Ack! that was actually me posting. I hate being a one-computer household.
It sounds like you’re suggesting we should keep these folks in prison because they’re jaded and upset about being in prison in the first place. This seems like an argument against imprisoning people, rather than against letting them out.
I think the best way to get these prisoners used to living in society would be to let them out sooner instead of later. Leaving them in for longer will only make them more bitter and resentful.
At the risk of creating an immediate major crime wave?
If it sounds like I’m against letting drug offenders out of jail, it is because such a step needs to be thought out clearly and with a lot of forethought of what we as a society are risking. We need to think of every possible argument against this so those arguments can be addressed. In other words, a strategy needs to be developed before we go about making these radical prison reforms.
To me, it sounds like your suggesting we declare a “National Bastille Day” tommorow and let all drug offenders out of jail with a handshake and a change of clothes, confident that they will be happy productive citizens for the rest of their lives now that they are free. Whatever elation would occur thereafter will be quickly supplanted by fear, fear of what to do now that one is out of jail. How will you sustain yourself? Where will your income be made? Do I ever trust the police again? How do I fend for myself? Why is finding a job so difficult? Who’s going to hire an ex-con? etc…
If these questions are not answered in some way, shape or form, everyone will suffer.
By the way, it sounds like we’re hijacking this thread. My apologies to piaffe. I’d like to continue this debate in a thread if, anyone else is interested in starting one up.
No, I am saying that giving a detached, emotionless argument for this position smacks of eugenics. As I said, if one were to be strictly logical about it, we should probably just kill all offenders, no matter how slight the offense, since they’re all “bad apples” anyway, right? In doing so, however, any concept of what is fair or just is thrown out the window.
The difference is that in your scenario, child molesters are not denied all contact, only unsupervised contact. With sterilization, there is no middle ground. You can either have children, or you can’t.
The child molester also has the possibility of rehabilitation, in which case s/he may enter re-enter society with all rights returned (eventually). In the case of sterilization, once done, it’s done. Even if the individual later “finds Jesus” or otherwise rehabilitates, s/he’s still stuck with the punishment.
By that same reasoning, we could simply kill them. Same net effect, no? We could even institute programs to determine who might pose a threat before they’ve actually done anything wrong…
You know, one could argue logically against eugenics if one cared to. One can also argue logically against cruelty towards prisoners as well. In fact you can apply logic to almost any argument to get your point across. Logic and reason are not the enemy here, so why not apply the same to criminal justice?
JPB;
I think it is logical that if prisoners are treated better and don’t go through a traumatic ordeal for a couple years of their lives that they will be better citizens when they get out.
And this isn’t directed toward you, however I do see a kind of hypocritical, “I am better than those criminals” slant prevalent in these types of arguments. As though when someone commits a crime they suddenly become less human.
As to War on Drugs Bastille Day. Use the 50,000 a year it would have cost to keep them incarcerated to help them recover some semblance of a normal life for the first year, and then set up a scholarship fund with the money it would have taken to incarcerate them for the next year to pay for some schooling if they so choose to go.
Erek
Oh yeah, I think there are less than 5 million prisoners nationwide. I am sure about half of them are drug offenders. So it’s not really like millions upon millions of people would suddenly be let free. Besides you could just start with the users and maybe the pot dealers.
Erek
What about the whole “no cruel or unusual punishment” thing? That can fall under the category of cruel. Also, it would cost a fortune to implement, money that would just come from the tax-payers.
Something else just occurred to me, aside from the whole “eugenics” aspect: how are arguments in favor of forced sterilization not presuming an individual guilty of possible future crimes?
Since the point seems to be the prevention of future instances of whatever crime the accused has committed, one must presume that the individual will commit similar acts in the future. Otherwise, sterilization cannot reasonably be considered a preventive measure (if the possibility exists that the individual will not commit similar acts in the future, then sterilization cannot be guaranteed to prevent anything).
It must therefore fall to the government to provide evidence of guilt (beyond a reasonable doubt, no less)–again, before said crime has been committed!
Note that this is different from such punishments as death, as the intent behind them (as I understand it, anyway) is not to prevent future crimes by the convicted, but to deliver a harsh punishment, partially as a message to others. If the intent of such punishments were simply to prevent future crimes, life in prison would suffice.
What’s even worse about the sterilization is that it’s not only presuming the individual being sterilized guilty of crimes not yet committed but also presuming the potential offspring of said individual so guilty as to not even deserve life to begin with.
Yes, but we don’t want to. We think not wanting to torture people is enough. We think not wanting to mutilate people is the way our justice system should behave.
There are other options between releasing the entire prison population and locing them all up for life (and castrating them, for that matter).
If a person commits this crime then he shall pay a fine no smaller than $500 but no larger than $1000.
“It is your task to prove that this man is guilty.”
Perhaps we should begin by wondering what you mean by this statement that we need more logic in the system. We are not enemies of logic; logic does not appear at the foundation of justice.
Darwin, we refuse parole based on the presumption that a person is likely to reoffend in that time. Do you have a problem with this, as well?
**
Even though it only contains two letters if is a very big word. My biological functions are my business and I don’t need the permission of society, government, or anyone else to exercise those functions. I would be profoundly uncomfortable if the state decided to set up a system of sterlization.
Believe it or not forced sterilization was something done in the United States in the early 20th century. This system was very abusive and tended to hit the poor, mentally slow, and minorities hardest. Sometimes a trial wasn’t even necessary for someone to be sterilized. It was a bad idea then and I see no reason why the idea has improved with age. I believe the SC ruled against forced sterilization in the 20’s or 30’s.
Marc
Darwin,
That’s true, but what I took you to be objecting to was the simple fact that we were doing something to someone to prevent future crimes rather than simply to punish crimes they’d already done. From your response it sounds like that’s not something you object to in principle; is that a fair understanding of your view?
We could. But surely you’d agree that killing or imprisoning a person for life is worse for them than sterilization? I mean, would you rather be killed or imprisoned for life than sterilized? Given that we can achieve the same end by milder means, I think we should unless using the stronger means is justified. My argument is that in many cases where death or life imprisonment is not warranted, sterilization is.
What your point here seems to be is that there are many cases where my second premise (we have very good reason to believe that A’s exercising his right to procreate in the circumstances (that is, given what we know about A due to his behavior) is very likely to result in undeserved grevious harm to any children who would be born to him)is false (that is, we DON’T have very good reason to believe that it is very likely that A’s exercising his right to X in circumstances C will result in undeserved grievous harm to B). I agree. My point is, if it is true, and if we accept (P**), then we should sterilize A.
It could also be that you are making the stronger point that having very good reason to believe that it is very likely that…is not enough, that we need very good reason to believe that it is absolutely certain that…( or perhaps even that we need to be absolutely certain that it is absolutely certain that…). That point, however, is not an objection to sterilization in principle, it’s an objection to sterilization given our current epistemic capabilities. If that’s what you mean, then again, I ask if you think it’s acceptable to prohibit child molesters from unsupervised visitation on the grounds that we have very good reason to believe that it is very likely that… (and for argument’s sake, suppose that sterilization can be reversed if deemed necessary).
wring, what I take you to be saying is that there are no cases where my second premise is true of a person for whom both death and life imprisonment are inappropriate. Now that may well be true, but it seems at best contingently true. That is, it certainly seems possible to me that there be a case where my second premise is true and yet both death and life imprisonment are unwarranted (or at least, our justice system finds that they are; those are not the same thing but often have the same effect: person walking around on the street again). Take anyone who has raped, killed, or abused, and who is sentenced to less than life in prison. I argue that that most of those people are such that my second premise is true of them, and therefore, they should be sterilized.
A few caveats:
First, it may be that what you meant is that anyone who deserves sterilization also deserves at least life in prison. If that is what you meant, take, for example, a person who has committed some form of child abuse such that they are sentenced to something less than life (I imagine there are some forms of child abuse such that that would be the sentence). Presumably you would think either that person should have been sentenced at least to life in prison, or else that that person should be able to have more children. If the former, then why would you not think that that person should still be sterilized, since the fact that he’s not in for life means only (as you would see it on this hypothesis) that those in authority are giving him too light of a sentence and not that he deserves his freedom? If the latter, why? I gave an argument why I think he should be prevented from having children; what premise of my argument do you reject?
Second, you gave examples of people who are legally classified as rapists and of other people whom some people would classify as animal abusers, and pointed out that sterilization would be too much. I agree. That, however, doesn’t show that it is not justifiable to sterilize anyone at all. Perhaps, though, you gave these examples to argue the point I considered as my first caveat, in which case, see the first caveat.
Third, much of your objection to my proposal seems to come from the fact that it involves forced surgery, which you consider torture. That’s something about which you and I disagree (after all, they wouldn’t feel any pain), but no matter. Consider two scenarios: one, we make it a choice: either get sterilized and get out after a certain number of years, or spend the rest of your life in prison. Would you object then? The second scenario: suppose there were a way to sterilize a person without surgery (something like Depo-Provera). Would you still object?
Monty, there is no such thing as the potential offspring of said individual. That is, there isn’t anything that exists (is around, is capable of being deprived of anything) that is the potential offspring of anyone. So we are not finding the future offspring guilty because there is no such thing. [This is a consequence of the simple thesis that there isn’t anything that doesn’t exist. If you’d like to debate that thesis, we should perhaps start a new thread.]
Or are you interpreting me as arguing that the reason we should sterilize certain people is because whatever children they would have would commit the same kind of crimes? If so, I’ve already responded to that objection in my second post to this thread.
MGibson,
You’re right. That’s why you’ll notice that I didn’t advocate wholesale sterilization willy-nilly, but only if certain conditions are met.
I happen to disagree, but I conceded this point for argument’s sake and gave an argument for sterilization that treats procreation as a right and not a privilege. So, the point you raise here is not an objection to the argument I in fact gave, because my argument did not assume that procreation is a privilege.
I’m in no position to dispute that sterilization may have been a disaster in the past, as I am not familiar with the facts you mention. However, the fact that a certain practice has been badly carried out in certain circumstances doesn’t imply that it is wrong in principle.
Who is we?
I agree. The onus is upon you and me to find those other options. I’d like to hear your ideas.
I was under the impression that logic and reason were already concepts applied in the criminal justice system, but apparently I was wrong according to Darwin’s Finch:
If this is the case, then every punishment we currently mete out is neither reasonable nor logical. Perhaps that is the reason why our criminal justice system appears ineffectual and imbalanced. Mind you, I’m not saying that applying logic is the one step solution, but I do believe that it is a concept that should be looked into.
You realize though that you can come up with a logical argument for compassion as well?
Is not parole a chance to get out of prison early? That is, if a person is sentenced to 5 years in prison, they are released after five years, period, correct? However, circumstances may allow that individual an opportunity to be released prior to the end of his/her term. Thus parole.
If the above is, indeed, the case, then no, I do not have a problem with an individual being denied parole. Parole represents an opportunity to shorten the prison sentence, and denial simply means the individual must fulfill that sentence. It doesn’t seem, to me, to be so much a presumption of future guilt as it is a lack of leniency in a particular case.
one of the things we seem to be disagreeing on is the relative severity of forced sterilization.
I have no ethical problem w/the state imprisoning people convicted of crimes. Yes, even for the rest of their natural lives in some cases.
I have an ethical problem w/the state imposing the DP on people. However, I do understand that it’s the law of the land and while I may wish that we progress from there, that currently it’s within the scope of possible punishments.
Mutliation (and that’s really what you’re talking about when you’re forcing surgury on an unwilling participant) is in the rhelm to me of things that shouldn’t ever be condoned [sup]tm[/sup]. Torture is there, too. Causing pain for the sake of causing pain.
So I would save life w/o parole for the worst offenders. Understand that some may prefer d/p. But torture/mutliation especially when done dispassionately, is, IMNSHO, barbaric.
So, no, I cannot conceive of an instance where some one’s actions would be so reprehensible that I’d want them mutilated, but would feel okey dokey about them walking around.
Child abuse is horrific. Yes. Can I conceive of people/situations where some one was found guilty of the crime and didn’t deserve life w/o parole? easily. I’ve got a client who at age 16, impregnated his g/f who was 14. He did prison time for it, has a criminal sexual contact charge, has to register as a child molester.
I have no problem at all w/him being free, and would think it reprehensible to castrate him.
piaffe: You just left Reality with the comment that “there’s no such thing as the potential offspring.” I see that you’ve decided that the best thing to do to satisfy your sense of revenge (notice that I did not say justice) is to cut someone’s testicles from their body. That’s torture, plain and simple.
I’m with Wring on this one. How would this one even make it past the cruel and unusual arguement?
Marc
and, if you get both me, * and* MGibson on the same end of the argument, you’re really off the beaten path!
Darwin, wasn’t saying you should have a problem with it, and I agree with your distinction completely. 
Bryan, let’s not toy with logic. There is a logical basis for compassion; compassion is not logical. There is no logical reason for me to continue living, unless I consider non-logical motivations.
“We”, in the sense I have used it, refers to all the people involved in the process of creating and maintaining our justice system. We have decided against cruel and unusual punishment, and we have decided that that means “no forced surgery”.
Not in this thread! I don’t feel compelled to offer a “better way” to deal with criminals than forced sterilization. If I have to choose between this system and that one, I choose this one.
And I agree with him. I see no logical reason to be compelled to lock up a person for a specified period of time. Logic is a system of deduction based off certain assumptions. In the case of the justice system, most of our assumptions are not logical, or at least it isn’t obvious to me that they are. Furthermore, I am not certain that logic will determine appropriate punishments even if they were.
Maybe if I rephrased it as, “Given certain non-logical assumptions, declarations, definitions, and limitations, our justice system reasons within those parameters.” No one here is saying our justice system is arbitrary or unreasonable. We’re just saying that it isn’t based off pure logic.