Subject:
|
Re: Criminal Justice
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 19 Aug 2002 16:54:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
285 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> 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?
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 illness as a mitigating factor, is that one is dealing with an
individual that is absolutely willing to hurt others in permanent ways to
achieve their short term ends.
Plain old restitution could work in non-violent circumstances. Of course,
many turn to crime when their other wealth creating options are limited so I
am not sure how this would work except for some period of confinement that
insures labor is performed and restitution is made.
I have other ideas about the effects of economic disadvantage that show these
ideas to be more of a cudgel than an instrument of finesse. When trying to
solve the problem of crime, we are dealing with a very messy set of
circumstances with endless exceptions to the "norm" -- there are no easy
answers.
> 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.
Yeah, I was looking at a subset of crimes that I consider problematic or
gravely serious. I don't think my reasoning is circular, just pragmatic.
Child molesters have a very high rate of recidivism. Sure, I accept that such
persons are probably former victims themselves in what is sometimes termed the
"cycle of abuse." BUT, if we DO NOT have an effective therapy for such
offenders I am unhappily okay with containing the problem through permanent
confinement -- not so much as punishment, but as true containment only. I
do have sympathy for people that were themselves abused. Again, these ideas
are more of a cudgel than an instrument of finesse. I want another
solution, but I am not sure where to find it. If I err in my judgment here,
it is only to defend those least able to defend themselves -- children!
It's a sticky problem, with no good solutions so far.
> 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.
Not if they leave the country and are outside geographic control. I can see
ways to attempt to track such individuals, so this difficulty might become
less of a problem in the future.
> 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?
I'm not at all more inclined to treat this woman's situation easily -- I just
think we have ready methods to deal with her problems, and I feel pretty sure
that she is not a danger to others if she is cared for wisely. Unless she is
deemed insane and therefore not able to control her actions, I see the temporary
depression question as a treatable phenomenon.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Criminal Justice
|
| (...) I'd say that "an individual that is absolutely willing to hurt others in permanent ways to achieve their short term ends" is someone who has a mental illness. But containment with psychiatric help available until the person demonstrates they (...) (22 years ago, 20-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Criminal Justice
|
| (...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 19-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
|
|
|
|
