pug846

I agree with echidna.

I saw a funny story not too long ago (I think here at the II) where a prison warden took away a satanic bible because it quote, “taught revenge and that was bad.” (Or something to that effect.) Of course the irony being that half the people were in the prison because of the revenge component of incarceration.

We throw people in jail and then let them rot for 20 years. They then get released and we expect them to be productive members of society? Prison budgets are getting slashed and a lot of states now no longer allow inmates to get an education behind bars. The drug rehabilitation programs are generally jokes. I wouldn’t be shocked if we could save the State money by putting more into rehabilitation programs.

QoS said:

The death penalty isn’t a better deterrent than life in prison; although they both certainly deter.

Incarceration obviously deters the people who are incarcerated from committing any more crimes and I’m sure there is some deterrent effect to the general population.

Gringo said:

Murders are dealt with a lot harsher in America than in pretty much any other European country. Sentences here are significantly longer and most of the stories you hear about prisoners being coddled are either made up our outright lies.

The public loves the “tough on crime” stance; even if it hasn’t been working.

echidna

This is where I think there is even a case for a form of revenge. I would suggest that part of human nature is to want to exact some form of "justice" on the perpetrator. I think I’ve said before that a rapist (or whatever) let off scot-free on the assumption of rehabilitation actually inflicts further pain on the victim, that in a sense their initial suffering is trivialised by an apparent lack of “justice”.

echidna

I have difficulty with blanket generalisations so I’d still have wimp out to a case by case basis.

For instance, I think the deterrence of the death penalty depends on the crime being associated. If it were to deter religious murder, no maybe not because fundamentalists are often oblivious to such threats anyway. But if it were to deter speeding to take an extreme, I think people would be significantly less enthusiastic in pressing that extra 10%.

In fact to take the crime of a fundamentalist killing civilians with a bomb, what punishment might seem appropriate ?

Rehabilitation ? I think unlikely since their motivations are likely very ingrained.
Protection ? Yes, definitely.
Revenge / Justice ? Understandable cries from the victims.
Deterrence ? Unlikely.

The trouble is, when criminally sentencing someone, to attempt to read the future, one is forced to make many assumptions, not just innocent until proven guilty or rehabilitable (?) until proven not so. One must also make the best estimate one can on the basis of utterly inadequate information, about what that individual is likely to do in the future.

Largely it become a risk assessment exercise.

If the guy has a long & unstable history of attacking people with knives, realistically preventing him from doing this again in the general public are near impossible.

In contrast, a corrupt politician may be just as unrepentant & likely to re-offend, however checks can be placed to prevent his taking on political positions of responsibility.

Not the best examples, but maybe you get my drift.

[ November 19, 2002: Message edited by: echidna ]</p>

echidna

In 1996 psychologically troubled Martin Bryant shot dead 35 people during the Port Arthur Massacre in Tasmania. At the time I remember relief that he was caught alive because I thought a life rotting in prison would actually be worse than death.

Judging by his several subsequent suicide attempts, that might be true.

echidna

As an afterthought, I realise your topic is more how to deal with the perpetrator of the crime, however it seems also appropriate to emphasise the need for prevention.

I can’t provide a link but I recall a very disproportionate number of the prison population are linked with communication problems, dyslexia, illiteracy, intellectual disability and so forth. There is speculation that this and many other causes often lead to the marginalizing of individuals and a sense of hopelessness & alienation.

Personally I’m a big advocate of early intervention & youth-at-risk programs. Often there is precious little separating kids from which side of our social norms they choose to follow in later life, & I believe more needs to be done to provide stability & optimism to many kids growing up in otherwise bleak childhoods.

brighid

My personal thought is that every life is precious and I am for rehabilitation of those criminals that are capable and willing to be rehabilitated. I support the idea that some criminals are not rehabilitable, at least not at this stage of our medical, scientific and psychological capabilities. In certain cases I do support the death penalty for some of the most heinous and egregious offenders, but not within our current system of judicial application of conviction.

I think we should focus on PREVENTION through equal education and opportunity for the poor, access to proper mental health facilities and treatment programs as there are not enough and those that are available are either inadequate or very expensive, seeking to eradicate poverty in this country, providing a better support system for families in crisis, and placing a much higher value on families, parenting and children. Many crimes could be eliminated if these concerns were addressed. How many fewer criminals would we have if those at risk (such as the poor who find themselves under more stress financially, socially, medically and otherwise) had opportunities to support their families, if those who suffer from drug and alcohol abuse were not incarcerated for possession but instead treated (although there are inherent flaws in forced rehab), if domestic violence was not a problem for millions of women and children … I realize this won’t address EVERY criminal, certainly not white collar crimes such as those seen in the Enron and World Com scandals of late, but I think those things would go a long way to addressing violent crimes. How many children brought up in stable one or two parent homes, who are given proper education, don’t suffer the ill effects of poverty and who don’t know what it’s like to be abused grow up to be violent offenders, or even criminals at all?

That being said I don’t believe that all criminals are mentally ill and I also don’t believe that one should go unpunished for knowingly committing a crime such as robbery, rape, murder, etc. I also think each criminal case should be judged on it’s own merits in order to avoid over generalizing a large population of people. Those who have been determined to be mentally ill should be adequately treated and provided a long-term support system in order to help insure their mental health far into the future, as a further preventative measure. Unfortunately, that sort of long-term commitment is dependant on the specific persons willingness to continue treatment. I can think of many cases where mentally ill patients stop taking the medication that keeps them functionally and prevents further offense.

Some offenders simply cannot be rehabilitated and because of the enormous threat they pose to society there is little choice but to keep them out of the general population.

I don’t think “revenge” should be a motive in sentencing a criminal defendant, but I also think that we cannot swing too far onto the side of compassion. We all know people who do things to destroy their lives and the lives of others. Many of us have reached out to those people in order to help them gain some insight and equilibrium in order to stop their destructive behaviors. Often times those people refuse to get help and they go on harming themselves and many innocent people in their wake. Every person is responsible for their actions and the consequences that come with those actions. Punishment is necessary, but so is rehabilitation and more importantly prevention is the key to abating punishment and the need for rehabilitation.

Brighid

Jamie_L

Revenge is not the only alternative to rehabilitation.

Prison is less about deterrent or rehabilitation as it is about maintaining social order. If you let criminals run around and commit additional crimes, then things are going to fall apart rapidly.

Ideally, the goal would be to rehabilitate so that the prison population is not larger than it has to be. If you aren't rehabilitating, then prisons will necessarily have to keep people in longer, or have people go in repeatedly, to achieve your goals of aiding social order.

Generally, I think once a sentence reaches a certain level of severity (10+ years or so, I might guess), additional severity provides no additional deterrent (although it does potentially provide more security to society). In my (unfounded) opinion, I think people who commit the kinds of crimes that have severe punishment are, by the nature of the act, not concerned with the consequences. They either aren't thinking about the consequences, or they expect to not get caught. A person in that frame of mind won't care whether the punishment is 25-to-life, life-without-parole, or death. They simply aren't weighing the options. If they were the kind of people who were concerned about the potential for punishment, they wouldn't be committing the crime in the first place.

Jamie

Ab_Normal

Personally, I favor an incarceration plus rehabilitation / job training model for most offenders. From the news media, however, I get the impression that the majority of Americans are in favor of demonizing criminals.

For instance, there's a kerfuffle in my state because they've found 20 some odd convicted felons working in the Department of Social and Health Services. "My god, we can't have these awful awful people working with the at-risk!"

A second example: A candidate for local city council was asked if background checks should be required for city employees. He agreed wholeheartedly, and added that anyone with any criminal record, even for one offense 20 years previous, should not work for city government.

There is no longer a sense of an offender having "paid their debt to society". Now it's "Once a criminal, always a criminal", regardless of individual circumstance.

edited to add a word...

[ November 20, 2002: Message edited by: Ab_Normal ]</p>

winstonjen

My view - try to rehabilitate them for 6 months, and if they don't respond adequately, kill them. I believe the death sentence should only be dealt out for the most heinous crimes, such as rape, gang rape, murder, terrorism, etc.

Aku Soku Zan - <a href="http://www14.brinkster.com/zodiacrpg/satire.html" target="_blank">http://www14.brinkster.com/zodiacrpg/satire.html</a>

Evil-Immediate-Slay

I don't understand why some people say "If you kill the murderer, you're just as bad as they are."

I don't understand that at all - if you only kill evil people, how do you become more evil? Doesn't make sense to me. I know some people would prefer to kill the evil within the person rather than the whole person, but some people are very hard to redeem.

Amen-Moses

I agree if a murderer only kills evil people then he should go free.

Now whose definition of evil do you want to use?

Amen-Moses