Subject:
|
Re: Criminal Justice
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 19 Aug 2002 15:05:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
259 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> Well, speaking only for myself, I am more interested in restitutional
> justice -- which has little to do with our current conception of justice.
> When things can be made right through some monetary or labour means, I think
> we should force the criminal to make such amends.
When a child does something antisocial (aka "wrong") many parents/authorities
have the first impulse to punish the kid. Current thinking in child
development and parenting philosophy says (and I'm pretty sure I agree) that
when a punishment is dicated from authority the child can feel that things are
even and so has no need to feel guilty or sorry or to figure out how to make
things right. So the trick is to figure out how to _not_ punish -- that is
place artificial unpleasant consequences in the child's world, while making
sure that the child doesn't grow up just thinking it's OK to act in those
antisocial ways.
I keep wondering if and how this applies to criminal justice. Do we harm the
criminal (particularly in such a way that it makes recidivism more likely) by
imposing (some kinds of) punishment? And more particularly, are we doing more
harm than good overall through standard forms of punishment? Is there any way
to allow or encourage the convicts to make things right to the best of their
ability without an imposition of punishment?
> In other instances where
> the crime is of a more personal nature -- like rape, child molestation, and
> murder -- I think there should be both a restitutional price tag and then
> some kind of containment punishment. The rate of recidivism of certain kinds
> of offenders and the seriousness of some kinds of offenses makes me
> unsympathetic to the idea of ever releasing those kinds of criminals from
> prison.
I have a hard time defending rape, so I'm going to skip over that one for now
as a convenience. But I can imagine lots of circumstances that lead someone
who is generally not dangerous enough to merit perpetual confinement to take
another person's life. Or do you only mean that some subset of the occurances
of the crimes that you listed should be handled that way? And tying back to
what I was saying above, isn't it possible that the high rate of recidivism
that you cite as a reason to confine indefinately, is a result of the way we
handle/punish/stigmatize their situation/actions? If so, your response is kind
of based on circular reasoning.
I'm not saying that's so, just that it's possible. And I'm not sure how to
untangle the threads so that we'd really know.
> The
> point should be restitution -- and no money retained by the criminal
> excepting that restitution has been made (with offshore accounts this may
> become a tricky matter).
It seems like it would be relatively easy to monitor somone's spending and
knock them around if it becomes obvious that they shielded some money from
their vicitms. Or, you could grant the perpetrator's future to the victims or
their survivors, and then they could opt to buy the debt/burden off. And they
would have no incentive to keep their cash shielded since paying it back would
be their only hope of ever escaping.
> > This link describes a tragic crime that illustrates such a conflicted justice
> > in my mind. http://www.freedebra.org/
> I don't know that much about this woman's story. To recapitulate what seems
> to be the story, I get this: this woman killed her children rather
> painlessly with sleeping pills; and then tried to take her own life the same
> way, and through a variety of other techniques when that failed. Finally,
> unable to kill herself, she turned herself in to the local authorities.
>
> If you can accept that no mentally "well" person would do any of those
> things, then you are immediately in the realm of having to deal with the
> woman's apparent level of insanity, temporary or otherwise.
I think of it just like that. But I also wonder how "sane" someone is who
rapes or molests children. Why is it that you're willing to accord this lady
the status of insane and needing help, but not for those others? Is it just
that you have enough detail in this case or something inherent in the type of
crime?
> Future generations will probably see this as punishing the
> mentally ill the same way previous generations used to put the mentally ill
> through all kinds of bizarre and meaningless tortures.
I hadn't thought of this like this, but I bet you're right. That casts an
interesting light on the whole thing.
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Criminal Justice
|
| (...) As a point of clarification, are you speculating that recidivism might result from confinement-based punishment because such punishment is separate from actual guilt-consequences of the committed crime? (...) Escaping from what? I think that (...) (22 years ago, 19-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Criminal Justice
|
| (...) I am leery of according mere confinement the status of unreasonable or even harsh punishment for basic violent common law crimes (armed theft, assult, rape, murder, etc). The purpose of confinement for such violent offenders, absent mental (...) (22 years ago, 19-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Criminal Justice
|
| (...) Well, speaking only for myself, I am more interested in restitutional justice -- which has little to do with our current conception of justice. When things can be made right through some monetary or labour means, I think we should force the (...) (22 years ago, 18-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
21 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
