Sheesh, this is the third argument I’ve mangled in this thread by my count (others will find more!).
What I meant to say is that even with our grindingly slow appeals process, it seems as though a fair number of innocent people are put to death (though this of course is a matter of some controversy). “So it seems that we might need more safeguards, not less.”
Prevent crime from occuring again?
Then why imprison the emotional father (in my example in post # 26, above)? If he has no other kids, what are the odds that he will run into the same set of circumstances again? (No kids, no repeat of the crime…)
We don’t incarcerate people for something they might or will (probably) do in the future. (At least, not unless they are deemed insane…)
I think you’ve missed the most important reason for our justice system.
So, the primary purpose of imprisonment is for the rest of society, not for the prisoner. If any other the other 4 things happen to that person then that may or may not be gravy, depending on your views, but the primary goal of imprisonment has been met when the gavel comes down.
I think of imprisonment as just a holding area, because we don’t know what else to do with people that have broken the law.
The way I heard #4 talked about in law school was “desert”. That’s dee-ZERT, not DES-ert. Using the dictionary definition, “punishment that is deserved or merited,” or “something justly deserved.” Or more colloquially, “the person did something wrong, and therefore deserves to be punished.” So, if it helps the discussion, I propose #4 be “desert”.
The way I understand it, you are saying people should be incarcerated, but for the purposes of removing them from threatening society and to rehabilitate them. You seem to be saying that people should not be incarcerated in order to provide an unpleasant experience that “pays them back” for the crime they did.
I’m saying that the unpleasant experience – the “vengeance” aspect – is an important part of deterrence.
As an ex-criminal myself, I can say emphatically that with all the criminals I have ever grafted with, the possibility of arrest was not a factor in whether or not a crime was carried out. No one goes out to commit a crime thinking about getting caught, least of all, bat-shit crazy, ‘chop-your-head off on a bus’ types.
I do know the subject. Not only through the literature but also through several decades of personal experience.
Rehabilitation is certainly possible. Large numbers of prisoners are rehabilitated and never commit any further crimes after leaving prison. But my point is that we can’t rehabilitate a prisoner - we just offer him the opportunity to rehabilitate himself. Many prisoners choose not to use these opportunities and are just as criminally inclined when they leave prison as when they entered it.
I was sentenced to 3 - 6 years for Drug Possession in 1998. My sentencing guidelines fell under under the Tip-O’Neil - Reagan Mandatory First Offense Rule(Drug Violations), Bless Them Both!!! I personally never went back to a life of crime, used drugs again and never got another feloney either. So, you might say the time did me good. I come from a good family that was and is still behind me . I was fined $15000 in the State of Pennsylvania and pay them $50.00 each month . The fact is there is nothing I care to debate about this issue. However the prison industry provides jobs for many unemployed people, so there is a silver lining to this dark cloud. If you want to know the truth, prison made my heart turn black and I harbor a deep resentment for the police and law authority in general. The only ones I respect are homicide detectives…For many people (all types not just the blacks and hispanics) prison
is a revolving door and getting over on the system is the only thing they know.
I served time with all types of offenders. It is not easy to say who learned ther lessons or who didn’t. I remember seeing people get sent back to state prison for drinking while at the half-way house, kind of stupid. I will end with this: you can’t lock everybody up, specially those with non-violent offenses. I vwed, “I would never come back to this f_____ place”, I never did , so it did me good… 
The (hypothetical) father has shown however that he’s willing and able to break the social compact and indulge in private vengeance when in a heightened emotional state… something that (more kids notwithstanding) may still reoccur.
The other reason for punishing him (even if we then temper than punishment with mercy for his loss and understandable emotional state) is to satisfy the driver’s kith and kin so that they in turn do not take vengeance for their relative’s killing and begin a cycle of vendetta.
That’s true, but the environment of prisons (as they are right now, that is) aren’t exactly conducive to rehabilitation. I don’t see so much of a need to devise an entirely new solution, but rather just make some modifications to our current one.
The father might still have other family members, or friends, or neighbors, or pets, or any number of other things whose harming could instigate another killing rage.
I’m not saying we should lock up the father because of something he might do in the future. We should do whatever it takes to minimize his desire to do it again in the future.
If people are less likely to commit crimes, then something is being done about crime. I see your point #5 as just a natural consequence to the success of points #1-3.
I couldn’t agree more. This is why I think the idea of retribution has no place in the legal system; it’s focus is the criminal, rather than society.
Only if the person is (or, other people are) less likely to commit the same crime in the future, given the opportunity.
Exactly right.
I disagree, because I think it hurts things more than it helps. It widens the divide bewteen society and the criminal - society holds a grudge against the criminal, and the criminal holds a grudge against society.
Thanks for sharing, swalerroe7. Your description exemplifies the problem I have with our current system: the revolving door.
My very limited knowledge in consistent with the gist of this comment, but not my reading of your previous one.[1] That is, rehabilitation is an empirically legitimate justification, as is deterrence, though the evidence isn’t as strong as we would like and designing effective prison programs is far from straightforward.
Ok, there is a distinction between unpleasantness, a quality of punishment, and “desert” (props to Max!) or “deterrence” which are 2 justifications for punishment.
Whether boot camp (or whatever makes prison less amenable) would lead to more effective deterrence is an empirical matter. From my armchair I find that hypothesis rather plausible, but others disagree and frankly I think we should defer to whatever the studies indicate.
At any rate, I’d still place a zero weight on #4 and #5. Those who disagree with me (i.e. most people) are accepting some combination of higher taxes and lower public safety in exchange for better desert. Admittedly, I can empathize with that.
[1] The first post might be strictly correct I guess, but it appeared that you were dismissing #1 and #2: I may very well have misread it.
But it isn’t. For “career criminals”, it is just an occupational hazard.
What do you base this belief on? What do you think we should be doing that we’re not?
As I said earlier, unpleasant punishment does not guarantee deterrence, but without it, there cannot be deterrence. For example, having nuclear weapons does not guarantee there will not be war due to a Cold War style deterrence, but not having nuclear weapons one cannot create that deterrence.
I tend to believe that desert is morally justifiable (if I am using that term correctly), and it probably has some practical effect, too. However, I think that it makes no sense whatsoever to value the deterrence of imprisonment if the terms of the imprisonment mean that the undesirability is purposefully minimized.
Please note I’m not advocating that we should make our prisons more brutal in order to increase deterrence. I’m simply commenting that there cannot be deterrence without undesirable consequences.
You said a man should not be punished, but only deterred from killing again.
I was trying to come up with an example of where there is no (or very little) chance of a repeat offence (removing the need for deterence).
If I can prove (through expert psychological testimony, or whatever) that the likelihood of a repeat offence is less than the chance of an “average” citizen to become a first-time offender, what need for deterence is there? (We all have the potential for criminal acts, so that man’s chances would remain greater than zero, I grant you.)
If I have never murdered, and thusly never incarcerated, and that man has been proven to have no greater chance to murder than I do, wouldn’t it be unfair to “punish” him?
Under your system (where punishment is not a consideration), if deterence is proven to be unnecessary, should nothing happen?
It’s the actions of that individual criminal that sets the process in motion, so it shouldn’t be surprising that the response also targets that individual.
Most of the legal justice system is reactive to crime, not preventative. Preventative measures (like police visibilty in potential high crime areas) only go so far.
“Can’t we all just get along?”
Do you feel these grudges should excuse future crime?
Do you feel that the avenues of redress available to the defendents in the U.S. justice system (in regard to the justice system itself), as a whole, to be insufficient?
Reasonable people can agree/debate if there is some aspect of the justice system that needs adjustment as being unfair, but I would like to point out that the point of the prison system is that it is something that it is to be avoided. (After all, it wouldn’t have a deterence factor without it.)
I am not surprised that those subjected to it do not like it.
I assume a lot of (but not all) “grudges” are based on a perception of unfairness, either through an unfair conviction, unfair sentence, or unfair treatment while in custody. (Or even based on something totally outside the perview of the legal system itself.)
Some of these perceptions will be justified, some not.
I have no objection to making the system as fair as possible, and root out corruption (or incompetence) within it, in regards to the justified greivances.
There is also a fine line between deterence, and punishment. It’s a little subjective… what I might consider sufficient for deterence, you might feel is too harsh, and falls under unfair vengeance. So, we debate the nitty gritty details of sentencing.
Never-the-less, I still feel that there has to be some form of consequence for committing criminal acts, aside from the deterence aspect itself. You commit rape, you lose the right to see the new Batman movie when it first hits the theatres. “We don’t tolerate that there activity 'round these parts.”
While a sentence may act as a deterence (it is difficult to determine how many rapes are prevented because of the possible jail time that comes attached with getting caught), the judge is focusing his attention on the individual being sentenced, and not addressing society as a whole.
Because, again, remember it is that individual’s actions that trigger the process.
I have heard that some folks feel that society shares the blame when someone gets convicted of a serious crime. “We must treat the cause, not the symptoms”. Do you feel this way?
If so, do you feel that the “punishment” part of jail time is one of the possible causes of crime?
I feel this way. I think too many people want to fix the problem long after it’s gone past the point of easy repair. By the time an individual is in priosn, he’s dug himself into a pretty deep hole.
If you want to “fix” prisons, you should be putting more money into schools and libraries.
I respectfully disagree.
If the reason that people commit crimes was because they were poor (and desperate), then why do rich folk commit crimes? Why are there poor folk who don’t commit crimes?
Testimonies like the one in post #48. Also the idea that if we treat a human being like an animal, they’ll start to behave more like an animal.
Unfortunately, I don’t have an answer to this question. I know we can do better, and I feel that the topic is a bit closed off from discussion.
I agree. I certainly don’t think we should do away with punishment. Nor do I think we should try to fool ourselves with “Comfy Chair” solutions.
Thanks for the thoughtful response, mlees.
It’s not that I think the man should not be punished - it’s the reasoning behind the punishment that I have a problem with (i.e., “Punish him because he should be miserable for what he did” vs. “Punish him to demonstrate the consequences of his actions”).
Even if the man will likely not repeat the same behavior in the future (say he only had 1 child), he still needs to be punished for the deterrence factor. (Though I do think he would be prone to doing the same thing again in the future, albeit concerning a different loved one. So the recidivism is still a factor, IMO.)
If for no other reason, there’s a need for deterrence because other people might get the idea that what he did was perfectly acceptable. “Well, he didn’t get punished for it, so what’s the harm in me doing something like that?” We don’t want private citizens acting as judge/jury/executioner in situations like that, which is one reason why we even have a legal system in place.
I don’t see it as unfair at all. As I mentioned above, the system needs to use him to set an example for others.
As I mentioned above, I do not rule out punishment as a consideration. In fact, I see it as completely necessary. My sole problem is with the schadenfreude-like quality of the current system.
It shouldn’t be surprising that the initial response is to target the individual. The reasoned response (i.e., after letting the dust settle, and considering the circumstances) should be to target the behavior.
I agree. As several people have mentioned in this thread, there are some people who just don’t care about the consequences.
In those cases, we should try to come up with different approaches to use for rehabilitation (i.e., “how can we get them to care?”), while realizing that their punishment should still be serving as a deterrent for others.
That would certainly make things easier. 
Absolutely not. Why would I? I want the focus to be on the behavior, rather than the individual. If some other person demonstrates the same criminal behavior, they should be punished as well.
I’m sure it’s not perfect, but I think overall we have a really good appeals process.
Agreed. See my Comfy Chair reference above.
I think they are based on multiple things, including what you just described. But I’m also talking about grudges on the side of society (e.g., “What a monster! How could he have done something like that?”). Later on, if the criminal has been successfully rehabilitated and has been released from prison, many people would still hold onto that grudge. However, there’s no reason the system should harbor a grudge against the criminal (both during and after their imprisonment).
Completely agreed.
Exactly - it’s the individual’s actions that trigger the process. So the focus should be on the individual’s actions (which, of course, are connected to the individual).
I feel that it does sometimes share in the blame. Ultimately, though, it’s the individual’s decision to carry out the crime.
Well, I wouldn’t say it’s a possible cause of crimess… but if you are asking if I think jail time contributes to an increase in recidivism rates, then in some cases (i.e., certain prisons, certain criminals, etc.), yes I do.
Thanks for the replies, LilShieste.
I guess I misunderstood your stance. Am I arguing against a point you never made? I’ll reread the thread, and try to see where I screwed up…