Ok, this is an actual hypothetical situation - i’m not going to spring a news story on you at any point here.
Earlier this year, A was found guilty of the assault and rape of** B**. Let’s say for the purpose of this argument that it was an open-and-shut case - DNA, fingerprints, witnesses, the works, all ruling for the prosecution; there’s no doubt that A is guilty. A will soon be sentenced to a “normal” length of time in prison, appropriate to your location.
You have $500,000.
You can choose to spend this money on either the victim, or the offender.
You could spend your money on A, the offender ** - perhaps to fortify his prison, hire more guards, beef up the security, to make sure A ** doesn’t escape. You could use the money to ahem bribe officials/lawyers/judges, to make sure that** A ** gets a longer sentence, or even the death penalty (assume that it is allowed in your location). You could use the money to rehabilitate** A**, setting up programs and hiring psychologists/counsellors to diagnose and try to “fix” A’s mental health. You could spend the money in some other way.
Or, you could spend the money on B, the victim - perhaps to hire psychologists/counsellors to try and help** B ** to cope and recover from the attack. You could choose to simply give** B ** the money, as compensation. You could choose to spend the money in some other way.
You can spend the money on either A or B - not both. But you can spend it on as many different things for that person as you want.
So; will you be spending your money on A, the offender, or B, the victim? And how will you spend it?
Oddly enough, I had a similar discussion at work today.
I don’t think giving the victim money is the best course of action. I believe this because just giving the victim money trivializes what happened to them. Also, focusing on the victim alone ignores the fact that she might not be A’s last victim
Therefore it makes sense to focus on the offender. Since it is generally regarded that most sexual offenders are a high-risk to reoffend.
I would spend the money to both lengthen the jail term, and increase the focus on rehabilitating A.
No - I don’t know all about the programs of other countries ( I’m not too clear on the ones in mine, tbh), so let me expand the hypothetical. Without your money,** A ** will simply be sent to a medium security prison - no rehab. programs, or any kind of additional security above a shared cell, guards, and CCTV (and the prison itself - shared amenities, fenced off, typical medium security for a US facility, let’s say.).** B ** will recieve nothing he/she cannot provide for themselves, other than** A ** being found guilty.
Yup, you can do that. That’d be spending the money on** A**, in that case.
Spend it on B, I guess, but if this is somehow leading up to to the question of why societies spend more on prisons for offenders than counseling for victims, I’d say it’s because punishment is easy and satisfying, while healing is neither. As an act of personal charity, I have no problem helping B and letting the state punish A (though if A sufficiently offended me, there are ways to make him suffer that are far cheaper than half a mill).
The 500K might be better spent on political campaigns for candidates one feels will act to improve law enforcement, imprisonment and social services.
Twenty years ago I read an article in on of the pop psychology magazines ( I think Psychology Today) that offered the same explanation. In several actual cases bystanders who witnessed assaults with serious injuries ignored the victims in order to chase down the perpetrators. In some cases it led to the death of the victim. The explanation was that punishment of the guilty is a stronger satisfier than care of the injured.
So are you saying B will receive no free rape counselling (I can tell you that is provided here, by the State and various NGOs), or that** B** will receive “the normal amount” for their society?
If it iss the former (no free councelling), then I would spend the money on setting that up, not just for B, but for all B’s (that much money should be able to fund an entire rape crisis centre for at least a year, here.)
AssumingA gets the “normal” sentence (I read that as the legal prescribed one, here that’s a mandatory life sentence for rape, although in practice, this isn’t certain), I’m happy with his punishment (rehabilitation being moot in such a case), so I see no need to spend money to punish him any further, and your hypothetical security setup sounds OK to me.
I think the money should be used to ensure A gets the death penalty, this is not though the normal rabid backlash and string em up campaign we have here. A sex offender is a creature of habit and once they have a taste for it they are always a risk, the best way to control a risk is to remove it QED we have to protect society therefore we must remove the risk.
I would do nothing without consulting the most high council of intelligent giant squid that hypothetically exists in the deepest ocean trench; I feel sure that they(if they existed) would have a solution to this problem(if it existed).
Do you think you could fit that consultation into 20 minutes?
No free rape counselling. Likewise, A will have no rehab. program or “extras” other than their cell and normal medium security arrangements. You’re be spending your money on B, (and other B-like people) then.
The rapist gets close to the punishment that a real rapist would get (depending on jurisdiction and exact circumstances).
The victim gets far less aid than a real victim in the US would have access to.
It is obviously necessary to both punish/rehabilitate the guilty and provide aid to the victim. The situation you describe is completely deficient on the victim’s side, so of course I’d choose B.
In real life, where counselling is availiable, I’d probably chose A, since I think the penal system does a horrible job at producing people ready to peacefully rejoin society.
