It’s obviously the harm of retribution that’s unethical, not any internal satisfaction that derives from it. So if you want to quibble that internal satisfaction deriving from random harm cannot in itself be unethical, okay. But since this satisfaction derives explicitly from a sense that “justice has been done” (through karma), that moral perspective will obviously also inform the way we design our justice system, and thus whether deliberate harm is inflicted for retribution.
And then I think to say that “satisfaction” is a personal or societal benefit that justifies inflicting deliberate harm is a circular argument, since any emotional satisfaction may be ephemeral if you ultimately come to believe that inflicting harm solely for retribution is immoral.
Whyever not? If this is the desired outcome why shouldn’t it be done in a more systematic manner rather than just up to the vagaries of chance. Why not simply have judges down a sentence of 20 years in prison with the added stipulation that a broom stick shall be shoved up their ass twice a week?
Your added stipulation is forbidden as cruel and unusual punishment by the US constitution. And even if it were not, requiring prison staff to deal out such punishment, or even supervise it would be extremely morally and mentally damaging for said staff.
People are sentenced to prison as punishment, not to be punished.
There are four possible justifications for putting people in prison.
Retribution: People commit a crime and harmed society. Society should harm them back. I feel this is morally wrong. It simply increases the amount of crimes which occur, even if some of those crimes are legally sanctioned.
Deterrence: People commit a crime and get sent to prison. Prison is unpleasant. Other people who are thinking about maybe committing a crime will see this and decide to avoid prison by choosing to not commit crimes. The problem with this theory is there is not sufficient evidence to show it works. A lot of crimes are committed by people who lack the kind of foresight necessary to make these decisions.
Rehabilitation: People commit a crimes and get sent to prison. In prison they are rehabilitated so they won’t commit crimes after they are released. This idea is great in theory. But in practice nobody has developed an effective process of rehabilitation that can be imposed on somebody who doesn’t start out wanting to be rehabilitated.
Segregation: Most people don’t commit crimes. The majority of serious crimes are committed by a small minority of people. If you put this group of people into prison and separate them from general society, the people in that general society will experience very little crime. This, in my opinion, is that only argument for imprisonment that seems to hold up.
On the other hand you have to believe either that rehabilitation is possible or that deterrence works on an indivdual level once one has experienced prison or else there is no reason why you would ever stop segregating and the conclusion would be that all prison sentences should be for life.
Not necessarily. Suppose all criminals were in one of two groups:
One-time, or few-timers that due to transient circumstances committed some crime
Permanent criminals that are incapable of behaving otherwise
Ideally (assuming again that segregation is the one and only justification), the first group wouldn’t be imprisoned at all, while the second would be in for life. But we can’t tell the difference between the two types, and so go with a compromise based on the severity of the crime. The first group will be let out eventually and commit no more crimes. The second will probably have longer sentences on average, and in any case be recaptured after committing more crimes.
For sure. And rehabilitation works much better when the system is designed to rehabilitate rather than grind people down in misery for misguided retribution.
But remember the idiotic trope in Batman? Robin asks why a psychopathic criminal that they all know is immediately just going to hatch another mass-homicidal plan has just been released from prison, and Batman patronizingly tells him that keeping the psychopath segregated would be immoral, he has “paid his debt to society” and the only just course is to release him, as though that’s some obviously morally correct principle. What utter nonsense.
It’s going to be a rare case, but if you postulate a psychopath who we (grant the hypothetical) know for sure can never be rehabilitated, it’s a challenging moral question. Perhaps if there is significant risk even to prison guards or other inmates, then it’s justifiable to execute them, just as you might euthanize a hyper-aggressive dog. On the other hand, if we reach a point where technology allows us to segregate them permanently at minimal cost by placing them in virtual reality, should we just let them live out a normal (but virtual) life there? That scenario really highlights how difficult it is to overcome our instinct for retribution, if their life in segregated virtual reality would be just as pleasant and fulfilling as real life. (The thought experiment is not perfect, because it glosses over the question of deterrence.)
The unaddressed piece of that hypothetical is: what if we “know” someone is likely to commit a crime in the future but they aren’t in custody yet. Should we “segregate” them in advance?
To me this is the dilemma of the concept of prison as segregation: it seems to ask for lifetime incarceration based not on the severity of a single act, but based on a presumption that subsequent acts will take place.
Yes. We do this already, to some extent: attempted murder is a crime. No one is (necessarily) harmed in an attempted murder, but we assume that the attempt is likely to develop into a success.
Of course, people like to come up with sci-fi hypotheticals where we have a much greater capability here, which goes into questions of free will and the like. But there’s no evidence that we’ll ever have that level of insight into future behavior. We work with what we have today.
Sure there exists those who are not rehabilitatable and for whom permanent incarceration may be in the best interest of society, but @Little_Nemo seemed to argue that segregation was the only legitimate purpose of incarceration. A assertion which I disagree with.
I also think his characterization the lack of effectiveness of deterrence is flawed because he only considers those for whom deterrence has failed and uses that as evidence of its ineffectiveness. There are many many people for whom fear of punishment it the main reason they don’t commit crimes. But its hard to find statistics about the number of crimes that failed to be committed.
In any case all of this is off topic (mostly my fault) since I think the main on topic point of his post is that Retribution as a justification of prison is immoral, a point which I heartily agree with.
When we segregate people from society, we currently make a distinction between people who are mentally competent but likely to exercise “free will” to reoffend (put in prison), and people who are mentally incompetent and dangerous (put in secure hospital). It think this qualitative distinction is misguided, because the concept of free will that our justice system is based on is an incoherent religious fantasy.
So for me, your hypothetical is easy. Yes, they should be segregated - we do that already with people that we deem so mentally unstable that they are likely to harm others in the future.
So does Washington State. If an adult is convicted of certain categories of crimes in three separate events then they are convicted for life without parole.
Republicans in the state often want to expand the crimes that are included in that law.
So noted, thanks. I just get cranky when I see statements advocating abuse of inmates in prisons, and have a knee-jerk response at times. Logical consequences for behavior is one thing, abuse is quite another.
No, it isn’t. Segregating people one merely believes might commit a crime is Minority Report territory. Three-strikes laws, as much as I find them problematic, are (ostensibly) to punish those who have actually committed certain crimes.
Three strikes is an extra punishment on top of the existing ones. It only makes sense if you believe that committing two crimes is evidence that you’re likely to commit a third, and thus you need an even greater disincentive than the normal one. The extra punishment wouldn’t be needed if that inference couldn’t be made. Furthermore, the extra confinement could be seen as preventing (or delaying) a fourth, etc. crime.
If you dismiss free will, then there’s no argument to be made on the topic of imprisonment. We’ll just imprison people because we can not choose otherwise.