functions of criminal justice. And that is a debate that has been raging for about two centuries now.
The rehabilitation concept is a relatively new one in criminal justice, first arising in the early to mid 19th Century with the establishment of “penitentiaries” (“penitent” - get it?). In its conflict with retribution, the struggle has waxed and waned over the years, with one concept or another given first priority (although neither concept was completely abandoned at any time). Mexico, for example, wrote rehabilitation into its Constitution - life inprisonment is unconstitutional in Mexico, and the Mexican high court recently held that extradition to face life inprisonment elsewhere is unconstitutional - based on the premise that no one is beyond redemption. It is an interesting question whether Mexico would include such a clause if it was writing its constitution now.
But the real problem is is that both retribution and rehabilitation try to impose blanket rules and bright lines on the most fickle of matters - human behavior and intentions. Even a real in-depth individual assessment of prisoners to determine whether rehabilitation has occurred (after a certain sentence has been served, to fulfil the retribution function), wouldn’t suffice at the present - psychology isn’t advanced enough to provide accurate predictions. And, even if they worked, the cost of such in-depth assessments is prohibitive.
So, we have jury-rigged a parole board system, that purports to give at least a superficial review. And the results suck. But the only thing worse is the alternative.
Sua
I think that sums up the current criminal justice system in the UK, and probably the USA as well.
I have never understood the point of time off for good behaviour or for any reason. The criminal has already demonstrated sufficent bad behaviour to warrant a custodial sentence in the first place, so why should there be a reduction?
The following is something I was writing for another purpose entirely. Some of the points I have already mentioned earlier.
IMHO there are only two requirements of a criminal justice system that the state, being the monopoly supplier of force and a justice system, has to meet:
People expect the state to protect them from crime
People expect the state to bring a suspected criminal to justice.
How should a justice system deal with convicted criminals? Are they dealt with by:
Prevention - imprison criminals to prevent them committing further crimes, or
Punishment - punish criminals to deter them from committing further crimes.
If prevention then convicted criminals are imprisoned, always. This means that all sentences are custodial and designed to prevent a criminal committing more crimes. If punishment then convicted criminals are subjected to a range of measures (prison sentences, probation, fines, corporal punishment, mutilation, execution) in the hope that the punishment is sufficiently bad to deter them from re-offending and others from offending.
Although I make it seem black and white, of course it is not. For example, by varying lengths of prison sentence for prevention, are we scaling the punishment to suit the crime or are we removing the criminal from society for a period dependent on the severity of the crime committed?
Consider the following case. A woman was married to a man by whom she had a daughter. She had an affair. He killed her. He then drove his baby daughter to his father-in-law’s village where he gave himself up and told the police to give the baby to her grandfather. He was never likely to re-commit. Was he a risk to society at all? What was the purpose of any sentence in this case?
In this example, the sentence was a punishment, pure and simple. If there is no chance of re-offending (which begs the question on what would happen if he entered another relationship and discovered his new partner having an affair) then perhaps the criminal shouldn’t go to prison. But society wouldn’t stand for that option; it likes the idea of punishment and it is easier to decide punishment depending on the crime itself rather than the likelihood of re-offending.
Personally, I favour a custodial sentence for all crimes. Imprisonment offers the only workable solution to meet the underlying requirement - that the state to takes all reasonable steps to protect people from crime. Prison removes the criminal from society. It is coincidental that it may be punitive. Everything else is merely an attempt to reduce the cost of a prison population.
Capital punishment is not an option – there is no appeal. Probation and parole are pointless – why imprison someone in order to prevent further crimes then let them out early for some arbitrary definition of good behaviour? By being in prison in the first place they have already demonstrated bad behaviour.
The size of the prison population is a meaningless statistic. It is a measure of nothing other than the success of the police in catching, and the courts in convicting, criminals. It will always be higher for a preventative style of justice system than any other. However, the crime rate will also be a lot lower.
Having decided on a criminal justice system, then society has to pay for it, otherwise it won’t work. Cost is irrelevant. The state has to build prisons as required by the criminal justice system and not as permitted by the Treasury.
If the state decides that prison is for prevention and not punishment, it is also incumbent upon society to ensure that the quality of life in the prisons is reasonable and that rehabilitation programs exist. If not, then the criminal can be dumped in an oubliette.
The current system in the UK is a shambles because the purpose of prison has not been defined, funding for criminal justice is controlled by supply not demand and the requirement of the state to protect its citizens has been forgotten.