Crime ain't no cause for punishment.

[Mirrorglass]

In the past few years, both online and offline, I've had many conversations concerning the purpose of imprisonment, and punishments in general, and I've come to notice that my opinions on the matter tend to differ from the general public.

As an example, in the past years my country has been moving towards a system of replacing prison sentences with community service for small crimes, mostly DUI. This seems logical to me, as it is much cheaper to the society, makes the criminal actually do something useful and increases the odds of the criminal re-entering society as a productive member. However, oftentimes I've heard the opinion that this is wrong, as it's "letting the criminals off too easy".

The idea is not an uncommon one. I've seen US officials state that punishment is an important part of a prison sentence, which has lead to, among other things, confiscation of games.

To me, this is ridiculous. While I understand the feelings of wanting to take revenge on a criminal, the idea isn't logical. Expending any resources to "punish" a criminal is simply a form of cruelty, and wasteful too. The purpose of any sentence should be to minimize the damage done to society. This is best achieved by doing everything possible to hasten the prisoner's rehabilitation, or when that is impossible, creating an environment where the prisoner can still achieve some level of usefulness. Punishment, as such, serves neither goal. And then there's the whole human rights part of the problem.

So what are other people's opinions on this? Should the prisons be places for punishing criminals? Does it matter whether or not they suffer?

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Agree completely that imprisonment is not always appropriate, nor good for society. If the crime is minor and the person isn't a danger to society, then I feel community service is the way to go. Put someone in counseling and job training to make them a productive member of society, don't send them a criminal to turn a minor criminal into a hardened one.

I just don't like how a lot of crimes have "mandatory minimums." I feel each case really should be taken on its own merit.

I am also extremely, extremely against the practice of putting non violent criminals together with violent criminals.

If it is a major crime though, which does hurt society, jail time I feel is necessary because we need a deterent in place. Community service is not enough of a threat to keep someone like, say, Bernie Maddoff from wiping out his friends' life savings. Then also there is the aspect of keeping the public safe as well.

Also, I do think that some cases do warant punishment, even if we had some crystal ball that lets us know with certainty that you would never, ever offend again, that we should still lock you up forever and throw away the key. You're a pedophile, you murder someone horrifically for no reason, you're a slave trafficker...be gone with you. I feel there are some crimes where if you commit them, your life should be forfeit and you should spend forever behind bars.

And even if you didn't do something bad enough to warrant life in jail, I do think if you really hurt someone, you should be punished, even if not forever. I do believe in the concept of justice even if I think it's applied far too harshly in the United States. If you rape someone, or hit someone drunk driving, then I think (again, even if we had a crystal ball that told us for sure you'd never do it again) yes, you should have to pay for it.

But hey, I'm Italian. We love our Vendettas.

 

[roger]

The goal is to make crime cost-ineffective to the criminal. Of course there is a lot of debate on how effective prisons are in this regard. And of course there's a few factors there - prison as deterrence, and then after-the-fact convincing the criminal that the jail time is not worth it, leading to a non-criminal lifestyle after release. Personally, I'm very open to alternatives, so long as the evidence is there that it is more effective at reducing recidivism rates than prison.

Speaking personally, I think there are some laws that are perfectly ridiculous, but carry jail time. That's an enormous deterrent to me.

 

[Bikewer]

Having been in the criminal justice system for many years, I have come to the opinion that the "corrections" part of the system is a massive failure and needs to be corrected itself.

Of course there are vicious criminals who need to be incarcerated. However, we at any particular time incarcerate over a million people, most of whom do not fall anywhere near into that category.
Effectively, this incarceration leads to ruined lives for most of these people, resulting in a permanent underclass who are strongly tempted towards recidivism. I deal with such people on a daily basis. We tend to arrest the same people over and over and over.
Some of our "regulars" have been in their particular business longer than I have mine, and that's saying something.
The costs to society of all this far exceed the benefits, if any.

 

[Delvo]

DUI isn't a minor crime. Everybody KNOWS what it results in, so even one case of it is a large number of counts of attempted murder.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Just because something can result to many deaths doesn't mean it always will. Most cases of DUI don't actually crash or run over anyone. Maybe saying it's a minor crime isn't quite right, but it's far below attempted murder.

 

[Fiona]

I, too, agree with the OP.

However I wonder if we can learn anything by comparison of rates of imprisonment in different countries. There seems to be a great disparity: my own country has a very high rate compared with other places in Western Europe. Does this mean that the people here are more inclined to commit crime? Or does it mean that more things are defined as criminal? Perhaps it is related to length of sentence? Is there evidence that a high rate of imprisonment correlates with some benefit to society?

Does anyone know of research along those lines ?

 

[rjh01]

One issue that you have not mentioned is cost. It is very expensive to lock up a person.

 

[Fiona]

It is indeed, rjh01. But decisions about what to spend money on are not often based purely on outcomes; there is a lot more in play

 

[Cavemonster]

I actually disagree with the OP, to an extent. Punishment has a two-fold practical role.

1) Deterrent: We can argue about the specific effectiveness of the specific system, but fear of reprisal is in principle one way to limit behavior. If the punishment is not real, the threat is not real and there is no deterrent. I'd be the last to try to argue that the US current system is an ideally effective deterrent, but an effective criminal justice system will utilyze this element to some extent.

2) Closure. In systems with weak law enforcement historically and today, people take justice into their own hands. Person X kills person Y in a fit of passion. So person Y's family steps in, then X's family retaliates. Groups who don't have a strong legal system to give closure to justice develop these kinds of feuds. The warlords in Somalia today, the prohibition era gangs, or the Bloods and the Crips. Part of what law enforcement does is to take on the burden for the aggreived of punishing the perpetrator in a way that hopefully guarantees finality. You can argue that such a desire for punishment is barbaric and we should be past it as a society, but I doubt you'd be able to argue that well to people emotionally invested. If the law offered no hope of fullfilling victims and family's emotional need for punishment, then they would enact that punishment themselves, not in every case, but a lot more often.

 

[Mirrorglass]

I actually disagree with the OP, to an extent. Punishment has a two-fold practical role.

1) Deterrent: We can argue about the specific effectiveness of the specific system, but fear of reprisal is in principle one way to limit behavior. If the punishment is not real, the threat is not real and there is no deterrent. I'd be the last to try to argue that the US current system is an ideally effective deterrent, but an effective criminal justice system will utilyze this element to some extent.

Yes, this is an important point that I purposefully left out of the OP. The justice system does rely on making crime unprofitable, so punishments must be unpleasant. Still, I think that in an ideal system, crimes would be prevented primarily by education and secondarily by punishments. Even then, the punishments would simply pick up where education fails.

Granted, that model is dangerously close to brainwashing, and I'm sure many would consider it immoral.

2) Closure. In systems with weak law enforcement historically and today, people take justice into their own hands. Person X kills person Y in a fit of passion. So person Y's family steps in, then X's family retaliates. Groups who don't have a strong legal system to give closure to justice develop these kinds of feuds. The warlords in Somalia today, the prohibition era gangs, or the Bloods and the Crips. Part of what law enforcement does is to take on the burden for the aggreived of punishing the perpetrator in a way that hopefully guarantees finality. You can argue that such a desire for punishment is barbaric and we should be past it as a society, but I doubt you'd be able to argue that well to people emotionally invested. If the law offered no hope of fullfilling victims and family's emotional need for punishment, then they would enact that punishment themselves, not in every case, but a lot more often.

That's also a valid point, although I'd say the problem lies in people's attitudes. Vengeance is a natural phenomenon for humans, but in a modern society it's an outdated one. Taking revenge benefits no one. So people should be taught not only to abide by laws, but also not try to take law into their own hands. Hate the crime, not the criminal, as someone put it. This has been achieved to some extent in rich countries, and I don't think the sole reason is the effective justice system. After all, harsher punishments generally don't correlate with lower crime rates.

 

[Wrathernaut]

Prisons are expensive. Deportation is (relatively) cheap.

If somebody doesn't believe that the rules of your society do not apply to them, don't let them participate in your society.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Prisons are expensive. Deportation is (relatively) cheap.

If somebody doesn't believe that the rules of your society do not apply to them, don't let them participate in your society.

Heh. A rather extreme view, wouldn't you say? Though I can't deny it would be effective. There are some problems with it, though. Would any crime from jaywalking to murder be punishable by deportation? If not, where do you draw the line? Also, where exactly would the people be deported? No country would accept the criminals of another.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Prisons are expensive. Deportation is (relatively) cheap.

If somebody doesn't believe that the rules of your society do not apply to them, don't let them participate in your society.

Do you know if the Aussies are still taking in prisoners? Arrakis?


Other than that, where are you proposing we deport them to? The Innuit treatment for the elderly?(Which may be an urban legend or myth.) Set them adrift on an ice floe or raft?

 

[Wrathernaut]

Heh. A rather extreme view, wouldn't you say? Though I can't deny it would be effective. There are some problems with it, though. Would any crime from jaywalking to murder be punishable by deportation? If not, where do you draw the line? Also, where exactly would the people be deported? No country would accept the criminals of another.

There's some practical punishments that can be doled out for misdemeanors, but I believe "life in prison" and "sentenced to death" could both be replaced with "citizenship gone, exiled to the highest bidder". There's always places in need of labor, or who are willing to forgive them for other services they can provide.

 

[Mirrorglass]

There's some practical punishments that can be doled out for misdemeanors, but I believe "life in prison" and "sentenced to death" could both be replaced with "citizenship gone, exiled to the highest bidder". There's always places in need of labor, or who are willing to forgive them for other services they can provide.

I seriously doubt there are. Would you have a serial killer work in your factory? And then there's the human rights part. I'm just not willing to accept slavery, or the death penalty, even for horrible criminals. Not if there are humane alternatives.

 

[fuelair]

I seriously doubt there are. Would you have a serial killer work in your factory? And then there's the human rights part. I'm just not willing to accept slavery, or the death penalty, even for horrible criminals. Not if there are humane alternatives.

I'm guessing - and I stress that point - that you have never had a close family member murdered, beaten until they could no longer fully function, raped or otherwise badly damaged by another "person".

 

[Mirrorglass]

I'm guessing - and I stress that point - that you have never had a close family member murdered, beaten until they could no longer fully function, raped or otherwise badly damaged by another "person".

You are correct, and I don't doubt that if something like that happened, I would very likely want to make the culprit suffer. But I still think that desire would be wrong. To attack someone is neither the right thing nor the best thing to do, even in that case. I don't think we should let our anger get the best of us.

 

[Wrathernaut]

I seriously doubt there are. Would you have a serial killer work in your factory? And then there's the human rights part. I'm just not willing to accept slavery, or the death penalty, even for horrible criminals. Not if there are humane alternatives.

I have to differ here. I feel that those "basic human rights" are granted by a society that has rules. Abiding by them is part of that contract that grants you them.

I am required by law to pay taxes. These taxes support the prisons which house those serial killers. If I do not pay these taxes, I am a criminal. Therefore, I am a slave which is required to support that serial killer, by law. I do not have any problem with him being required to contribute to society through manual labor, even if it is merely to support his own subsistence - a society of one. If his labor goes towards supporting victims, or preventing new ones as a deterrent, even better.

 

[Mirrorglass]

I have to differ here. I feel that those "basic human rights" are granted by a society that has rules. Abiding by them is part of that contract that grants you them.

I am required by law to pay taxes. These taxes support the prisons which house those serial killers. If I do not pay these taxes, I am a criminal. Therefore, I am a slave which is required to support that serial killer, by law. I do not have any problem with him being required to contribute to society through manual labor, even if it is merely to support his own subsistence - a society of one. If his labor goes towards supporting victims, or preventing new ones as a deterrent, even better.

Yeah, that is a point where we differ. I don't think human rights depend on being a law-abiding citizen. Of course criminals lose some things, like personal freedom, but that's out of necessity. They still keep their basic rights, no matter how awful people they are.

Human rights aren't something one has to earn. They are something I feel must be given freely to everyone. If I didn't consider everyone worthy of those rights, I wouldn't be worthy of them myself.