11–20 of 105 posts
My personal view is that if someone needs to be separated from society for the good of society or for themselves, it should be done in the most humane and least restrictive way possible.
Quoting from the book;
“Let me ask you three questions,” he said. “And then you’ll see it my way. Question One: What’s the worst thing that you have ever done to someone? It’s okay. You don’t have to confess it out loud. Question Two: What’s the worst criminal act that has ever been committed against you? Question Three: Which of the two was the most damaging for the victim?”
The worst criminal act that has ever been committed against me was burglary. How damaging was it? Hardly damaging at all. I felt theoretically violated at the idea of a stranger wandering through my house. But I got the insurance money. I was mugged one time. I was eighteen. The man who mugged me was an alcoholic. He saw me coming out of a supermarket. “Give me your alcohol,” he yelled. He punched me in the face, grabbed my groceries, and ran away. There wasn’t any alcohol in my bag. I was upset for a few weeks, but it passed.
And what was the worst thing I had ever done to someone? It was a terrible thing. It was devastating for them. It wasn’t against the law.
Clive’s point was that the criminal justice system is supposed to repair harm, but most prisoners — young, black — have been incarcerated for acts far less emotionally damaging than the injuries we noncriminals perpetrate upon one another all the time — bad husbands, bad wives, ruthless bosses, bullies, bankers."
The point of it is that we punitively punish people for many crimes while doing things far worse at the same time. Should we really be putting someone in prison for burglary when there are people who rip millions of people off with legal price gouging or break up a family by cheating?
We should think and question the legal system, and what effect it has on people unfortunate enough to become embroiled in it. If the legal system is there to punish behaviour that isn't in the interest of society or to protect communities from those who'd harm them, are we actually punishing the right people?
It's a very deep question. Not something that HN will answer in a thread. I think it's worthwhile spending some time on though.
Spoken like a truly out of touch academic. Here's an incident that took place last week in a town near me: A man with a beer and a condom approached a random couple on the sidewalk and declared his intention to have sex with the woman. When she declined, two of his brothers and a fourth man appeared from behind a bush, beat the man into submission and dragged the woman back to their apartment. They barricaded the doo…
Victims take an active role in the process. Meanwhile, offenders are encouraged to take responsibility for their actions, "to repair the harm they've done – by apologizing, returning stolen money, or community service".[1] In addition, the restorative justice approach aims to help the offender to avoid future offenses. The approach is based on a theory of justice that considers crime and wrongdoing to be an offence against an individual or community, rather than the State."
Of course this is not for the mentally ill and/or murders, rapists etc. Surprised the author didn't mention it! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice
For everyone else (incl. white-collar criminals, non-violent drug offenders, etc.), we need to figure out a more cost-efficient, recidivism-minimizing corrections system.
There's a very interesting thought experiment devised by the human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smitg and outlined at the end of the excellent book "So You've Been Publicly Shamed" by Jon Ronson. Quoting from the book; “Let me ask you three questions,” he said. “And then you’ll see it my way. Question One: What’s the worst thing that you have ever done to someone? It’s okay. You don’t have to confess it out loud. Que…
Before Napoleon there was such a thing as "restorative justice": "Restorative justice is an approach to justice that focuses on the needs of the victims and the offenders, as well as the involved community. This contrasts to more punitive approaches where the main aim is to punish the offender, or satisfy abstract legal principles. Victims take an active role in the process. Meanwhile, offenders are encouraged to tak…
There's a very interesting thought experiment devised by the human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smitg and outlined at the end of the excellent book "So You've Been Publicly Shamed" by Jon Ronson. Quoting from the book; “Let me ask you three questions,” he said. “And then you’ll see it my way. Question One: What’s the worst thing that you have ever done to someone? It’s okay. You don’t have to confess it out loud. Que…
Can't ignore in all that, the issue of public order. Going soft on bullies (which is what many smash-and-grab criminals may be) means it grows without limit. So establishing public order is not an optional thing.
There's a very interesting thought experiment devised by the human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smitg and outlined at the end of the excellent book "So You've Been Publicly Shamed" by Jon Ronson. Quoting from the book; “Let me ask you three questions,” he said. “And then you’ll see it my way. Question One: What’s the worst thing that you have ever done to someone? It’s okay. You don’t have to confess it out loud. Que…
In addition, in cases where people do things like cheating, they could blame the 'victim' for actually filing for divorce, and not being more forgiving. The divorce filing could be seen as much more damaging to children than the actual cheating, unless you try to instate some sort of negligence standard for 'immoral' activities. Another interesting case might be a child 'coming out' as homosexual when their parents are very religious and consider homosexuality a sin; is the child not inflicting harm here?
Is honesty (or lack thereof) more troubling to you than threatening a fellow human being with disability or death?
Spoken like a truly out of touch academic. Here's an incident that took place last week in a town near me: A man with a beer and a condom approached a random couple on the sidewalk and declared his intention to have sex with the woman. When she declined, two of his brothers and a fourth man appeared from behind a bush, beat the man into submission and dragged the woman back to their apartment. They barricaded the doo…
So his solution is to provide a harsher middle ground, that provides more punishment and more "benefits" of prison, without needing to send all offenders to prison.
In fact the solution keeps prisons around - partly for the violent offenders in your example, partly for those that don't get the message from the middle ground.