How does society punish someone like Albert Fish?

Great Debates
21

You’re treating this too intellectually, and, really, there’s no conflict between what you and Scumpup most recently said. Historically, the desire for punishment and/or vengeance have served the purpose of removing a person whose presence is undesirable from society. Increasingly, this has been done more and more objectively, and less and less at the whim of the biggest dudes at the campsite. Whether this is now best accomplished by life-long imprisonment or by imposing the death penalty is a subject for a different debate.

IMHO, the flaw here is that Scumpup, in defining this debate, pre-supposed a need to punish someone like Albert Fish. Overall, as long as such people are permanently removed from interacting with the rest of us, I don’t see the need for any additional punishment.

22

I, personally, presupposed no such thing. Every justice system of which I am aware has valued punishment; ergo the societies that spawned those systems also valued punishment. I am based my OP on what the historical evidence indicates. Once again, if you are aware of a justice system that did not, please cite it.
So, yet again, the sytem values punishment. Fish was not punished. Therefore, the system failed.
How might the system have succeeded?

23

There’s a joke about an espionage agency whose leaders are discussing a posthumonous award.

All authorities agreed that the potential recipient had died as a result of horrific tortures.

But details were fuzzy:

“We have a report that Agent X endured horrific tortures”, said one field officer. “We recommend him for the award”.

“WE do NOT recommend him for the award!”, said a different field officer. “We have a report that Agent X endured horrific tortures and only gave in when they threatened to stop”.

24

He died when the state executed him via the electric chair after being incarcerated and tried for his crimes. What qualifies as punishment in your estimation if this does not?

His ultimate fate seems sufficient to me to keep him from doing any further harm to society. I’m not certain it is the necessary burden of society to inflict equal suffering on one such as him if that is your point.

25

Infliction of suffering is inherent in the system. It is that way because society deems it desirable. Is there a justice systme anywhere in the world where the guilty are not made to suffer? In some places, that suffering takes the form of actual physical torture. In others, the suffering consists of being confined and forced to live in unpleasant circumstances and under very restrictive rules. Some places even combine both. Is there a place in the world where the guilty are not made to suffer?
To answer my own OP, Fish could have been made to suffer simply by confining him and denying him the means to inflict harm on anybody including himself. He should have been denied his date with the chair since it filled him with pleasurable anticipation. Fish should have lived out his life in boredom and ennui. Then the system’s requirement of punishment would have been filled as well as the requirement that society be protected from Fish.

26

I’d go with locking him up underground with a 24 hour guard with no human contact, living on gruel and water. No human contact and nothing to do whatsoever.

Barring that, kill the fucker.

27

To what end are we inflicting equal or approximate suffering as a means of punishment on Albert Fish or any other person(s) convicted of a crime? What benefit is gained, and for whom? Why do we need to do anything more than simply prevent them to the best of our capabilities from transgressing society’s laws again?

28

I don’t pretend to know the answer to that question. Humans as a group i.e societies, clearly, do value punishment and suffering as parts of their justice sytems; they all feature it.
Answer your own question. If simple removal of criminals from society is what we require from a justice system why not just euthanize all criminals? If that much killing is distasteful, why do we we not confine them in the equivalent of a luxury spa resort? They’ll still be isolated from the rest of us, but most of the suffering associated with a prison environment will be absent.

29

Scumpup, I have to agree with you that all justice systems historically have included suffering as part of the punishment for crime. But as an evolving modern society, we have the ability to change and grow. I feel that there are two broad categories of crimes: those that, while reprehensible offer the prospect of rehabilitation, and those that do not, such as Mr. Fish’s. In the former case, while the inmate is punished by the removal of their freedom, the primary goal shuold be rehabilitation and reintergration into society. In the latter, the goal should be the removal of the offender from society, preventing further crimes. In both cases, the primary punishment is the restricted freedom, most of the rest of what makes prison unpleasant is being housed with other criminals. A spa populated by murderers is unlikely to be much better than prison.

30

You don’t think being confined under overcrowded conditions, following a lengthy, detailed set of very strict (and what probably seem arbitrary) rules, eating institutional food, wearing distinvctive prison clothes and all that sort of thing are unpleasant? We go to some lengths, at least in the US system, to dehumanize and humiliate our prisoners.
Much of the danger from being confined with other criminals stems from the overcrowding, the gang culture, and the sheer dreariness of prison life. There are such niceties as TV because bitter experience has shown that prisoners who are denied everything will riot and fight among themselves just to have something to do. We continue to punish and make them suffer, we just allow them enough tiny pleasures to keep them controllable with a minimal staff.

Nobody will get stabbed over a jar of commissary peanut butter if everybody can just stroll down to the snack bar and get a peanut butter sandwich at will.

31

Fish: shot and forgot.

32

Wise words. A lot of people overlook what prisons would be like if inmates had **nothing **to look forward to. As for the likes of Albert Fish? Whatever scientific psychiatric or medical experiments they can think of, do them, then get rid of the waste. For lesser murderers, offer public service deals where they can do something worthwhile, until they are deemed to have earned consideration for better prison conditions, and maybe eventually, release back into society.

33

Ok. Well if we are simply stating as fact for purposes of your OP that things that are accepted are automatically valued and necessary then you are correct. However, I assert that simple tradition does not give weight to your argument.

Personally speaking I wouldn’t euthanize all criminals because I might accidentally put someone who is innocent to death. Locking them away with whatever facilities society deems it can spare for them seems sufficient for preventing them from breaking any more laws until they are (theoretically) rehabilitated and released, or they die. Any other punishments, and I question the motive behind instituting other punishments, seem frivilous and unnescessary… which is what I thought you were trying to debate.

34

I swing more in the direction of justice than punishment. Treat people the way they deserve to be treated, and that poor bastard did not deserve to live. Put him out of his own, and our, misery. You don’t have to make him sorry or make him suffer, just exterminate him.

35

It’s not really constructive to talk about “punishing” an Albert Fish (Jeff Dahmer, etc.). Punishment is something we mete out in hopes that that it will either (1) persuade the person being punished to not repeat the offensive behavior, or (2) provide some manner of compensation to that person’s victim(s).

Say, for example, that Jim undertakes to spray paint Ed’s house with a statement that combines an ethnic slur with language suggesting that Ed’s family leave forthwith or risk losing their lives. Removing the graffitti will cost Ed quite a bit of money, and Ed’s family endures considerable fear and anxiety until Jim is identified and arrested. We may punish Jim in any of several ways, such as:

(1) We may put him in prison, in hopes that he will find the experience sufficiently unpleasant that he will avoid behavior that will put him in jail again;
(2) We may compel him to attend some manner of training or counseling, in hopes that he will understand the harm that he inflicted on Ed’s family and thus refrain from acting in such a manner again;
(3) We may compel him to make whole Ed’s property by either removing the graffitti himself or by paying for its removal, in hopes that this brings some relief to Ed and his family (it may also be unpleasant enough to persuade Jim not to commit similar acts in the future).

This only works if Jim agrees that prison time/a big fine/Ed’s distress, etc. is not a fair price to pay for the temporary pleasure of vandalising Ed’s house.

An Albert Fish doesn’t function that way. He’s probably not particularly upset at the prospect of going to jail or of dying. He has no empathy for his victims. He may even regard himself as a victim, insisting that he’s been wronged by his arrest and conviction. Nothing will persuade him to change his behavior, so you can’t really speak of “punishing” him.

It’s more constructive to ask, “How does society *manage *someone like Albert Fish?” Do we lock him up for the rest of his natural life in order to prevent him from harming any more people? Do we decide that he’s such a risk to others (even if incarcerated) that we should simply end his life?

I can’t support the notion of torturing someone like Fish in order to provide “closure” to his victims or their families. If we agree that he’s such a danger that he can’t be incarcerated, he should be euthanized. Because really, that’s what we’re saying - this creature is so damaged that we can’t justify keeping him alive, any more that we can justify keeping a rabid dog alive. Making him suffer does nothing to make anyone safer, doesn’t bring back the dead, and probably doesn’t grant long-term comfort to the survivors. It’s a perverse form of entertainment for the living, nothing more.

36

No offense, but I was trying to agree with you there. :stuck_out_tongue: The question “How does society punish someone like Albert Fish?” presupposes a need to do so. Also when you said:

I sort of thought maybe you didn’t want to discuss whether or not punishment should be part of the justice system. So we’re not going to talk about whether it should be, but we’re not going to assume it either. I guess I’m confused as to your intent in framing the debate that way.

In any case, while the desire for punishment has led to the evolution of a useful criminal justice system which has benefited society by removing those who must be removed, it’s not clear to me that in a case like this. society’s needs can’t be served without inflicting suffering on some like Mr. Fish, or that it’s desirable to feed those base instincts that would like to see him suffer. I say this despite the fact that feeding those base desires has, on balance, historically benefited society.

37

[QUOTE=Scumpup;10165258If we posit a justice system where punishment is part of what the system is supposed to do, how does the system punish a man like this? Beatings, torture, and physical abuse are things he apparently enjoyed receiving.[/quote]

Is that what your justice system offically posits? I know that many Americans think that way, but is it the offical position? Because that’s wrong to me. It doesn’t work, that’s why we changed to getting other goals from justice.

So you don’t want to hear about methods, but about punishment for masochists?

If you want punishment as part of your system, why not treat the mentally ill person first and cure him of his masochism, then you are free to indulge your own sadism and punish him so that he hurts for it?

After all, punishments aren’t adapted on the other end of the spectrum, either. People who are claustrophobic can’t opt out of jail, either, I guess. Some people suffer incredibly if they are not in the free air shut inside a cell; others are used to living in the city and the prison bothers them far less. So either you devise unique “punishments” for every prisoner (which would be logistically difficult) or you accept a bell-curve for your prisoners.

38

I contest that the US Justice system has punishment as one of its goals. It is certainly used as a tool used towards the goal of less crime via deterrence, but that’s not the same thing. There; that’s said, so now I can move on to the actual question.

If I really wanted to torture a man who enjoyed pain and craved death, I would try and get to him with boredom and monotony. I would give him a radio, that only played one song over and over. I would give him a television that only played one episode of one show over and over. (These would of course be inset in the wall so he couldn’t break them, with the TV behind plexiglass or something.) I would have turning one off turn the other on, so that one of them was playing at all times.

There would be no human contact. The food would be delivered via a slot, and would consist of a uniform paste of not unpleasant taste that provided all the necessary nutrients, or as close to that as we could manage. Regardless, it would never vary. There would be a minimal attached bathroom with a sink that could serve as a drinking fountain.

The ceilings would be too high to reach and have recessed lights. The lights would always be on, perhaps at a medium dimness that he could learn to sleep in. There would be no clocks or indications of time and the meals would be evenly spaced. There would be recessed cameras in the ceiling as well so that if he starved himself to death or something he could be removed.

If we’re feeling humane, as needed he would be tranquilized and moved to an identical cell so the other one could be cleaned and restocked with toilet paper.