I think the Larry Nassar thread is getting bogged down in a lot of off-topic arguments about the lengths of criminal sentencing, and the conditions of prisons that are only tangentially related. I have to admit that I am one of the most guilty of off-topic discussion, so I have decided to start this thread dedicated to questions of what a criminal justice system ought to do.
As a very patronizing reminder, the traditional theories of criminal justice are that law-breaking can be dealt with in the following ways:
deterrence: actual law-breakers are punished severely in order to deter would-be criminals from their actions. Draconian punishments may have the effect of a short sharp shock that theoretically reduces crime overall. Very heavy fines or corporal punishment in Singapore, for example, might achieve that effect. Heads on spikes might make potential treasonous assassins think again.
protection of society: Once criminals have behaved in a way that damages society, they can be locked away to prevent them causing further harm. This is usually a reactive policy, although who knows whether technology can be implemented to prevent future crime.
rehabilitation: for people who do mess up, or perhaps even for those who fear they will, they can be "fixed" somehow to make them better members of society.
reform: I'm going to distinguish this one from rehabilitation to suggest that maybe the criminal is not the problem here but the society. Let's assume that certain laws, certain law enforcement practices or a certain inequality in society is responsible for citizens' law-breaking. Then the trick is to make society better in some way.
retribution: Essentially, an eye for an eye. The idea here is that we should be more concerned with seeing a just punishment meted out to those who deserve it.
We may have to distinguish between what is theoretically preferable to what is practically achievable, but I think that I would prefer the system that strives for a global maximum in utilitarian terms. I think that retribution is almost a deliberate shunning of scientific rationalism and a demand to reverse the civilizing process that people such as Pinker have described as leading to a reduction in violence in society.
Sure, we are not merely rational beings but I doubt that it is healthy to stoke retributivist demands in people. I think it is a bad sign to have judges saying they would like to see criminals getting arse-raped in jail or celebrating hundred-year sentences.
I think the Skandanavians have it about right. That the purpose of criminal justice is to protect society, and where possible rehabilitate. Also, some societal reform is probably worthwhile almost everywhere.
As a very patronizing reminder, the traditional theories of criminal justice are that law-breaking can be dealt with in the following ways:
deterrence: actual law-breakers are punished severely in order to deter would-be criminals from their actions. Draconian punishments may have the effect of a short sharp shock that theoretically reduces crime overall. Very heavy fines or corporal punishment in Singapore, for example, might achieve that effect. Heads on spikes might make potential treasonous assassins think again.
protection of society: Once criminals have behaved in a way that damages society, they can be locked away to prevent them causing further harm. This is usually a reactive policy, although who knows whether technology can be implemented to prevent future crime.
rehabilitation: for people who do mess up, or perhaps even for those who fear they will, they can be "fixed" somehow to make them better members of society.
reform: I'm going to distinguish this one from rehabilitation to suggest that maybe the criminal is not the problem here but the society. Let's assume that certain laws, certain law enforcement practices or a certain inequality in society is responsible for citizens' law-breaking. Then the trick is to make society better in some way.
retribution: Essentially, an eye for an eye. The idea here is that we should be more concerned with seeing a just punishment meted out to those who deserve it.
We may have to distinguish between what is theoretically preferable to what is practically achievable, but I think that I would prefer the system that strives for a global maximum in utilitarian terms. I think that retribution is almost a deliberate shunning of scientific rationalism and a demand to reverse the civilizing process that people such as Pinker have described as leading to a reduction in violence in society.
Sure, we are not merely rational beings but I doubt that it is healthy to stoke retributivist demands in people. I think it is a bad sign to have judges saying they would like to see criminals getting arse-raped in jail or celebrating hundred-year sentences.
I think the Skandanavians have it about right. That the purpose of criminal justice is to protect society, and where possible rehabilitate. Also, some societal reform is probably worthwhile almost everywhere.
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/2GtInDa
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire