I find it scary that many strident pro-life activists are also very supportive of the idea of capital punishment. I don't see how those concepts can be reconciled in any way that isn't totally hypocritical.
Capital punishment isn't really a solution to the problem it is meant to deal with, and neither is incarceration. In both cases, the criminal is written out of society; I would say they are qualitatively equivalent, to borrow your phrase. It could be argued that a death penalty is actually less harsh than life without parole (or even with parole, in many cases), in that there is less suffering involved.
I am very much pro-choice, simply because I believe that any situation in which a parent would want to abort their child is a situation in which a child should not be raised. I am strongly pro-euthenasia, because I believe that the extension of life in those cases does not benefit the patient in any way. I am ambivalent about capital punishment, but lean away from it on the basis that it is irreversible.
"Capital punishment isn't really a solution to the problem it is meant to deal with, and neither is incarceration. In both cases, the criminal is written out of society; I would say they are qualitatively equivalent, to borrow your phrase"
This is an issue that concerns me. To my mind life imprisonment is definitely preferable if only because (a) there is no real "life without parole" sentence in Australia AFAIK and (b) the sentence can be reversed or reduced if justice has been miscarried (hmm, bad word to use in a discussion that touches on abortion).
But in general my ideal justice system would tend to recommend less than whole-of-lifespan periods of incarceration even for serious crimes. Even then it's not always clear that imprisonment is an appropriate response to crime.
From the perspective of the law, the best response to a crime is the one that produces the best result for society overall, and scary as it is to say that might potentially include letting the criminal go free (not saying it is, just putting the idea
Taking a criminal (someone who is already on the boundaries of society) out of society entirely and putting them into a population entirely made up of criminals doesn't sound like an effective means of rehabilitation. Combined with physical and psychological abuse at the hands of authority figures and fellow inmates, I'd say it's downright detrimental
( ... )
The role of punishment is partially preventative (acts as a deterrent) as well as rehabilitative. This makes sense to me, but the tradeoff between the two goals is difficult to calculate.
As far as the bad effects of jail on inmates' psychology go, perhaps there could be some alternate way of restricting the rights of convicted criminals without incarcerating them that would also act as a significant deterrent. Controlling their income, movement, status or civic rights without actually throwing them behind locked doors. The trouble is that it's probably a bad idea to give a convicted criminal a very real opportunity to commit further crime during the course of a sentence. I don't know about this.
"I would actually go so far as to say that it would be in the interest of society to attempt to determine whether any given criminal is capable of rehabilitation."
I think that might potentially be a good thing if possible, but is currently unrealistic.
As far as the bad effects of jail on inmates' psychology go, perhaps there could be some alternate way of restricting the rights of convicted criminals without incarcerating them that would also act as a significant deterrent.
That sounds similar to the conditions of parole - which criminals regularly break.
I think the problem is that criminals (as kadeton said) already feel alienated and often disenfranchised (sp?) by society and it's limits. Placing further restrictions on them would only serve to increase that alienation and provoke further crimes.
All of the tales I've heard of criminals "smartening up" or "rehabilitating" have come about through mentoring by an individual the criminal respects. This is great when that mentor exists, and totally useless when the person's background is populated exclusively by other criminals.
It's a very similar story for drug addicts - there has to be a motive for the person to improve their life by discontinuing their current behaviour.
Definitely. The preventative aspect is tied in with the satisfaction of punishment; people are put in prison not to make them better people, but to make their victims feel that they are now suffering for their crimes. Negative reinforcement really doesn't work in such contexts.
I agree with you that neither incarceration or capital punishment are ideal solutions, but with lack of a better one, I don't see that either is vastly superiour
( ... )
"However, I question the level of "reversibility" of a life sentence."
Clearly a life sentence is not entirely reversible, but it's much more reversible than execution. On this functional aspect it's the clear winner.
"I'm not actually sure if I'd prefer to be executed or incarcerated in such a case. Possibly the former."
I suggest that if you were innocent you'd prefer to be locked up, given the possibility your conviction might later be quashed. If guilty, you don't really have a say. There is no way of determining whether execution is "worse" for a person than life imprisonment - it's a category error. In the former case, they're dead and don't care. It's the nature of the effect of sanctioned murder on the rest of society that is more important.
"As you yourself have stated, people serving life sentences hardly become viable subjects for rerelease into society."
When I said that I was referring to release as an alternative for life sentence, not release after serving life
( ... )
It's the nature of the effect of sanctioned murder on the rest of society that is more important.
I do wonder what and how big this effect is?
However, I disagree with any blanket statement that "most people reoffend".
I didn't make _that_ blanket statement. Don't put words in my mouth, "most" was no there. Some people do reoffend and some innocent people get convicted. I don't think the number of reoffenders has to be a great proportion to conclude that releasing "hard criminals" may be a bad idea.
When I said that I was referring to release as an alternative for life sentence, not release after serving life.Actually, I think I mixed this up with Chris' comment
( ... )
You:Me:"However, I disagree with any blanket statement that "most people reoffend"." "I didn't make _that_ blanket statement. Don't put words in my mouth, "most" was no[t] there." I didn't say you had made it. Don't put words in my mouth. What I thought was that what you were saying carried less weight in light of the fact that (a) not all criminals reoffend and (b) it may be possible to determine which criminals are likely to, affecting principles of sentencing.
You:Me:"I didn't make that argument." "From your original post: Capital punishment costs the state more money to administer than life imprisonment." Notice the distinct lack of an argument to back up that proposition. I'll leave the large number of supportive references I linked to to make the argument for me, thanks.
I very much agree with you on all points, except that I am opposed totally to capital punishment. To punish someone by judicially authorised death for anything is something I believe to be wrong. Even for people like Tookie Williams, who was, quite frankly, a bad motherfucker or to people like Martin Bryant who are irredeemable to society.
Death or glory by gladiatorial combat? fine. Killed while escaping lawful confinement or in self defence, fine, but not as a punishment far after the fact. It sickens me to think of how clinical administration of the death penalty is by some otherwise first-world nations.
Actually, I find it scary how non-clinical it is. If it were simply a case of "There is absolutely nothing more we can do to make this creature a happy, normal human being, so we should put it out of its misery," then I could see a justification for it. However, it is generally conducted in a vindictive, torturous and inhumane manner, an attitude of "This guy's a real bastard, let's kill him and really make him suffer for what he's done." That, I can't condone.
Capital punishment isn't really a solution to the problem it is meant to deal with, and neither is incarceration. In both cases, the criminal is written out of society; I would say they are qualitatively equivalent, to borrow your phrase. It could be argued that a death penalty is actually less harsh than life without parole (or even with parole, in many cases), in that there is less suffering involved.
I am very much pro-choice, simply because I believe that any situation in which a parent would want to abort their child is a situation in which a child should not be raised. I am strongly pro-euthenasia, because I believe that the extension of life in those cases does not benefit the patient in any way. I am ambivalent about capital punishment, but lean away from it on the basis that it is irreversible.
Reply
This is an issue that concerns me. To my mind life imprisonment is definitely preferable if only because (a) there is no real "life without parole" sentence in Australia AFAIK and (b) the sentence can be reversed or reduced if justice has been miscarried (hmm, bad word to use in a discussion that touches on abortion).
But in general my ideal justice system would tend to recommend less than whole-of-lifespan periods of incarceration even for serious crimes. Even then it's not always clear that imprisonment is an appropriate response to crime.
From the perspective of the law, the best response to a crime is the one that produces the best result for society overall, and scary as it is to say that might potentially include letting the criminal go free (not saying it is, just putting the idea
Reply
Reply
As far as the bad effects of jail on inmates' psychology go, perhaps there could be some alternate way of restricting the rights of convicted criminals without incarcerating them that would also act as a significant deterrent. Controlling their income, movement, status or civic rights without actually throwing them behind locked doors. The trouble is that it's probably a bad idea to give a convicted criminal a very real opportunity to commit further crime during the course of a sentence. I don't know about this.
"I would actually go so far as to say that it would be in the interest of society to attempt to determine whether any given criminal is capable of rehabilitation."
I think that might potentially be a good thing if possible, but is currently unrealistic.
Reply
That sounds similar to the conditions of parole - which criminals regularly break.
I think the problem is that criminals (as kadeton said) already feel alienated and often disenfranchised (sp?) by society and it's limits. Placing further restrictions on them would only serve to increase that alienation and provoke further crimes.
All of the tales I've heard of criminals "smartening up" or "rehabilitating" have come about through mentoring by an individual the criminal respects. This is great when that mentor exists, and totally useless when the person's background is populated exclusively by other criminals.
It's a very similar story for drug addicts - there has to be a motive for the person to improve their life by discontinuing their current behaviour.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Clearly a life sentence is not entirely reversible, but it's much more reversible than execution. On this functional aspect it's the clear winner.
"I'm not actually sure if I'd prefer to be executed or incarcerated in such a case. Possibly the former."
I suggest that if you were innocent you'd prefer to be locked up, given the possibility your conviction might later be quashed. If guilty, you don't really have a say. There is no way of determining whether execution is "worse" for a person than life imprisonment - it's a category error. In the former case, they're dead and don't care. It's the nature of the effect of sanctioned murder on the rest of society that is more important.
"As you yourself have stated, people serving life sentences hardly become viable subjects for rerelease into society."
When I said that I was referring to release as an alternative for life sentence, not release after serving life ( ... )
Reply
I do wonder what and how big this effect is?
However, I disagree with any blanket statement that "most people reoffend".
I didn't make _that_ blanket statement. Don't put words in my mouth, "most" was no there. Some people do reoffend and some innocent people get convicted. I don't think the number of reoffenders has to be a great proportion to conclude that releasing "hard criminals" may be a bad idea.
When I said that I was referring to release as an alternative for life sentence, not release after serving life.Actually, I think I mixed this up with Chris' comment ( ... )
Reply
"I didn't make _that_ blanket statement. Don't put words in my mouth, "most" was no[t] there."
I didn't say you had made it. Don't put words in my mouth. What I thought was that what you were saying carried less weight in light of the fact that (a) not all criminals reoffend and (b) it may be possible to determine which criminals are likely to, affecting principles of sentencing.
You:Me:"I didn't make that argument."
"From your original post:
Capital punishment costs the state more money to administer than life imprisonment."
Notice the distinct lack of an argument to back up that proposition. I'll leave the large number of supportive references I linked to to make the argument for me, thanks.
Pedantically yours, ataxi.
Reply
Death or glory by gladiatorial combat? fine. Killed while escaping lawful confinement or in self defence, fine, but not as a punishment far after the fact. It sickens me to think of how clinical administration of the death penalty is by some otherwise first-world nations.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment