Topic: Crime (And Punishment) (Read 29231 times)

Crystalmonkey · « **on:** May 26, 2007, 02:21:09 AM »

This is taken from the discussion on murder, but I felt that this should also apply to all crime as well. I've edited it somewhat.

From what I've seen, which doesn't qualify me as an expert in any way other than for the purposes of this discussion, people seem to commit crimes for three broad reasons, which you may recognize from our discussion of the death penalty (and murder):

1) They've completely lost themselves to rage, and the consequences/logic of their actions is no so easily seen. (By them or by us, which was mentioned in the other thread.) It's often said that emotions can distort our judgment, in many different directions.

2) They have some innate desire or compulsion to do some action. (We call these people psychopaths when they have an innate desire or impulse to kill others, and I believe TehJudgie briefly touched on this in the murder thread.)

3) They commit crimes for "profit". (They believe, for whatever reason, that the pros outweigh the cons. For instance, not believing you will be caught.)

The question then, is why do we have prisons? If they are meant to separate the "criminals" from the rest of the population, does it matter whether prison is a terrible place or not? I think that having prison as a terrible place is the SAME reason we have a death penalty, and should be changed for almost EXACTLY the same reasons.

Evonus · « **Reply #1 on:** May 26, 2007, 01:53:31 PM »

Quote from: Crystalmonkey on May 26, 2007, 02:21:09 AM

I think that having prison as a terrible place is the SAME reason we have a death penalty, and should be changed for almost EXACTLY the same reasons.

And what reasons are those?

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #2 on:** May 26, 2007, 02:54:11 PM »

Quote from: Evonus on May 26, 2007, 01:53:31 PM

And what reasons are those?

1) A deterrent to other people committing crimes.

2) A form of punishment. (Like an eye for an eye, almost.)

Evonus · « **Reply #3 on:** May 26, 2007, 11:58:26 PM »

Quote from: Crystalmonkey on May 26, 2007, 02:54:11 PM

1) A deterrent to other people committing crimes.

2) A form of punishment. (Like an eye for an eye, almost.)

Why should it be changed for those reasons though? I'm not really seeing where you're going with this.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #4 on:** May 29, 2007, 05:24:09 PM »

Quote from: Crystalmonkey on May 26, 2007, 02:21:09 AM

The question then, is why do we have prisons? If they are meant to separate the "criminals" from the rest of the population, does it matter whether prison is a terrible place or not? I think that having prison as a terrible place is the SAME reason we have a death penalty, and should be changed for almost EXACTLY the same reasons.

Society has changed its position on this many times over the course of history, and it is sure to change many more.

My own opinion on the subject is more of a "should" rather than an "is".

Prisons should be rehabilitative wherever possible, provide humane separation of non-rehabilitory inmates from the rest of the law-abiding population when rehabilitation is not possible, and never punitive.

If the goal of a free society is to protect the rights of individuals, it is necessary to remove those people from society who cannot refrain from violating the rights of others. It is not the place of the State to decide to "punish", but I do believe it is well within the State's authority to detain and separate.

If the goal of that separation is a bit more broad in its vision, then it should also work to prevent repeat-offenders. The "deterrent" argument has been used for centuries to justify executions and other non-capital punitive measures, but in practice, there really doesn't seem to be a statistical correllation with States which employ various measures and a reduction in crime.

Certainly, governments who put criminals to death don't have those particular criminals re-offending. But putting them to death does not seem to deter others from committing crimes.

Because of this, and because of the fact that I simply don't believe any government should have the authority and power to end the life of anyone -- regardless of what crime has been committed -- I'm opposed to anything beyond simple detention for those who are non-rehabilitative, and I believe that it is in the best interests of a free society to provide a realistic, reasonable path to rehabilitation for any who express a genuine desire for it.

I'm also of the opinion that victims of crime deserve compensation for their losses in a much greater sense than the State currently provides. Monetary damages are typically laughed at in the context of our prison system, namely in the sense that "you can't get blood from a stone".

I'm not opposed to humane work camps as being part of that rehabilitory aspect of the penal system. Production facilities and other organized working environments that enable an inmate who owes reparations to work an honest and productive -- not just busy work to earn a dime from the State -- day's work on the inside, with the non-essential portion of the inmate's salary going toward paying off whatever debt they owe their victims or victims' families. Programs of this sort do exist in spotty fashion around the US today, but most of them are eaten up by shoddy management, bureaucratic red-tape and administrative costs, so victims and their families see nothing for it. This could easily be corrected, but consistency in philosophy and approach must be mandated from the top on down, and, like so many other government-run entities, the prison systems in the United States are often mired in idiocy that would take a bulldozer to clean up.

For those who are non-rehabilitative, repeat offenders who demonstrate no desire to rejoin society as a law-abiding member, prison should be simply that: a holding pattern for those who are a danger to others and need to be held safely apart from other individuals so as to not allow them to violoate the rights of others. This should be done as humanely as possible, in my opinion, as there is no excuse for a civilized society to treat human beings like animals or worse, even if those human beings have demonstrated contempt for others and don't seem "deserving" of humane treatment.

/long

pbsaurus · « **Reply #5 on:** May 29, 2007, 05:38:56 PM »

The non-rehabilitatables should live with those who share the same values. Evonus, perhaps you should take them in.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #6 on:** May 29, 2007, 05:48:32 PM »

In all seriousness, I could go for a system much like the one Demo delineated. The current system is far too punitive and anyone who has taken even an introductory Psychology class knows that punishment doesn't correct behavior, it only makes those behaviors more covert. Possitive reinforcement can do wonders thought, and what many of the people in prisons today need is the tools to be able to operate in our society. Training and education will go a long way to curbing recidivism, but there are those, namely the sociopaths, who really do need to be sequestered from society. I really like the compensation idea for victims' families and if doing the work teaches the offender useful skills for when their debt to society is paid, I'm even more for it.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #7 on:** May 29, 2007, 05:53:46 PM »

Like I had mentioned, some work/compensation programs do exist out there today in various state-run systems, but they're not very consistent and they usually rely on state funding rather than being self-sufficient, which, aside from the work skills they can provide inmates and the structure they can impose, are somewhat self-defeating. If you're just paying someone to do busy-work, it doesn't really help anyone else.

That's not to say that there aren't prison businesses out there that don't show profits or produce meaningful goods -- there are many that do... but not nearly enough.

Zephyr · « **Reply #8 on:** May 29, 2007, 06:04:14 PM »

I agree with Demosthenes. We have an interesting program in my area for juvenile delinquents that works on rehabilitating as opposed to punishing. Volunteers work with juveniles to grow gardens, build homes, and other tasks that give a sense of place in the community and reward (while also giving the kids someone to talk to). Businesses in the area offer work or donate supplies, so a good portion of funding comes from the community itself rather than just the state. Rehabilitation can be a community effort. It'd be nice to see this on a larger scale.

12AX7 · « **Reply #9 on:** May 29, 2007, 06:05:47 PM »

Quote from: Zephyr on May 29, 2007, 06:04:14 PM

...It'd be nice to see this on a larger scale.

Heh. What was that Aerosmith song? Dream On?

Zephyr · « **Reply #10 on:** May 29, 2007, 06:09:39 PM »

Quote from: 12AX7 on May 29, 2007, 06:05:47 PM

Heh. What was that Aerosmith song? Dream On?

What was that George Michael song? Faith?

COME ON, think happy thoughts Peter Pan.

12AX7 · « **Reply #11 on:** May 29, 2007, 06:13:52 PM »

Wasn't Peter Pan recalled because it made some kids sick?

Come on, man... give me something to work with!

Zephyr · « **Reply #12 on:** May 29, 2007, 06:17:06 PM »

I would have responded with "I believe I can fly" in reference to that R Kelly song made popular by Space Jam.
Guess my wit is lacking.

RelandR · « **Reply #13 on:** May 29, 2007, 07:24:40 PM »

Quote from: 12AX7 on May 29, 2007, 06:13:52 PM

Wasn't Peter Pan recalled because it made some kids sick?

Wasn't he arrested for luring kids to neverland ?

Zephyr · « **Reply #14 on:** May 29, 2007, 07:40:16 PM »

At last, Peter Pan and Michael Jackson have something in common.

12AX7 · « **Reply #15 on:** May 29, 2007, 07:43:53 PM »

Quote from: Zephyr on May 29, 2007, 07:40:16 PM

At last, Peter Pan and Michael Jackson have something in common.

And K-Mart!

12AX7 · « **Reply #16 on:** May 29, 2007, 07:44:46 PM »

They all have little boys' pants half off...

BizB · « **Reply #17 on:** May 29, 2007, 09:19:30 PM »

Quote from: 12AX7 on May 29, 2007, 07:43:53 PM

And K-Mart!

K-Mart sucks.

xolik · « **Reply #18 on:** May 29, 2007, 09:56:21 PM »

Quote from: BizB on May 29, 2007, 09:19:30 PM

K-Mart sucks.

So does your image host.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #19 on:** May 30, 2007, 12:34:55 AM »

I think Demo's idea is full of worth.

That said, I think it would also be interesting if instead of that, we had something established on a separate area/island, with no way to leave (Unless your sentence if finished, or however the system works by this point) that is not as restrictive as prison but still meant to keep them isolated from the rest of society. I believe government is meant to prevent people from violating other people's rights. (I might extend that, but as a minimalist definition that's it.)

If someone violates another person's rights, you separate them from others. No killing, and a relatively minimal removal of personal liberty.

The area would have it's own police force, of course, as well as restrictions on what items can be brought in and who can enter. I wonder what would happen to those who "violate" other peoples rights while inside... perhaps THEN is where more traditional prisons are called for. There will of course be rehabilitation, though I'm not sure I like the government being able to "re-educate" people...

Zephyr · « **Reply #20 on:** May 30, 2007, 12:51:07 AM »

Didn't America begin as a bunch of criminals that were shipped over?

Paladin · « **Reply #21 on:** May 30, 2007, 01:59:33 AM »

Nah, that was Australia

Here's my plan:
We should sterilize everyone involved in a crime more serious than... (there has to be set a miniumum level crime), and the 1st grade relatives: sons/daughters, siblings, parents. That way we'll get rid of the most violent genetic characteristics, we'll have a good evolutionary reason to follow the law, and we'll help with the overpopulation problem as a side benefit.

I know it's a long shot, but let's try in for a few hundred generations and see what happens...

pbsaurus · « **Reply #22 on:** May 30, 2007, 12:08:50 PM »

So you're into eugenics, Adolph?

ivan · « **Reply #23 on:** May 30, 2007, 12:18:33 PM »

The theory that criminal tendencies are hereditary is far from proven.

Of course, one of the reasons it's far from proven (or disproven) is because there is a reluctance to seriously look into the matter. After all, if we find out that criminality is genetic, then we might be tempted to do something about it.

xolik · « **Reply #24 on:** May 30, 2007, 12:18:43 PM »

Quote from: pbsaurus on May 30, 2007, 12:08:50 PM

So you're into eugenics, Adolph?

THOSE 'PEOPLE' ARE BELOW ME AND HAVE NO BUSINESS BEING ALIVE BECAUSE I SAID SO, DON'T YOU SEE YOU PLEB?

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: Crime (And Punishment) (Read 29231 times)

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7