I'm still waiting for Backwards stunning commentary as to why repeat offense child molesters should be allowed out of prison.
It's an interesting question, and I'm not sure I have an answer for it.
Essentially, I see prison as serving four purposes -- three that are stated publicly but rarely fulfilled, and one that is stated privately and is often fulfilled.
(1) Removing those from society who threaten social harmony/the State.
(2) Rehabilitating those that threaten the State, converting them into people who benefit the State
(3) Deterrence
(4) Revenge/punishment
In regards to the first point -- we remove individuals from society whom we consider to be dangerous to society, or who threaten the underpinnings of the State.
However, we come to a problem -- why imprison someone whom we consider a threat to the state for five years, if we believe they are inherently dangerous? Isn't anything less than a life sentence essentially half-assed? It seems we deem these people not really so threatening -- selling pot is relatively inconsequential to the State as a whole -- or we believe that rehabilitation is possible, and people will emerge from prison reformed individuals, or it is a matter of simple logistics.
In any case, the current system is flawed. If we believe these people are inherently dangerous, it makes little sense to have anything but a uniform punishment for all crime of a death/life sentence. This is essentially the view of crime that was held throughout the world for centuries, where most crimes were punishable by death until the Enlightenment, and in some nations still thrives (Saudi Arabia, anyone?)
If we believe these people aren't really so threatening, then aren't we compelled to alter the definition of a criminal? Should we not re-examine why we're putting these people in jail in the first place, and if it's for anything but tradition?
And if we believe that people can be rehabilitated, shouldn't we not really care about term lengths, and shouldn't we essentially reform the entire prison system, as it is entirely unfriendly to rehabilitation, and most evidence suggests that doing a stint in prison is likely to increase chances of recidivism, increase chances of becoming affiliated with organized crime, and decrease opportunity to hold jobs and otherwise productively participate in society?
So, really, no matter how you look at it, the current prison system pretty much entirely fails at removing dangerous people from society in any real way.
In regards to the second point of rehabilitation, I don't think anyone is going to contest that American prisons have an abysmal track record in this regard. Prisons are not places to become productive members of society. Prisoners are immersed in violence, surrounded by members of organized crime, drugs, and generally abused and dehumanized, suffering psychological harm, and then ostracized upon release. This is surely not a recipe for rehabilitation.
In regards to the third point of deterrence, we have the issue of basic criminal psychology. Essentially, those who commit crimes suffer from the delusion that they will not be caught. They believe sincerely that they are the exception to the rule in this regard. So, in reality, only a small deterrent is necessary to keep rational, mentally-healthy citizens from committing crime, because we fear reprisal, whereas true criminals are essentially delusional. Also we see little difference in the rate of particular crimes as sentences for them are increased or decreased.
In regard to the fourth point of revenge or punishment, I feel that our current system excels. As Metzger so flippantly discussed, we are essentially a sadistic nation in this regard. We dehumanize criminals (Metz himself called them animals) so we rationalize our desire to see them physically, emotionally, sexually, and psychologically abused. All the things we put people in jail for are permissible if committed upon criminals. However, as I think most would agree, revenge actually holds little societal value, except as perhaps some kind of pressure-release valve. In short, rape, murder, and assault are never acceptable, no matter who is the target.
So our "justice" system is, in large part, a system of institutionalized revenge, with some token gestures to more productive ends. It's conceived in Lockean notions of individual responsibility, puritanical ideas about extra-social behavior, and reptilian feeling about those who might threaten us.
Now, I would posit that rehabilitation should be our primary goal in a justice system, as successful rehabilitation of a criminal is the most beneficial result to society. We have to spend less money than imprisonment, and it takes less time than a 20-year or lifelong imprisonment, so it is efficient. It introduces back into society an individual who can consume and produce, so it is economically beneficial. And it removes a danger to society through removing their threatening behavior. In all ways, successful rehabilitation is the most desirable outcome, and the most productive.
We resist such a model for, I think, at least two main reasons: first, that we do not wish to take the risk that someone might re-offended. This is essentially Darth's concern. However, when compared to our current system and not an imagined ideal, this argument falls apart. We imprison very few criminals for life, so we essentially are accepting some level of re-offense, and given our prison system's reinforcement of criminal behavior, switching to a rehabilitative system would almost assuredly produce lower recidivism rates.
Second, it requires a re-examination of free will. Is not anyone who commits murder, or rape, on some level, mentally ill? Mental illness, after all, has always been defined relative to one's society. In a society that would truly find such offenses unacceptable and inhuman, would we not define such actions as inherently dysfunctional?
I think it is interesting to compare this to the national obsession with child molesters: is rape of an adult no less heinous? And, surely, murder is worse than either, for it removes one's life entirely. However, as society, we have not adequately moved beyond these two crimes. Essentially, too many of us can relate to or understand, on some level, the crimes of rape or murder, so we consider it less heinous than the un-relatable crime of molestation.
Certainly many people in this thread have expressed rationale for killing another human being, and have done so flippantly. So it is no wonder we have not reevaluated our ideas about what compels someone to kill. If we say that any killer is inherently mentally ill, suffers from a basic lack of empathy for other humans, then it calls into question any of our own desires or thoughts about killing.
Whereas, by contrast, most of us cannot understand sexual attraction to a child, so its foreignness makes it easy to vilify.
Anyway, like I said -- I'm not sure. On some level, I think there is merit in removing dangerous elements from society, but how do we determine where the danger lies? Are these people fundamentally broken? Or is it the behavior which is dangerous, or the mental illness, both of which might be corrected? I am inclined to think the latter, though it makes us uncomfortable, is emotionally unsatisfying, and threatens notions of free will and individual responsibility.
I think we are more prone to believe that the murderer might be rehabilitated because on some level we can understand the murderer, we do not believe him to be inherently evil, whereas the molester's foreign nature leads us to chalk it up to some kind of inborn defect. Of course, it was once common for older men to marry 12 year old girls, and certainly it is a crime that would have once been widely understood in past times or in other nations, so I think it irrational to believe that some crimes are crimes a priori and not defined in relation to society.
Also if this post is rambling blame it on my 102 degree fever. Strep throat blows.
sdrawkcaB emaN on
0
Options
RobchamThe Rabbit Kingof your pantsRegistered Userregular
If we are to remove child molesters for life, to be intellectually and philosophically consistent, it demands that we remove all criminals from society for life.
If we attempt to rehabilitate them, we must cede certain notions of responsibility, free will, and revenge, and tolerate some level of risk of recidivism.
Instead of doing either of these things, we have a system trapped in some kind of black hole of cognitive dissonance that accomplishes no goal other than revenge.
Posts
I know this is like 11 hours late, but damn....
The only thing I could think of when I watched that video was "Why has nobody put her out of her misery?"
And then I thought, Soulja Boy??? Really? That is how you try to intimidate someone?
Straight gangsta up in this... uh... um... traineezy?
whoops
It's an interesting question, and I'm not sure I have an answer for it.
Essentially, I see prison as serving four purposes -- three that are stated publicly but rarely fulfilled, and one that is stated privately and is often fulfilled.
(1) Removing those from society who threaten social harmony/the State.
(2) Rehabilitating those that threaten the State, converting them into people who benefit the State
(3) Deterrence
(4) Revenge/punishment
In regards to the first point -- we remove individuals from society whom we consider to be dangerous to society, or who threaten the underpinnings of the State.
However, we come to a problem -- why imprison someone whom we consider a threat to the state for five years, if we believe they are inherently dangerous? Isn't anything less than a life sentence essentially half-assed? It seems we deem these people not really so threatening -- selling pot is relatively inconsequential to the State as a whole -- or we believe that rehabilitation is possible, and people will emerge from prison reformed individuals, or it is a matter of simple logistics.
In any case, the current system is flawed. If we believe these people are inherently dangerous, it makes little sense to have anything but a uniform punishment for all crime of a death/life sentence. This is essentially the view of crime that was held throughout the world for centuries, where most crimes were punishable by death until the Enlightenment, and in some nations still thrives (Saudi Arabia, anyone?)
If we believe these people aren't really so threatening, then aren't we compelled to alter the definition of a criminal? Should we not re-examine why we're putting these people in jail in the first place, and if it's for anything but tradition?
And if we believe that people can be rehabilitated, shouldn't we not really care about term lengths, and shouldn't we essentially reform the entire prison system, as it is entirely unfriendly to rehabilitation, and most evidence suggests that doing a stint in prison is likely to increase chances of recidivism, increase chances of becoming affiliated with organized crime, and decrease opportunity to hold jobs and otherwise productively participate in society?
So, really, no matter how you look at it, the current prison system pretty much entirely fails at removing dangerous people from society in any real way.
In regards to the second point of rehabilitation, I don't think anyone is going to contest that American prisons have an abysmal track record in this regard. Prisons are not places to become productive members of society. Prisoners are immersed in violence, surrounded by members of organized crime, drugs, and generally abused and dehumanized, suffering psychological harm, and then ostracized upon release. This is surely not a recipe for rehabilitation.
In regards to the third point of deterrence, we have the issue of basic criminal psychology. Essentially, those who commit crimes suffer from the delusion that they will not be caught. They believe sincerely that they are the exception to the rule in this regard. So, in reality, only a small deterrent is necessary to keep rational, mentally-healthy citizens from committing crime, because we fear reprisal, whereas true criminals are essentially delusional. Also we see little difference in the rate of particular crimes as sentences for them are increased or decreased.
In regard to the fourth point of revenge or punishment, I feel that our current system excels. As Metzger so flippantly discussed, we are essentially a sadistic nation in this regard. We dehumanize criminals (Metz himself called them animals) so we rationalize our desire to see them physically, emotionally, sexually, and psychologically abused. All the things we put people in jail for are permissible if committed upon criminals. However, as I think most would agree, revenge actually holds little societal value, except as perhaps some kind of pressure-release valve. In short, rape, murder, and assault are never acceptable, no matter who is the target.
So our "justice" system is, in large part, a system of institutionalized revenge, with some token gestures to more productive ends. It's conceived in Lockean notions of individual responsibility, puritanical ideas about extra-social behavior, and reptilian feeling about those who might threaten us.
Now, I would posit that rehabilitation should be our primary goal in a justice system, as successful rehabilitation of a criminal is the most beneficial result to society. We have to spend less money than imprisonment, and it takes less time than a 20-year or lifelong imprisonment, so it is efficient. It introduces back into society an individual who can consume and produce, so it is economically beneficial. And it removes a danger to society through removing their threatening behavior. In all ways, successful rehabilitation is the most desirable outcome, and the most productive.
We resist such a model for, I think, at least two main reasons: first, that we do not wish to take the risk that someone might re-offended. This is essentially Darth's concern. However, when compared to our current system and not an imagined ideal, this argument falls apart. We imprison very few criminals for life, so we essentially are accepting some level of re-offense, and given our prison system's reinforcement of criminal behavior, switching to a rehabilitative system would almost assuredly produce lower recidivism rates.
Second, it requires a re-examination of free will. Is not anyone who commits murder, or rape, on some level, mentally ill? Mental illness, after all, has always been defined relative to one's society. In a society that would truly find such offenses unacceptable and inhuman, would we not define such actions as inherently dysfunctional?
I think it is interesting to compare this to the national obsession with child molesters: is rape of an adult no less heinous? And, surely, murder is worse than either, for it removes one's life entirely. However, as society, we have not adequately moved beyond these two crimes. Essentially, too many of us can relate to or understand, on some level, the crimes of rape or murder, so we consider it less heinous than the un-relatable crime of molestation.
Certainly many people in this thread have expressed rationale for killing another human being, and have done so flippantly. So it is no wonder we have not reevaluated our ideas about what compels someone to kill. If we say that any killer is inherently mentally ill, suffers from a basic lack of empathy for other humans, then it calls into question any of our own desires or thoughts about killing.
Whereas, by contrast, most of us cannot understand sexual attraction to a child, so its foreignness makes it easy to vilify.
Anyway, like I said -- I'm not sure. On some level, I think there is merit in removing dangerous elements from society, but how do we determine where the danger lies? Are these people fundamentally broken? Or is it the behavior which is dangerous, or the mental illness, both of which might be corrected? I am inclined to think the latter, though it makes us uncomfortable, is emotionally unsatisfying, and threatens notions of free will and individual responsibility.
I think we are more prone to believe that the murderer might be rehabilitated because on some level we can understand the murderer, we do not believe him to be inherently evil, whereas the molester's foreign nature leads us to chalk it up to some kind of inborn defect. Of course, it was once common for older men to marry 12 year old girls, and certainly it is a crime that would have once been widely understood in past times or in other nations, so I think it irrational to believe that some crimes are crimes a priori and not defined in relation to society.
Also if this post is rambling blame it on my 102 degree fever. Strep throat blows.
Tumblr blargh
this is getting out of hand, soon he'll be sucking it straight from our mouths.
edit: everybody go look at Rob's superior post that I relegated to the botp.
If we are to remove child molesters for life, to be intellectually and philosophically consistent, it demands that we remove all criminals from society for life.
If we attempt to rehabilitate them, we must cede certain notions of responsibility, free will, and revenge, and tolerate some level of risk of recidivism.
Instead of doing either of these things, we have a system trapped in some kind of black hole of cognitive dissonance that accomplishes no goal other than revenge.
Tumblr blargh
this was all obviously worth it.
Tumblr blargh
Tumblr blargh
I am ever so proud
Tumblr blargh
Tumblr blargh
Tumblr blargh
IM ONTO YOU ROBCHAM
Tumblr blargh
you're the best, rob
Tumblr blargh
but nobody gets it
8-)
Tumblr blargh
see you fuckers in 3 hours
blargh
Tumblr blargh
Tumblr blargh
Because he's better than everyone else.