In general, there is a goal (or set of goals) in mind when a punishment is issued for some action. The goal is usually some combination of the following:
[list=“1”]
[li] Rehabilitation - Discourage the person from carrying out the act again.[/li][li] Deterrence - Deter other people from carrying out the act.[/li][li] Prevention - Prevent the person from carrying out the act again.[/li][li] Vengeance - Explicitly punish the person for the act.[/li][/list]
I think the first 3 items in this list are perfectly legitimate goals for imprisonment. However, #4 seems like it has no place in the legal system of a civilized society; it’s sole purpose is to fulfill some primal desire to see one’s comeuppance.
Personally, I think the goals of imprisonment should follow the list above, in order (with the removal of the last item). The primary goal of imprisoning a person for a crime should be to rehabilitate the person, and re-introduce them into society.
So, a couple of things up for debate: Why shouldn’t rehabilitation be the primary driver behind imprisonment, and why should vengeance have any role at all?
IMO, the true function of prison is to keep that person from violating the established norms of a society. That would be specific deterrence. If the thought of getting sent to prison keeps another person from committing the same offense, that would be general deterrence (which I think prison sentences fail at.) If we can keep a person out of society for a set period of time, then that person cannot violate the general population of that society.
If the person gets a college degree and finds Jesus, Allah, or the Great Acorn in the meantime and gives up the criminal lifestyle, all the better.
I really can’t see vengeance in the American judicial system.
This sounds like a combination of the first 3 items listed in my OP (albeit ordered by different priorities). So, I pretty much agree. Except, I think additional assistance should be provided, to help in “giv[ing] up the criminal lifestyle.”
No, again, capital punishment is specific deterrence. Think of it like this, if a strange dog bites you, it may be put down. If a person harms you, and many others, in a way that society feels it would be inappropriate to allow you to be a part of that society, there is no choice but to put the person down. It is a specific deterrence. This criminal will never harm society again.
When someone finishes serving their time in prison, we sometimes say they’ve “paid their debt to society.” Whether it’s a “primal desire” or not, there seems to be something in human psychology that makes us think that if a person does something wrong, they need to pay some price or suffer some penalty to make up for it, to settle the score.
Ideally, the penalty for a crime ought to be for the offender to do whatever it takes to set things right. For example, in a case of vandalism, the vandal ought to be made to clean or fix or repair the damage he caused. Some crimes, of course, can’t be fixed; but restitution, wherever possible, ought to be part of what we demand from a convicted criminal.
As an analyst, I see nothing wrong with revenge – it is a universal human motive. Indeed, to #4 I would add, “Bloodlust and entertainment”. Recreational outrage has been a growth industry in America for the past 30 years[sup]1[/sup] and I for one acknowledge that development.
As a voter, I think the sole goal of the judicial system should be cost-effective public safety, subject to the demands of the constitution, our bulwark against the police state tendencies of the authoritarian mindset. The first three elements should be viewed in that light; the 4th and 5th have no place.
Whether capital punishment fits into number 2 is an empirical matter, and not so much a matter of what some want to believe.
[sup]1[/sup]Hyperbole!
…and whether capital punishment is the most cost-effective mechanism for securing criteria #3 (prevention) is also a matter of observation and investigation.
The purpose is to prevent that person from violating the norms. Wouldn’t it be too late.Or do you think we should jail those we think might violate.
You are into vengeance. Death penalty has not shown to be a deterrent. Murder generally is not a carefully thought out crime.
“I am going to kill that bitch for stealing my drugs. Oops we have the death penalty I better not” I do not think it works that way.
A couple of things on this:
[list=“1”]
[li] If you want to make sure the criminal will never harm society again, then a life sentence without parole would solve of the problem.[/li][li] If capital punishment was specific deterrence, then we wouldn’t have so many people backing it just because the criminal “doesn’t deserve to live.”[/li][/list]
I agree - I just think that the legal system needs to place itself above such basic “instincts” (for lack of a better word).
That makes sense to me, but only to a certain extent. With something like vandalism, it’s fairly straightforward to determine what’s required to “repair the damage he caused.” It’s a lot more ambiguous with something like grand theft, though. Would the punishment just entail the criminal giving back the stolen property (at that point, it’s basically a wash, isn’t it)? I don’t agree with that (and I’d bet you don’t either), but I’m just trying to make a point.
I don’t think it necessarily follows that punishment = vengeance.
When a child is punished by his/her parents, that punishment is not done to exact vengeance but to teach a lesson. The same with prison sentences. It is supposed to be punishing so that, ideally, the offender won’t repeat.
I would not disagree, though, that imprisonment fails in this regard. Prison sentences are too long and become too much a way of life to act as effective punishment. The punishment aspect gets lost in the day after day monotony of prison life.
I think you are missing my point, or I did not spell it out as well as I should have. Imprisonment keeps a person from violating society again. We can’t know what a person will do in the future, but from past behavior, we should keep the people safe for as long as the law allows a person to be locked up. I also agree that the death penalty is not a good general deterrent, but it is 100% effective as a specific deterrent.
Well, yeah - but so is taking whatever you want because that other guy is smaller than you. I feel that the legal system should try to operate at a more sophisticated level than that.
When the U.S. government starts explicitly sponsoring UFC, I’ll start worrying about that development.
I agree about the cost-effective public safety. But I think the details involved with determining that cost-effectiveness are woefully neglected. (e.g., Is it cost effective to imprison a criminal for 5 years, in a location where hardly anything is done to curb their “lifestyle” in preparation for life after those 5 years?) An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
I agree. In the case of a parent punishing their child, the reason would likely be #1 (and possibly #2, if there are multiple children in the household) from the OP list.
This is exactly the line of thought that led to my starting this thread.
Why, if the legal system is founded upon democratic principles? If the public doesn’t want calmness, reason and maximum public safety, why should the government force it on them?
That’s a question for criminologists.
But following my line of thinking, what do people think of conducting judicial experiments? Assign prisoners randomly to different groupings: some have longer sentences, some shorter. Some have boot camp. Some have rehabilitation programs, others don’t. Then track the prisoner’s behavior, including when they are on parole.
Would it bother you to give one guy 2 years and another guy 4 years for the same offense? It wouldn’t bother me.
[QUOTE=LilShieste]
A couple of things on this:
[list=“1”]
[li] If you want to make sure the criminal will never harm society again, then a life sentence without parole would solve of the problem. [/li][/QUOTE]
A life sentence doesn’t prevent a person from committing additional crimes in prison.
That’s a good question, and you’re right in that respect. My focus is directed more towards determining whether or not the public is correct in their wants.
Do you mean as part of an experiment, or in general? Giving one person 2 years and another person 4 years, for the same crime, bothers me in that it seems like there is some ulterior motive at work. (If you’re talking about in terms of the experiment, though, then my comment needs to be revised.)
Agreed. But more strict imprisonment should (e.g., some form of isolation from other prisoners).
If we’re talking about someone like Hannibal Lector, then we’re going into territory where I might consider the death penalty acceptable. But the likelihood of such a person existing in real life (furthermore, the likelihood of multiple such people existing) is pretty much non-existent. (Heck, even in the case of Dr. Lector, mistakes made by the guards contributed to his escape. I say correct the mistakes.)
In Japan, juries show leniency if the accused displays remorse. So you get hysteria in the courtroom: you get tears and drama, especially from careerists in the Japanese mafia, or Yakuza.
One result is that public perceptions of criminals differ in Japan. They are not cool like Moriarty, and they lack a certain credibility. It’s hard to respect a crybaby.
So yes, I like the idea of promoting ritual abasement, even if it’s wholly insincere. It undermines the attractiveness of anti-social behavior in a cost-effective manner. Heck, it could even advance criteria #5 if run on the court channel.
I suspect that this proposal might rub a lot of people the wrong way as well.
Capital punishment takes the cake there, right?