Subject:
|
Re: Criminal Justice
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 Aug 2002 03:10:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
323 times
|
| |
|
|
richard marchetti wrote:
>
> 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.
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 have changed seems reasonable.
> 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'm willing to require confinement until the restitution is made. I do
expect the perpetrator to be given opportunities which they can be most
productive at.
> 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.
When we have an individual who has been dealt such a bad hand, what sort
of confinement is reasonable? Many people seem offended by prisoners
having access to amenities. If the prisoner has been dealt such a bad
hand, should we give them a fairly comfortable (but safe for all)
environment, or should we lock them up in a drafty cell with nothing to
do (incidentally, I'm all for prisoners having plenty of things to
occupy their time, including TV, libraries, and productive work - I
think such an environment will result in higher rates of rehabilitation
and a more manageable prison population).
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
