![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On prisoner release
Aug. 19th, 2009 12:45 pmThe news has been bubbling lately about the issue of releasing notorious criminals. In particular Ronnie Biggs, the Great Train Robber who is 80 years old and Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie Bomber (though this is all rumours) who is riddled with cancer.
There has been no shortage of anger and outrage about this. Outrage and anger I do not share. I understand it, but I don’t believe it’s a good reason for the decision. I believe, rumours being true, that releasing them is the right thing to do
Waaaay back in the mists of time when I was at law school and university one of my guilty pleasures was criminal jurisprudence. Yes, while everyone else deplored the subject, this particular part I kind of liked (the rest of it was dreadfully dreadfully boring) in particular the question - why do we punish? Why do we punish people? Why do we fine them? Why do we put them in prison? What is the reason for it? It’s interesting and makes me think and I wrote many long dissertations on it and had many heated arguments with Hitler’s Happy Henchman over the matter. So the reasons I’ve breezed across for punishment extremely briefly (addressing the ones that are most applicable here - there are several more) - and why none of these really give a good reason why either of these men should stay in public.
Protection of Society Actually one of the reasons I have a lot of time for. Some people have proven themselves dangerous - either unable or unwilling to exist in society without hurting or harming other people. As such, removing them from society is acceptable to stop them hurting more people. I approve. Biggs is 80 and has had 2 heart attacks, Megrahi is riddled with terminal cancer (apparently). I’m not feeling the fear here.
Deterrence ah the old favourite of law and order types. We have to punish people severely so other people won’t do it. And, guess what? It’s bullshit. Not only is it bullshit, but ayone with half a brain can see it as clear and obvious bullshit.
No, seriously. Deterrence works fine for people who are shop lifting or maybe engaging in cold, unemotional crimes like fraud. But for the heavy things - murder, rape, terrorism... deterrence is a whole load of cobblers. If someone has reached a point where they are willing to commit these crimes then:
They’re not thinking at all - and certainly not doing a cost benefit analysis complete with risk assessment OR
They don’t think they’ll get caught (they’re usually right). And the fear of the worst punishment in the world won’t stop you if you don’ t think you’re going to face it
And even if it was a factor - in these cases it’s pretty obviously not. I mean, can you see the mind set it would require?
“I won’t blow up a plane - they’ll throw me in prison for life!”
“Nah, they’ll throw you in prison for several years until you become terminally ill - they’ll let you out before you finally die.”
“Ooooh, pass the explosives then.”
The deterrence argument falls flat.
Redressing the Balance high philosophy theory - basically someone has used naughty means to get themselves ahead then we need to take away this unfair advantage to bring them back into line with the good people in society who haven’t broken the rules. I could have a nice long debate on this but I think the easiest answer would be - terminal illness. Severely ill octogenarian and someone riddled with prostate cancer. Enough said
Sending a message Another high philosophy excuse. Basically, society has a vested interest in making it clear that certain activities are unacceptable and we punish people to broadcast and reinforce this message.
Ok, anyone here have any kind of ambiguity about the wrongness of murder or blowing up planes? No? Any doubts? Any reaffirmation needed? Are we fuzzy on the morality here? Nooo? Probably no pressing need for a message here then.
Which brings us to retribution which is, of course, a fancy word for revenge. But retribution proponents loathe it when you use that word because it kind of demolishes their argument.
In simple terms - they’ve done bad things against people/society. We don’t like that. We’re angry. We get to make them suffer to pay them back and make us feel better. Which is, on a basic level, vengeance. Which is problematic - incorporating vengeance into our justice system - hurting someone because you’re angry at them and hate them (however justified that hate is) is not really something most people are comfortable with being written in law. Let’s face it - it’s a monumentally bad idea.
Yes, the victims and their families certainly have a perfectly justified reason for anger and hate. And yes, society has a good reason to hate. These are not unacceptable or wrong feelings - they are justified. But we cannot base our justice system - and the policies and decisions that stem from our justice system - to be based on anger and hatred. It’s not only unjustifiable from a reasoned standpoint - but it’s also a very dark road to walk - when anger and hate become motivation behind decisions on which mens’ lives depends.
The victims have a right to their anger and their hatred. I would never criticise even the deepest, most obsessive fury any of them may fee - they have a right to it. But we cannot - should not - make this desire for vengeance a basis for policy.
There has been no shortage of anger and outrage about this. Outrage and anger I do not share. I understand it, but I don’t believe it’s a good reason for the decision. I believe, rumours being true, that releasing them is the right thing to do
Waaaay back in the mists of time when I was at law school and university one of my guilty pleasures was criminal jurisprudence. Yes, while everyone else deplored the subject, this particular part I kind of liked (the rest of it was dreadfully dreadfully boring) in particular the question - why do we punish? Why do we punish people? Why do we fine them? Why do we put them in prison? What is the reason for it? It’s interesting and makes me think and I wrote many long dissertations on it and had many heated arguments with Hitler’s Happy Henchman over the matter. So the reasons I’ve breezed across for punishment extremely briefly (addressing the ones that are most applicable here - there are several more) - and why none of these really give a good reason why either of these men should stay in public.
Protection of Society Actually one of the reasons I have a lot of time for. Some people have proven themselves dangerous - either unable or unwilling to exist in society without hurting or harming other people. As such, removing them from society is acceptable to stop them hurting more people. I approve. Biggs is 80 and has had 2 heart attacks, Megrahi is riddled with terminal cancer (apparently). I’m not feeling the fear here.
Deterrence ah the old favourite of law and order types. We have to punish people severely so other people won’t do it. And, guess what? It’s bullshit. Not only is it bullshit, but ayone with half a brain can see it as clear and obvious bullshit.
No, seriously. Deterrence works fine for people who are shop lifting or maybe engaging in cold, unemotional crimes like fraud. But for the heavy things - murder, rape, terrorism... deterrence is a whole load of cobblers. If someone has reached a point where they are willing to commit these crimes then:
They’re not thinking at all - and certainly not doing a cost benefit analysis complete with risk assessment OR
They don’t think they’ll get caught (they’re usually right). And the fear of the worst punishment in the world won’t stop you if you don’ t think you’re going to face it
And even if it was a factor - in these cases it’s pretty obviously not. I mean, can you see the mind set it would require?
“I won’t blow up a plane - they’ll throw me in prison for life!”
“Nah, they’ll throw you in prison for several years until you become terminally ill - they’ll let you out before you finally die.”
“Ooooh, pass the explosives then.”
The deterrence argument falls flat.
Redressing the Balance high philosophy theory - basically someone has used naughty means to get themselves ahead then we need to take away this unfair advantage to bring them back into line with the good people in society who haven’t broken the rules. I could have a nice long debate on this but I think the easiest answer would be - terminal illness. Severely ill octogenarian and someone riddled with prostate cancer. Enough said
Sending a message Another high philosophy excuse. Basically, society has a vested interest in making it clear that certain activities are unacceptable and we punish people to broadcast and reinforce this message.
Ok, anyone here have any kind of ambiguity about the wrongness of murder or blowing up planes? No? Any doubts? Any reaffirmation needed? Are we fuzzy on the morality here? Nooo? Probably no pressing need for a message here then.
Which brings us to retribution which is, of course, a fancy word for revenge. But retribution proponents loathe it when you use that word because it kind of demolishes their argument.
In simple terms - they’ve done bad things against people/society. We don’t like that. We’re angry. We get to make them suffer to pay them back and make us feel better. Which is, on a basic level, vengeance. Which is problematic - incorporating vengeance into our justice system - hurting someone because you’re angry at them and hate them (however justified that hate is) is not really something most people are comfortable with being written in law. Let’s face it - it’s a monumentally bad idea.
Yes, the victims and their families certainly have a perfectly justified reason for anger and hate. And yes, society has a good reason to hate. These are not unacceptable or wrong feelings - they are justified. But we cannot base our justice system - and the policies and decisions that stem from our justice system - to be based on anger and hatred. It’s not only unjustifiable from a reasoned standpoint - but it’s also a very dark road to walk - when anger and hate become motivation behind decisions on which mens’ lives depends.
The victims have a right to their anger and their hatred. I would never criticise even the deepest, most obsessive fury any of them may fee - they have a right to it. But we cannot - should not - make this desire for vengeance a basis for policy.