- David Steele
- Davis, CA
- United States
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Should criminal sentencing be oriented towards punishment or rehabilitation?
There are basically two lines of thought on what the goal of criminal sentencing (this means after guilt has been proven) should be: justice for the victim, which is usually used to mean punishment for the perpetrator, and rehabilitation for the perpetrator, which means working to make him a functioning member of society. Examples of policies favoring justice for the victim would include the death penalty, as it precludes the possibility of rehabilitation, and life sentences without the possibility of parole, for the same reason. Examples of policies favoring rehabilitation for the perpetrator include in-prison education for inmates, because the aim is to prepare them to find a job on the outside, reducing their dependence on crime and hopefully make them functioning members of society, and parole systems, because they allow for the possibility that if a convict can reform his ways, and has the possibility of functioning well on the outside, he should be released. There are of course, various compromises within those philosophies. One such mixture of philosophies can be seen in the minimum time requirements for parole; which state that inmates granted the possibility of parole must first serve a set number of years out of their sentence before they can be considered for parole. The idea of these minimum time requirements are to provide a deterrent while still allowing for rehabilitation. However critics say that there can be no compromise between these ideas, because if there is any immutable punishment, that contradicts the idea that if the convict is rehabilitated he is released, favoring a deterrent, which has nothing to do with the individual's possibility. So: do you think that these two concepts can exist symbiotically? If so, how? If not, which do you think we should abide by? As a side-note, all my examples are from U.S. law. I would be very interested to hear examples of these concepts from wherever you live.
David Steele
elizabeth muncey 10+
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
How can we use this information to correct criminal thinking instead of punish it.
David Steele
"Those that argue in favor of free will do so as part of a belief system, they provide no research on the subject. "
I thought that while I want this debate to stay focused on how our criminal justice system should be oriented, I might briefly address this by offering some logic based arguments that might be used in support of fee will.
First of all, the question of the possible existence of free will is a philosophical question. As such, I'm not sure it's fair to say there is no research supporting a side. Second, free will is a very abstract concept, and while you may read articles such as the one in the Atlantic and feel they disprove the existence of free will, hypothetically I could read the same article and arrive at a different conclusion.
"The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion." This definition is provided by Wikipedia (the well known arbiter of philosophical truths). The article claims that free will cannot exist because ultimately our brain chemistry is what determines our choices, and what it chooses is predictable. I might look at this and say that since my brain is part of me, my decision is not being controlled by necessity or fate, and as such I have free will. This is just one of many possible examples intended to show that there is virtually always an argument for any idea (sometimes even a good one), so I'm not sure the belief in free will should be dismissed as simply part of a "belief system." It's also worth noting that every belief, even the belief that we have no free will is based on a belief system. But I don't want to belabor a point that may have just been poor phrasing.
Finally, I don't want to let any of this distract from the overall topic, so make sure if anyone comments on this topic you do it in the scope of criminal justice and the debate prompt.
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
Humans are the only animals to act spitefully or to mete out "justice", dishing out punishment to people seen to be behaving unfairly - even if it is not in the punisher's own best interests. This tendency has been hard to explain in evolutionary terms, because it has no obvious reproductive advantage and punishing unfairness can actually lead to the punisher being harmed."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10239-sense-of-justice-discovered-in-the-brain.html
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
This is a research reference which provides some insight into why our society clings to the notion.
"It all seems quite rational, so why is our lack of free will so difficult to accept for many people? Cashmore explains that there are several compelling reasons that people have for believing in free will, not the least of which is that we have a constant awareness of making decisions that seem to be driven by our own volition. In addition, free will is a very useful concept when it comes to the justice system; we take responsibility for our criminal actions and accordingly, are eligible for personal punishment, which is deemed to be necessary for protecting society."
Read more at: http://phys.org/news186830615.html#jCp
Tom French
Notions of right and wrong, good and evil are religious notions.They are deeply ingrained in western societies and are the basis of our legal system.But they are only beliefs,devoid of any peer reviewed data to suggest they are relevant and plenty to suggest they do not work.In reality good and evil in Law are arbitrary absolutes for something totally subjective. For example if you are a hard line Christian your interpretation of right and wrong is likely to be very different to that of a Budhist monk, or a white supremist, or a doctor.
In the face of ever changing moral values, our legal system is static, delivering "justice" for actions that in reality should not be considered crimes at all.Defining acts as crimes formed of free will & choice is an archaic Biblical view,which takes no account of psychology, genetics, neuroscience and social science. The legal system basically absolves society at large of any real responsibility towards the aberrant people it creates.The irony is there is no true justice.A murder cannot be undone and no amount of punishment changes that.
We know that environment is the overriding factor that determines our path in life.We can paper over cracks, attempting to merge rehabilitation with punishment,whilst facing a barrage of pseudo-religious ideological bullshit from the self appointed guardians of justice, but until our society realises that the more unequal we become the worse things are for everyone, and changes, murders will still happen
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
http://blog.ted.com/2012/10/18/ideas-on-lockdown-a-look-at-tedx-events-held-in-prisons/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TEDBlog+%28TEDBlog%29
This is an idea worth spreading!
Roberto Garcia
Remember the old story: "You cant solve a problem if you dont accept there is a problem, then you must decide if you want to solve it or not. At least try to solve it. An inmate, no matter how fearsome he might try to be, is someone that needs help. But if i toss a rope to someone he must grab it so i can pull him out. Working with people is really difficult a man made by the streets has build a wall around himself, because in the streets you need to be strong or make others think you are strong., So the Priest and the Scientist must first go through that wall to deal with the human being. And both of them do what they do best.
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
Even in cases where the individual has not admitted to a problem, society still needs to create the affordance of the rope being tossed to those ready to grab on. We must always promote that promise.
Roberto Garcia
Jonathan Marschall
How do you rehabilitate someone that committed murder? Is it even possible.
David Steele
Are you precluding the possibility that Kevin Hughes might be rehabilitated? This is one example, but we all know the multitude of hypotheticals and real life examples like Kevin that could be used. To name just a few:
What about someone who committed murder while under the influence; so he was not in full control of his mental faculties and decision making proccess?
Someone whose violence was a result abuse?
a crime of passion, rather than deliberate planning and intent?
Or, to introduce one that I think is new, what about someone who accidentally killed someone during the commission of a separate crime? Most states in the U.S. (I believe all of them but without being sure I'm not going to state that) allow someone to be charged with murder if the death was a result of another crime they were committing. A good example of this is an old lady having a heart attack during a bank robbery. The robber can now be charged with that woman's murder. Or if a security guard tried to shoot the robber but missed and killed a bystander, the robber can again be charged with that bystander's murder.
Are you saying that this bank robber, or any of the examples listed above can't be rehabilitated?
Roberto Garcia
In some extreme cases rehab is useless. So the system must take out of the society that extreme offender to keep the rest of the society safe from him/her . I think that the main goal must be to rehab the offenders, but punishment and rehab cant exist without each other. When one fails there is the other.
David Steele
Roberto Garcia
The basis of punishment is fear. After punishment the offender is supposed to be afraid of being punished again. But i am not sure if that works, because there is a high percentage of offenders that come in and out of detention very often.
Some people after a bad experience decide to change their ways, some people don't
As i said before, there are extreme cases where the subject has a "wrong programming situation" in his mindset. We can take the example of serial offenders. As humans they deserve a chance to change. But there are bad instructions in his mindset, that push him to do what he does. What kind of rehabilitation program or how do we get to this individual and wipe off this wrong instructions from his mindset.
I have seen many cases of successful rehabilitation at the church,. Real people with real situations and after no scientific method worked their last hope was embracing faith and i don't know how but it worked.
But not everyone will take a step to pray every day and read the Bible. So we also need a scientific method that can be applied in a higher number of cases.
David Steele
David Steele
To address the first issue, it seems to me that if some members of society would be willing to commit a crime for basic education, job training, or whatever other potential benefit of a criminal justice system oriented towards rehabilitation would offer, the problem that would present towards said criminal justice system would be an avoidable one, and the real failure would be on the part of the public education system and other social programs that were supposed to be available to them and failed them. Anything you can think of that someone might commit a crime to get in prison is something that is already supposed to be available to them for free or a reduced price.
Your second point, that criminals might have unrecognized psychological issues seems to suggest that our criminal justice system should improve it's psychological care, which is also a rehabilitative program.
Are you in fact arguing for a more rehabilitation focused system? Or am I misinterpreting your arguments?
Roy Bourque 20+
Without rehabilitation, criminals will become hardened, as is now often the case. People don't commit crimes because they know how to act properly and don't, they commit crimes because there is a distortion in their sense of ability to do the right thing and prosper. They sense an injustice in which they are the victim firsthand.
There are psychological issues to this question. The stress of poverty coupled with a sick child and no insurance distorts a person's ability to think rationally. These are mitigating factors. When poverty is coupled with addicting behaviors (drugs, alcoholism, compulsive gambling, etc.), these are compounding factors. There are people who are driven to criminal actions due to stress, and there are people who drive themselves to criminal actions due to lack of self-control. If only it were that simple.
In his book "The New Primal Scream", author Arthur Janov presents evidence that early childhood or birth trauma can create subconscious drives that can become debilitating. Such people can't control themselves and have no idea why.
There is a close relationship between insanity and criminal behavior, even when a person knows the difference between right and wrong. They are driven to make the wrong choices for reasons that they don't understand. Getting them the psychological help that they need is expensive, and therefore, rarely happens (except in cases in which a person is labeled insane). This being the case, rehabilitation is only partially effective for most criminals because it doesn't address the root of the problem.
The justice system is often well aware of these problems, but it is torn between the need to protect the innocent, while doing the best it can within budget constraints.
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
http://www.frequency.com/video/why-we-all-lie-cheat-fast-forward/57899236/-/5-58716
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
The Power/Interaction Model of Interpersonal Influence
The bases of power are included within a larger context through the development of a Power/Interaction Model of Interpersonal Influence (Raven, 1992). The model begins with a consideration of the motivation for influence and the use of power, then to the factors which lead to choice of power strategy, preparatory devices for implementing the bases of power, the manner in which a power strategy is utilized, the effective changes or lack of change in the target of influence, the after-effects, and the readjustment of the perceptions and choices of future strategies by the agent.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2008.00159.x/full
Casey Christofaris 10+
David Steele
Casey Christofaris 10+
First I am always a fan of devils advocate, so devils away. But yes if done properly and from day 1 of birth you can achieve better results with positive reinforcement. The problem with our current system is until we change everything that has to do with negative reinforcement system. A positive reinforcement system will not work efficiently. Given enough time and the right positive reinforcement, I think that even someone like Charles Manson would be rehabilitated. The problem is that most people think people should be punished for their actions. For me even as a young child this never made sense, I never understood how yelling at me or punishing me for something I did after I did it actually accomplished anything other then more frustration from all parties involved. It almost makes sense to yell at someone before they do it, that might actually stop the x thing from happening in the first place. Now unfortunately am one of those people if you tell me not to do something I almost always go do that thing. So that doesn't work either. However what does work is showing that through positive reinforcement even for bad behavior the person will change in the way that is best fit. Also everyone has a little bad in us and its fun to be bad. Its about balance not control. In a negative reinforcement system its about control and authority, not about actually making the person a better person to enter into society.
Here is an example of what Norway is doing.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/24/world/europe/norway-prison-bastoy-nicest/index.html
Also when one tries to "debate" syntax one will always argue in circles
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
Casey Christofaris 10+
Robert Winner 50+
When you say high level I assume that you refer to the Public and Institutional levels assigned. What I infer is that if you have been in prison for many years you become institutionalized. In many ways that is a requirement for survival. Can they adapt when released some can and good for them. However, I do not think that is the common result .. most have a real struggle in adjusting to life outside and return to the same environment and the same friends that got them into prison the first time. The alcholoic would be part of the designer prisions I suggested. Their problem is not the crime it is the abuse. A unit set up to address this would save us time and money and the added advantage of not exposing them to hardened prisoners. In some cases I support work release programs for those type of crime.
As your father can explain the very terms of sentencing and law protecting the public would make most approaches very limited and cost prohibative. Inmates who qualify for work programs pose a minimal risk of escape and danger to the public (level 1/1). These are the ones I mentioned that the time and money would provide the highest rate of return in efforts to rehibilitate. Others could be invested in if they demonstrate the effort and desire, but again that would depend on the level and institutional history.
The key here is money. Prisons must spend wisely and are responsible to the public for their safety. If the program works and the rest of the prison operations is not effected then praise is in line. One slip up and all programs are in trouble and the public wants a wardens head. This is a fine line to walk.
There is always room for improvement. I hope you find it. Talk to me anytime.
All the best. Bob.
David Steele
Robert Winner 50+
David it is really refreshing to talk to you. Thanks for your interest. Talk to me any time.
Bob.
Casey Christofaris 10+
You might like this article then
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/24/world/europe/norway-prison-bastoy-nicest/index.html
Ken brown 30+
Robert Winner 50+
In almost every case the final answer is money. To house a inmate is about $65K for hardened and about $40K for minimal. Schools to educate are expensive and without a profit margin are not interested.
The internal poltics of a prision are very simple .... Prison rules: Do as you are told or you will be punished ... Gang rules in prision: Do as you are told or we will kill you, your dog, and your family.
As well meaning as they may be, those who protest the prisons treatments and lack of rehibilitation efforts are not well informed. In order for this to work I see one method. Designer prisons. Put murders and those doing life sentences in one area; long term inmates in another; and keeping seperate first timers and short time inmates and these are the ones that MAYBE can be given educational and job training. These are the ones that we should invest on and provide opportunities for success and NOT returning to prison. By isolating them from the hardened prisoners they are not exposed to the prison mentality and gang influence would be minimal and maybe even controlable.
At the higher level custodies there is little chance for rehab .... the focus is on protecting them from each other. The sad fact is that the gangs are really in charge. We had six officers scheduled and often less in physical presence to manage 2000 inmates. You do the math.
First develop a plan for rehab .... then find funding .... then devise a means that would not endanger the public .... the checklist goes on.
I see you are a student. Take a tour of the local prison and rethink your question.
Bob.
David Steele
pat gilbert 50+
I have hired a few of these guys as workers in the past, the ones whose accommodations had signs on the wall that stated "we not fire warning shots". There is a certain element of society that I don't care what you do they are not going to be rehabilitated as they are complete sociopaths, they have zero empathy for the most shocking offenses. You have to talk with these guys to get the idea.
David Steele
Casey Christofaris 10+
http://www.ted.com/talks/jon_ronson_strange_answers_to_the_psychopath_test.html
pat gilbert 50+
David Steele
pat gilbert 50+
I think the correct thinking is to look at what works, as per the scientific method is the truth. What doesn't work is trying to rehabilitate psychopaths. What does is to allow the ones that can to take responsibility for themselves.
pat gilbert 50+
No it is easy just pitch the book the psych use to determine if someone is mentally ill. The book is a canard in the first place as it's only real purpose is to have an excuse to prescribe drugs which is where the real money is.
Feyisayo Anjorin 50+
The first sign of change in the convict is the acceptance of the punishment as what he or she deserves; if a convict has this mindset, then positive change is most likely.
But the prisons should also be a place where convicts would be opportuned to improve themselves intellectually, morally and in other enriching ways. Idleness in prisons is not ideal, and some convicts really need help as far as mental health is concerned.
The focus in the adminstration of justice should be 'Justice' and 'Mercy'.
The justice part is the punishment for wrongdoing; the mercy part is rehabilitation of the convict.
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
Acceptable to whom?
In some countries rape is the fault of the woman. All laws are not created equal.
This type of a punishment mentality is aimed at creating obedience of authority rather than compliance.
It is also the thinking that grants permission to people to spank children into submission. Nineteen states still allow paddling and spanking for children
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Also locking people up may be something else, not just punishment. It may protect society from those who are a threat.
Whether we have free will or not, some fear of punishment is a partial deterrent either consciously or unconsciously.
Also, whether we have free will or not, if you put alternative ideas or options in other peoples heads, either conscious or unconscious, if you can change their habits, you may help prevent future crimes.
Assuming you don't lock every convicted criminal for life for every crime, they will get out one day. Why not give rehabilitation a try. Why not try it on a volunteer or compulsory basis and check the data.
In fact, if there is data to show attempts at rehabilitation work, and the benefits outweigh the costs why not give it a go?
John Smith 30+
Mats Kaarbö 10+
I would go as far as saying that if the data shows that rehabilitation works better than punishment, it should be done regardless of cost.
John Smith 30+
@Mats below
At the time of the trial it really doesn't matter how the perpetrator became who he is. My point was that a person committing a crime only once does not make that crime and the damage done by it any less serious. When some vandal damages your car for $5000 and then is rehabilitated and never vandalizes anything again, you're still left with a $5000 bill if the vandalism is not forced to pay you. There is more to crime than recidivity statistics: damage is done and has to be compensated for, preferably by the perpetrators, this is why punishment is so much more than primitive revenge.
@David Steele
Seeing prison as compensation may seem hard but the vast majority of punishments are fines or community service, clearly those are about repairing damage. In cases where the perpetrator cannot afford a fine a prison sentence is there to assure that not only wealthier perpetrators are punished. Also, while prison may not deter our one-time passion killer, jailing him may deter others, at the very least it will prevent a wave of killers trying to stay out of jail by claiming they only killed out of passion. At some level the parents of the victim may find compensation in the fact that the killer of their child is forced to have a hard time and think about the consequences of his actions. Lastly, an efficient prison system (which not every country has), and/or the prisoner's reduced income potential after release will redistribute wealth away from the perpetrator to the rest of society.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
If you were raised by the headhunters of the Amazon as a baby, if you saw nothing else, you'd be a headhunter. If you were raised in Nazi Germany where all you see is 'Heil Hitler', you'd be a Nazi. So I think all people are perfectly well adjusted where they're coming from. There's no such thing as good or bad people. You're taught to hate certain people, but where they're coming from, it's normal. If you're brought up in the South, uneducated region, you might become a member of the Ku Klux Klan, you speak with a Southern accent. Where do you get that from? The environment. Where do you get, 'I'm gonna get me a nigger and kick his ass'. You get that from the environment. It's not that people are good or bad. They're raised in an aberrated or twisted environment.
So, the more justice you seek, the more hurt you become because there's no such thing as justice. There is whatever there is out there. That's it... The point is we have to redesign the environment that produces aberrant behaviour. That's the problem. Not putting a person in jail. That's why judges, lawyers, 'freedom of choice': such concepts are dangerous because it gives you mis-information that the person is 'bad', or that person is a 'serial killer'. Serial killers are made, just like soldiers become serial killers with a machine gun. They become killing machines, but nobody looks at them as murderers or assassins because that's 'natural'". So we blame people. We say, 'Well this guy was a Nazi. He tortured Jews.' No, he was brought up to torture Jews.
David Steele
Obey No1kinobe 50+
We have a mix of nature and nurture.
E.g. We have sex drives. For some this leads to rape or pedophilia.
Part of the difficulty in this discussion is you almost need to look case by case.
Agree the environment is important. But there is a genetic component too. Some people are psychopaths. Some people in the same situation make different choices.
But agree part of it it luck.
John Dunbar 10+
chen xin
John Smith 30+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I agree with the power of recency and impulse issues.
But suggest fear of punishment works for some people with some crimes. I don't cheat on my tax because I don't want to get caught. I even resisted hitting someone because I don't want an assault charge amongst other things.
This might be the minority.
But I suggest there would be more crime if there were no punishments.
I think it should be part of the mix, but probably not the central one.
There are also studies that indicate it is important for there be a cost for people overstepping the mark otherwise they will take unfair advantage.
But agree there is a range of people and situations.
James Zhang 30+
I mean, 40 years from now is such a different world than today. A lot of people hate change, and that much change is almost inhuman to deal with. It can induce a lot of loneliness too because you're living in a world where you may feel like you just don't belong anymore.
Robert Galway 20+
The knowledge of hard work waiting for a criminal in prison may be more of a deterrent than anything else. The work need not be chain gang degrading, but work none-the-less. No free rides!
Scott Koenraadt
Wade Crum
Prison is a reaction. Some of it is due to poor judicial systems. Some of it is due to lack of condusive enviornment. Some of it is due do poor or no education. Some of it is due to a sense of hopelessness.
I'd prefer to fight the battle way further upstream. Fix the precursors to criminal activity.
Prison helps no one....we all pay a price, the more prisoners ....the higher the cost to humanity.
John Dunbar 10+
Ken how is this free will if its "gone" before you realize it? Either way your still constrained by the laws of physics which dictate your environment, you can only make a decision based on certain options. For instance if you have never seen the color blue and someone places 5 crayons in front of you one red, one pink, one yellow, one brown, one green, the choice to pick blue is impossible because it doesn't exist as a concept in your brain.
John Smith 30+
John Dunbar 10+
It doesn't matter if prison works? Do we want to continuously deal with criminal behavior? We have a recidivism rate of around 2/3 with the highest incarceration rate in the world. I think the only question is how do we determine who is irredeemable and how do we rehabilitate the rest of the population in prison. We have to do something different because this institution has absolutely failed our country.
John Smith 30+
Helpful, definitely, moral as well when you think about protecting all of scoiety, I did not specify any crimes here, you choose to make this about American drug laws, I will not go along with that. This discussion was about crime in general.
"It doesn't matter if prison works?"
It's all that matters, as I said in my comment above, but from the rest of your response it seems to me you have been reading some other comment.
Ken brown 30+
I've been around drugs,it's a choice.
John Dunbar 10+
"I've been around drugs,it's a choice." This is just pointless assertion
For you it may have been a choice, maybe you were born with a better functioning and more developed frontal lobe, maybe you were better conditioned by your environment for self control. You cant take credit for any of that, nor is it a choice.
Ken brown 30+
Ken brown 30+
Ken brown 30+
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
When does this happen anymore? One of the problems with the criminal justice system is that the police decides who to arrest ornottoarrest, and prosecutors offer plea bargains.
"Criminal cases are often processed on an assembly line, leaving too little time and attention for each matter. The high volume puts enormous pressure on all the players to resolve cases through negotiation, leading at times to either under-punishment of serious criminality, or over-punishment of those who might be innocent or less guilty than charged, but who still plead guilty to avoid a trial. Police have enormous discretion in investigating and arresting, but the quality of the police work is uneven and hard to monitor. Many defendants need appointed counsel, but funding for public defenders is so low that only the bare minimum of an accused's needs are likely to be met. "
https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=7+Ohio+St.+J.+Crim.+L.+515&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=515f5627af69ef4f2edc70a629f84b66
If your question is how should it change, I suggest reading David Eagleman's article here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/07/the-brain-on-trial/308520/
"THE LEGAL SYSTEM rests on the assumption that we are “practical reasoners,” a term of art that presumes, at bottom, the existence of free will. The idea is that we use conscious deliberation when deciding how to act—that is, in the absence of external duress, we make free decisions. This concept of the practical reasoner is intuitive but problematic."
David Steele
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
My personal philosophy is that we are empathic beings, but the people that need our empathy the most are likely to be the last to receive it.
These are two interesting TEDTalks that you may not have seen yet. Both demonstrate my personal beliefs that even prisoners of very bad crimes have the right to humane treatment.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/nalini_nadkarni_life_science_in_prison.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/kiran_bedi_a_police_chief_with_a_difference.html