Putting criminals back in society vs holding them in prison for punishment.

[Hubster]

It's so true though. Im tired of hearing about monsters getting out and doing more shit to innocent people.

Kill them on the spot. save the 25 cent bullet and use a god damn rope.
It's time to put fear back into the criminal mind

I hate to admit it gieve such a black and white on/off approach, but I agree.

Personally, I have very strong feelings about the rights of women and how they are abused by men. Rape is not treated anywhere near seriously enough by the justice system, it's totally fucked.

The attitude by the justice system towards sexual crimes against women should be of no tolerance imo. You abuse the basic rights of another human being? You fucking lose your life. Simple: DON'T DO IT.

EDIT: I think this can also be related somewhat to how kids are now disciplined by their parents these days. As an old timer myself (33, almost 34), I see kids doing shit now that I would NEVER have conceived of doing when I was a kid.

Never would I have spoken back to my parents, because I KNEW I was going to get a severe ass kicking and super slap to the face. I was brought up strict, and respect my elders. Kids these days don't give a fuck about anything, and I think this is largely because via their parents and also schools, there's just not enough strict discipline to hammer home what is and isn't acceptable.

It's beyond a joke now: there needs to be a harder line taken with criminal discipline, let alone child discipline.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Why kill someone because they abuse someone else's rights? That is not "just" and therefore isn't something the "justice system" should do. I agree, rape and sexual crimes are not taken seriously enough, but outright killing rapists? That's some crazy shit right there. You should probably take the time to think about all the implications this kind of thinking has (logistical, trials and hearings, economics involved, how it affects the victim, etc.).

Stop whining about being old, too. You're just generalizing the shit out of the world and it's silly.

 

[Matt]

The death penalty is extremely expensive and ineffective. It needs a major overhaul.

 

[Dak]

Hmmm, this is a pretty interesting and difficult issue. I don't have very well-developed views on this, but neither of these choices - retributive or rehabilitative - seems overwhelmingly desirable to me from a purely abstract, philosophical perspective. I tend to view a restitutive/restorative system of criminal justice as at least prima facie more desirable than the pure forms of either of the alternatives. I think, and I hope other people think similarly, that the primary focus of criminal justice should be directed towards the victims of crime, and I don't think what we currently have really lives up to that ideal. Thus, I think the focus of criminal justice ought to be restitution. I don't see how a purely retributive system of criminal justice would even be close to ideally just. What exactly do the victims of crime get out of this system other than whatever small amount pleasure they might get from seeing a criminal thrown in jail for some amount of time? It does not even come close to restoring the victim to his or her status quo ante condition.

A restitutive view at least addresses that issue even if there are some fundamental difficulties for the view, not to mention the difficulty of what is supposed to count as restitution in the case of murder. And anyway, it looks as though we could, at least prima facie kill two birds with one stone under such a system if we could calculate what would count as appropriate restitution for various cases in such a way that the expected chance of being caught for a crime plus the expected cost conditional upon being caught at the very least nullifies the expected chance of getting away with it plus the expect payoff.

As far as the comparative desirability of imprisonment versus rehabilitation in "consequentialistic" terms goes, I don't have much to say other than that I suspect that the perception that this is a genuine dichotomy is due to lack of imagination.

edit: I should also add that I have some sympathy for Dakryn's view, although I find his seemingly gung-ho attitude towards the death penalty somewhat worrying. He's right, however, that the prison system in this country is a huge drain on resources. Much of the growth in the prison population in this country can be attributed to drug-related convictions. Stop the drug war and get rid of these puritanical drug laws and you kill two birds with one stone.

Excellent post.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

The death penalty is extremely expensive and ineffective. It needs a major overhaul.

This is one of the least important in a very huge series of steps to make the justice system work better than it is (if you think it's not working well, anyway).

 

[skeptik]

The death penalty needs to be abolished in the US as it is in most civilized nations.

 

[cookiecutter]

On the title of the thread I think there needs to be some mixture of the two. Ideally I feel that the criminal justice system should be about rehabilitation rather than punishment. At the same time some people just can't be rehabilitated and I assume some punishment is a deterrent. I don't have a lot of facts to back this up though at the moment this is more of an abstract view rather than a clear policy that I would like.

On the topic of drugs I agree with Cythraul. Drug use should not be criminalized. Also the war on drugs is a very bad idea because the very act of attacking the supply side of the drug trade makes it more lucrative to be in the drug trade, making the war on drugs in my view unwinnable in its current incarnation. I've done a lot of research on this topic and I think that a lot of time, money and lives could be saved by loosening laws regarding drugs

On the death penalty I think it should be abolished. It is not a deterrent. If it is not a deterrent then its only purpose is emotional revenge. However appealing killing a child rapist is, the criminal justice should be above that. Also, how does taking a human life show that taking a human life is wrong?

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I agree with everything you say, of course, but in my opinion, there is no way of winning if someone rapes a little kid. No amount of pain on behalf of the person who committed the act, monetary dispensation to the victim and direct relatives, rehabilitation or incarceration can ever make things "right."

 

[Cythraul]

What would an idealized restorative system be, to you? I'm not quite sure what the term implies but it interests me, mainly because your post was actually pretty close to what I can agree with to an extent.

Well, this is a difficult question. Ideally, a system of restitutional/restorative criminal justice would require a criminal to restore his/her victim to their status quo ante condition via some form of restitution (this could be achieved via either a direct payment of some sort to the victim or indirectly via forced labor (in case you think this is inconsistent with my broader political views, I should point out that it is not, because once somebody violates another person's rights they are obligated, by my lights, to pay for that violation. It is entirely legitimate to use force (or, to put it another way, coercion) in such cases.))

The difficulties are obvious once you start thinking about this a little bit. First of all, what is supposed to count as restoring a victim to their status quo ante condition? Obviously, this requirement cannot be taken too literally, because if we did interpret this requirement too literally, it would require us to build time machines and turn back the course of events in order to restore the victim to their status quo ante condition. Ideally, we would want to find a way of extracting restitution from the offender such that the offender pays, either directly or indirectly, the full market value of all losses incurred by the victim plus the cost to the victim (or his/her protection agency (market anarchy, fuck yeah)) of apprehending and trying the offender.

I think this way of calculating what ought to be done to the perpetrator of a crime is a lot more rational than trying to calculate, for instance, what prison sentence ought to attach to any given crime (just think about that issue for a moment; can you think of a rational way to calculate what prison sentence ought to attach to any given crime? Good luck with that!)

One huge problem is how to apply the restitutional/restorative view to cases where people have been violated in certain specific ways, e.g. rape or murder. In the case of rape, what in the world would count as proper restitution for such a crime? In the case of murder it is even more difficult, because there's no possible way to restore the victim to their status quo ante condition in any conceivable sense.

Like I said before, I don't have very well-developed views concerning criminal justice, but this seems to me to have some very distinct advantages over alternative views. I might seem cocksure about some things, but this is one area where I feel like I'm groping about in the dark.

On the topic of drugs I agree with Cythraul. Drug use should not be criminalized. Also the war on drugs is a very bad idea because the very act of attacking the supply side of the drug trade makes it more lucrative to be in the drug trade, making the war on drugs in my view unwinnable in its current incarnation. I've done a lot of research on this topic and I think that a lot of time, money and lives could be saved by loosening laws regarding drugs

Well, I'm glad I agree with you on something. I think our side of this particular debate has already won the intellectual war. The only things stopping major reform of drug laws in this country are deeply entrenched special interests and 'law and order' conservative opposition. We will come to a breaking point especially with laws associated with marijuana where people will just no longer regard the "benefits" as outweighing the costs of maintaining the status quo as long as our side of this argument keeps getting out to the general public. Just think about the level of crime that is associated with the criminalization of the sale and use of drugs. One of the most compelling points is that the prices of illegal drugs are inflated as a result of the costs associated with the criminalization of illegal drugs. I guarantee you that if all drugs were legalized tomorrow you would see the prices of those drugs plummet and that would tend to reduce crimes associated with said drugs. Legalize it; don't criticize it.

 

[Hubster]

Why kill someone because they abuse someone else's rights? That is not "just" and therefore isn't something the "justice system" should do. I agree, rape and sexual crimes are not taken seriously enough, but outright killing rapists? That's some crazy shit right there. You should probably take the time to think about all the implications this kind of thinking has (logistical, trials and hearings, economics involved, how it affects the victim, etc.).

These are not just any rights we're talking about here, these are basic rights, the right to say who can and can't touch your body, your skin. Rape isn't just an abuse of that right, it's outright stripping it from the person, complete removal. By far and large the most demoralising of acts to another human being, there is no more disgusting a kind of abuse.

I'm not about to say I am a wealth of knowledge on this subject, nor that I'm 100% right in my opinion, but have you personally ever known anyone who has been raped? Better still, have you been in a relationship with a woman who had been raped? Have you seen yourself how deeply it effects the person, that it cannot be recovered from 100%? I have. And believe me, the victim NEVER leads a normal life again. They carry scars with them that you have no ability to comprehend let alone the strength to live with.

Come back to me when you have some insight on this effects the victim yourself. For now, shut up. As usual you sound like a teenager who has no life experience and thinks they do just because they read. Fuck you're young, and not in a good way. You know NOTHING about what it takes for a victim to lead their life again, let alone support a victim of rape.

Stop whining about being old, too. You're just generalizing the shit out of the world and it's silly.

I wasn't whining about being old, clearly sarcasm doesn't translate well on a forum. Get off your high horse.

 

[hibernal_dream]

I'm not so sure that restitution should be a central goal of any criminal justice system. Sentencing has usually focused on punishment and rehabilitation, which in a way, are indirect forms of of compensation to the victim. This is just the way that prosecuting criminals works, and it's the role of criminal law to focus on criminals, not the compensation of victims. Indeed, compensation should be a factor in sentencing, how we can restore the victim to his or her former position but this has not traditionally been a major concern. Bringing in compensation as THE goal of sentencing just confuses things, because of problems in attributing value to non-financial loss, as Cythraul brought up. I'm not too sure about the United States, but there are common law actions which serve to compensate victims. For example there is criminal assault which is there to punish perpetrators of physical abuse, then the common law action in battery, which would compensate the victim. For criminal assault there is no loss required - the convicted criminal is punished whether or not the victim suffered wounds, or has a hospital bill to cover. To get compensatory damages for these losses is another matter entirely, there are different legal requirements and rightfully so. What should we do when the victim has no loss yet in criminal sentencing the primary consideration is to provide him/her with restitution? I understand what Cythraul is saying and agree with the principle of providing to restitution to victims of crime, but this thread is about sentencing and questioning its motives for punishment raises all sorts of problems with the way the law is structured, the division between civil and criminal law, and they way justice is distributed in a legal system.

 

[byrne]

Just think about the level of crime that is associated with the criminalization of the sale and use of drugs. One of the most compelling points is that the prices of illegal drugs are inflated as a result of the costs associated with the criminalization of illegal drugs. I guarantee you that if all drugs were legalized tomorrow you would see the prices of those drugs plummet and that would tend to reduce crimes associated with said drugs. Legalize it; don't criticize it.

i don't think its as simple as that. there would be repurcussions of legalisation that you haven't acknowledged, such as overdose due to a lack of understanding of consequences etc. plus, what drugs do you legalise and how do you control use? and what is appropriate use? society has enough problems due to people not being able to control their intake of alcohol, cigarettes etc. legalising more drugs is hardly a quick fix to an abundance of drug related crime.

on another matter, you are all pretty blind sighted about rape, murder etc. im not condoning it in any way shape or form, but cases aren't as black and white as the defendant being guilty or not. i for one wouldnt want to be responsible for sentencing an innocent person to death.

 

[Hubster]

At the risk of partially contradicting myself, I believe Byrne also has a point. I guess I do feel pretty harshly in my views about all this though, more so in the case of sexual crimes. Murder though, I think is definitely a far greyer area.

 

[arg]

after successfully passing an interview to determine if they have been rehabilitated and no longer pose a danger to society, they should get a guaranteed apartment and job designation as a grocery bagger like in Shawshank Redemption.

 

[mutantllama]

Hmm some good responses.

I can't read all of them, and can't post a good response right now, but I will once I get back at the end of the week.

 

[Dak]

I'm not so sure that restitution should be a central goal of any criminal justice system. Sentencing has usually focused on punishment and rehabilitation, which in a way, are indirect forms of of compensation to the victim. This is just the way that prosecuting criminals works, and it's the role of criminal law to focus on criminals, not the compensation of victims.

Which is retarded. If we are not interested in the victim, why punish or rehabilitate the criminal to start with? The entire focus is fucked up, which explains the ass backwards way we deal with crime.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

On the death penalty I think it should be abolished. It is not a deterrent. If it is not a deterrent then its only purpose is emotional revenge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punishment#Incapacitation_.2F_Societal_protection

Apparently you have a little more research to do.

 

[skeptik]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punishment#Incapacitation_.2F_Societal_protection

Apparently you have a little more research to do.

Whoops! Looks like you don't know what the fuck you're talking about:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/det...stently-lower-murder-rates#stateswithvwithout

Sorry about that broheim!

 

[Krow]

The death penalty is extremely expensive and ineffective. It needs a major overhaul.

Shotgun + Shotgun shell = Profit?

Seriously though... I kinda believe that if you take away someone else's life maliciously... your punishment for it should be having yours taken away in a timely fashion. It really doesnt teach you much of anything... but it instills a little fear into would be criminals (and they need it, imo.. if there's not much of a punishment... why care about breaking the law?) and it takes a dangerous person out of this world.

Whoops! Looks like you don't know what the fuck you're talking about:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/det...stently-lower-murder-rates#stateswithvwithout

Sorry about that broheim!

And... Those states always had low murder rates as far as that shows so what does it matter?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Whoops! Looks like you don't know what the fuck you're talking about:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/det...stently-lower-murder-rates#stateswithvwithout

Sorry about that broheim!

So you're trying to say the death penalty is the single biggest factor in those statistics you've tossed out? What about Alaska, D.C. and Michigan, which have high murder rates despite no death penalty? Or Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon, which have low murder rates and a death penalty?

It's also important to know how many people each of those states has on death row, and whether the people on death row are responsible for a lot of those extra murders.