Some people say that we need to outlaw murder, kidnapping, theft, or rape, because these are the sorts of things that help keep a society functioning smoothly. Perhaps an appeal to practicality? But then, is it really practical to outlaw murder? Which is to ask: what difference does this law make?
It is not a legal prohibition on murder that prevents me from killing people, or stealing, and so on.
It seems to me that we create a justice system, in this case, only to pat ourselves on the back for our mistreatment of other people. In the end it isn’t an appeal to practicality but perhaps an appeal to revenge? A sort of “enlightened” Hammurabi’s Code.
The oft-spoke justifications for punishment: retribution, protection of society, rehabilitation, and deterrence. And these sort of “obvious” crimes, we fall back pretty much on the retribution aspect.
But the aspect of this which is troubling me is that while we may have classified justifications for punishment, from the view of the one punished it all looks the same. In any event, the criminal is incarcerated. Am I to understand that it is explained to the criminal why he is imprisoned? “Well, sir, you are simply a threat to the general welfare of society.” And to another, “Well, sir, you need to understand what you’ve done.” And we throw these two together and expect them to sort it out? The rapist shall learn of the error of his ways by consorting with theives?
If we separate the justification, how is it that we end up in the same punishment? Or am I showing my ignorance of the penal system?
If by separating the justification, you mean determining that prisoner A is incarcerated for rehabilitation purposes and prisoner B is incarcerated to protect society, that’s not what happens. The justifications are for punishment in general, not on an individual basis.
While this may not be what prevents you or I from committing these acts, it surely does prevent some people from committing them. And even you or I might commit them if we grew up in a society with no legal prohibition against them.
I can see what eris is driving at though. If we wish to repond to criminal A’s act by issuing a punsihment designed to encourage concept X and we wish to respond to B’s act by issuing a punishment designed to encourage concept Y, it is a real leap of faith to suppose that the best way of achieving X and Y is via the same punishment method.
However, erl, in the long and the short it simply seems that prison’s best we’ve got for many crimes. For now, at least.
as i understand it so far (and i hope i do cause i want to hear what people have to say)
murderers- get prison
rapists- prison
drug dealers -prison
grug users -prison
pedophiles -prison
white collar criminals -prison
not right
i agree.
each of these types of people requires individualized rehabilitation.
this (as i see it) is about 50 different debates, how best to rehabilitate or punish people who commit each crime.
the most important of which (IMO) is the rehabilitation of drug users.
perhaps the answer is specialized prisons geared toward rehabilitation of specialized problems. ie: drug users go to drug prison, rapists go to rape prison
I for one would love it,
may not love the taxes that pay for it, but as long as we’re having the fantasy…
as i understand it so far (and i hope i do cause i want to hear what people have to say)
murderers- get prison
rapists- prison
drug dealers -prison
grug users -prison
pedophiles -prison
white collar criminals -prison
not right
i agree.
each of these types of people requires individualized rehabilitation.
this (as i see it) is about 50 different debates, how best to rehabilitate or punish people who commit each crime.
the most important of which (IMO) is the rehabilitation of drug users.
perhaps the answer is specialized prisons geared toward rehabilitation of specialized problems. ie: drug users go to drug prison, rapists go to rape prison
I for one would love it,
may not love the taxes that pay for it, but as long as we’re having the fantasy…
I am not sure what you are getting at. I am operating under the assumption that society requires a legal system so that people understand what the rules are. One of the big ones is not to go around killing other people.
That’s you. I might be so inclined to simply take what I want or pop a cap in someones ass if there were no consequences.
Don’t overthink it. Jail is unpleasent. We encourage people to follow the rules of society (laws) because if they don’t they go to jail.
It may be a day-late dollar-short type of rehabilitation, but the legal system often does differentiate between rehabilitation and retribution by offering paroles, lessened sentences for good behavior, etc, presumably with the idea that if you’ve learned your lesson then there’s no reason to keep you in prison. Also, some crimes are punished by probation if the criminal isn’t seen as a menace to society (f’rinstance if they’re not a repeat offender).
There are some people who are fundamentally incapable of adhering to any kind of morality whatsoever (psychopaths are an extreme example), in which case laws are necessary as a deterrent. I’d hope that most people don’t murder because they consider it “wrong,” but for those who consider each action based solely on how it will benefit/harm themselves there must be a deterrent so that the rewards of harmful action do not often exceed the risks involved.
I’m gonna side with msmith537 on this one. Theoretically, there may be some sort of ideal punishment for each different classification of crime that maximizes the chances of rehabilitation and minimizes overall crime and blah blah blah. But practically speaking, the punishment system seems to make prefect sense. Break the rules a little, we confiscate a little of your money. Break the rules a lot, we confiscate a little of your freedom. Break the rules a whole lot, we confiscate your life. It gets criminals off the street, and rehabilitates them a bit (in that it teaches them, “the inconvenience of not being able to commit that crime is substantially less than the inconvenience of sitting in prison for a few years”), killing two birds with one stone.
Now we can debate the effectiveness of specific punishments for specific crimes - maybe some things that currently get you time should just be fines, and vice-versa, and maybe some fines or sentences are too long. But I don’t think the One Size Fits All prison system has any inherent flaws.
As to greck’s suggestion of having separate prisons for separate criminals, in addition to being pragmatically impossible, I don’t agree with the general idea. I’m not sure why - elitism is close, but not quite what I’m thinking of - but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. What may not be a horrible idea is use the same prisons, but just make sure you don’t stick Kenneth Lay in the same cell as Charles Manson. I don’t think a white-collar criminal getting ass-rammed on a daily basis does anyone any good, but I like the idea of throwing a little fear-of-God at the upper-class criminals.
True for most (but not all) people. But what about revenge? I might not initiate violence, but were there not some ritualised civil punishment, I might respond in kind to wrongs done to me. And since perceptions differ, this might be part of a cycle of revenge. Part of the justification for retribution by “society” is that it takes it out of the hands of those who might be too passionate - and even if retribution is not effective for the wrongdoer, it is effective for the wronged.
But we do have separate prisons for separate types of criminals and even within the prisons, there is often segregation based on crime. You admit that we should not house a non-violent white collar criminal with a violent psychopath. Why wouldn’t that apply to the overall prison population.
Personally, I feel the biggest failing of the penal system is that it becomes a training camp for criminals.
Yeah that’s a good idea-let these guys spend all their free time lifting weights so they come out of prison stronger than when they went in.
Some modern prisons require that prisoners attend rehab sessions (in the form of psychoanalysis or group therapy or whatever), or else be locked in their cells for 23 out of 24 hours each day. Whether or not this is going to do any good is anybody’s guess.
It seems to have worked for just about every civilization on earth.
**
That’s true for me as well. If I really wanted to kill someone the law probably isn’t going to stop me. However thinking about the possibility of a long prison sentence or my own death might give me pause to think.
**
I think we create a justice system because individuals don’t enjoy being at the mercy of murderers, thieves, and rapist. We have laws against these things, a police force to enforce those laws, and a justice system to ensure that the right people are incarcerated. If you can think of another practical way to keep criminals from preying on society I’d like to hear it.
I do hear Hammurabi’s eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth being put down as barbaric and unenlightened in the 21st century. The basic meaning behind the eye for an eye is that the punishment must fit the crime. That concept is the foundation of western justice.
**
How to deal with criminals has been debated since the invention of the modern penal system. Do you know of any system that rehabilitates hardened criminals? There are some people who just need to be seperated from society for a long long time.
**
I’m pretty sure most prisoners understand why they’re imprisoned. They broke the law, the got caught, and they were convicted in a court of law. I don’t know if it all looks the same to prisoners. I imagine someone sentenced to 3-5 years is going to have a rather different outlook then someone sentenced to 25-life.
The punishments aren’t exactly the same even eliminating the time factor. There are different kinds of prisons as well as different programs designed to assist convicts.
Interestingly enough, isn’t the detterance motive (as in, we must punish todays criminals to send a message to future criminals) to punishment is inconsistent with the moral stance that people should not be used as means to an end? Detterance seems the most pragmatic and empirically demonstrable justification, but also the least morally justifiable by anything other than a classic utilitarian stance (as opposed to a more modern rights based utilitarian stance).
Revenge, obviously is pretty hard to strictly justify as a moral stance: it’s just not clear what moral purpose killing a killer serves. People have a habit of calling things that are quite obviously revenge “justice,” which I think kinda demeans what “justice” is. Ho hum.
Finally, the idea that state retribution is meant to avoid the personal revenge motive (i.e., the state monopolizes both judgement and punishment because if it didn’t, individual victims or their friends would take it into their own hands with chaotic results) seems to make a little more sense, but it presents a rather counter-intuitive result: that punishment is more meant to protect criminals from their victims, and society from vigelantes, rather than victims from criminals.
I don’t know many people who have taken a serious look at our penal system and come away with the idea that it deters anyone from committing crimes.
**
I understand many people here will disagree with me but I think vengeance is a part of justice. We’ve simply taken the victim out of the equation and rely on a system of laws, advocates, judges, and jurors to determine the level of punishment a crime warrants. When we setence someone to a crime we’re basically saying “You have hurt someone and now the state is going to hurt you.” So long as the punishment fits the crime the concept of justice is not violated.
Not only that but the system tends to protect people from be unjustly (For you cite monkies out there, yes, I’m fully aware that innocent people get convicted and punished from time to time.)
—I don’t know many people who have taken a serious look at our penal system and come away with the idea that it deters anyone from committing crimes.—
You must not be paying much attention to the research on criminal law then. It’s a pretty hard sell even conceptually to argue that punishment doesn’t deter crime. The prospect of crashing my car certainly deters me from driving everywhere at 120mph.
Indeed, there’s a good amount of research that has supported even James Q Wilson’s Broken Windows theory: that prosecuting small crimes actually deters larger crimes: by creating an environment where the involvement of the legal system is much more of a second nature in people: not as easily forgotten about when someone is either considering a crime or is even in the heat of passion.
—So long as the punishment fits the crime the concept of justice is not violated.—
The question is: what the heck do we mean by justice then? I mean, you can define it any way you like (and it certainly has over time gained the meaning of “well, I killed that sumbitch, that’s justice”), but in my case, I think the concept of “just” fits in there somewhere, and that’s a distinctly moral concept. It’s not about what degree of violence is okay given a person who’s done a particular thing in the past (especially when it was a one time thing): it’s about what is permissable period.
One can make the arguement that, by a criminal act, a person reveals a previously hidden tendancy or character flaw that warrants us locking them up as a precaution against future crime: that past crimes are one of the only useful guides we have to who should be locked up and who shouldn’t be, for the good of society. That makes surface sense, but it gets VERY sticky in reality when you consider all sorts of other factors.
It also might make sense to lock someone up in order to remove them from a society that simply cannot condone their continued participation in it, given the public outrage at their situation.
But I’m not sure I see the moral rationale behind taking out your outrage on a person who has comitted a crime. It may be psychologically pleasing: and it may even be, for that reason, pragmatic. But where is the moral justification (there’s that root word again: “just”!) for such an action? That’s a much tougher case to make.
Do people crash every time they go fast? Nope, and therefore you can find people speeding all over America. Do people always go to jail after committing a crime? No, so you still find people raping, selling drugs, or stealing cars.
**
That might be a possibilty and I think that same concept fueled Guilliani’s clean up of New York City.
**
I think it is a distinctly moral concept as well. Of course I also think that sometimes “I killed the sumbitch” is justice.
**
Under the right conditions it is permissable to incarcerate someone (prison), to take some of their money (fine), sentence them to picking up trash (forced labor), or to kill them (execution).
We can’t just have people who violate the rights of others running around causing trouble. We’ve got to have some sort of system to deal with them for our protection.
—Do people crash every time they go fast? Nope, and therefore you can find people speeding all over America. Do people always go to jail after committing a crime? No, so you still find people raping, selling drugs, or stealing cars.—
Hello? Did you lose sight of the very point of this line of arguement. Obviously, the point is not that no one ever drives that fast: but that far fewer people do given the actual consequences. If you legalized rape, drugs, and theft, would you really argue that we wouldn’t see an increase in these activities? The reality is, there’s a ton of research backing the idea of deterence being an effective way to reduce certain behaviors.
—That might be a possibilty and I think that same concept fueled Guilliani’s clean up of New York City.—
Indeed, quite explicitly.
—I think it is a distinctly moral concept as well. Of course I also think that sometimes “I killed the sumbitch” is justice.—
The question is, can “I killed the sumbitch” be described as morally just, regardless of what crazy definition one gives “justice” these days?
—Under the right conditions it is permissable to incarcerate someone (prison), to take some of their money (fine), sentence them to picking up trash (forced labor), or to kill them (execution).—
Obviously, you believe that. So what? The question is: WHY is it justified, and under what conditions?
—We can’t just have people who violate the rights of others running around causing trouble. We’ve got to have some sort of system to deal with them for our protection.—
Yes, but that’s just back to the detterence question (and I’m not sure I understand you: you deny that detterence works, yet you support a program of, as you describe it here, detterence?), or the question of trying to prevent future crimes, using past crimes to identify those likely to be repeat offenders.
msmith, though I highly doubt you would bust a cap in someone if there were no law forbidding it, let me say you would for a hypothetical. “Tada!” no legal prohibition on murder. “A-ha!” you say, “No one can stop me now!” And you go kill someone. Three days later you find a rather large group of insane men singing about your death and carrying it out.
Consequences created the legal system and formalized justice, not the other way around.
But that was not the thrust of my OP which only a few touched on, which was why is the punishment so similar for crimes if we are supposed to be helping some people.
How is maximum security prison for a “lifer” pure retribution and protection from society while for the guy one cell block over who will get out in five or so for some fourth degree felony is being rehabilitated? If this can be answered factually then so be it, I just supposed it couldn’t.
loinburger mentions,
It differentiates punishment on a more or less parametric scale of type(s) of incarceration and length of it (them).
Basically, you will get something from nothing, through probation, house arrest, and prison sentences, to life imprisonment, each of those with varying times.
I agree with you that the motivation for “time off for good behavior” is ostensively that we don’t want to imprison people who no longer “need” it (from the rehabilitation aspect of justifications). But then my own question comes back in spades: we essentially have one punishment (along a sliding scale) for all justifications (something which I am still unclear on), and now we are also supposed to be able to distinguish good behavior from a desire to escape the punishment we are offering? I mean, for some of the people in there it isn’t supposed to rehabilitate. It is supposed to be a frigging punishment and that’s that.
msmith again
Of course it is: they all have [essentially] the same punishment, so we take a population which is more or less distributed throughout “regular” people and concentrate it in a location where they have nothing to do but look at and talk to each other.
Oh, and some of them are of course supposed to rehabilitate.
MGibson has noted that outlawing murder has seemed to work for just about every civilization on earth. What I wonder is: what is the criteria for “working”? That we all outlaw it formally? I think hawthorne spells out the underlying causes behind formalizing a justice system. Now if we can figure out how this insanely formalized and inflated beast of a legal system manages to differentiate so friggin’ much that we still end up with such a faceless style of punishment.
I’m not arguing that there is something wrong with this, ElJEffe, but that we seemed to justify (verbosely) every single step… except the one where all punishments end up the [about] same. Can there be a justification here? (and nevermind civil laws like fines for parking tickets; no one is going to argue that it is morally wrong to double park (well, some might). Here I would definitely agree that these laws were made to make society run smoothly.)
Personally, I hate the way revenge is seen as an okay or even right aim by some people - it’s affected me so much that I have a severe distrust now of the word ‘justice.’
I agree with prison - but never just for punishment.
Deterrence might be inconsistent with the principal that people shouldn’t be used as a means to an end if the only purpose of punishment was deterrence, and general deterrence at that. But even if the only purpose to punishment was deterrence , we don’t only punish today’s criminals to prevent future criminals. Another goal is to keep todays criminals from committing future crimes.(specific deterrence).
