Submitted by IAmNotARobot124 t3_10zq9bn in news
empfindsamkeit t1_j86gn1g wrote
Reply to comment by SatanicNotMessianic in Family of Oakland baker seeks 'restorative justice' for her death following robbery by IAmNotARobot124
About the same as it is now. Punishment, deterrent, and a timeout period that prevents reoffense. And yes, prison does serve as a major deterrent for most people. It's merely that among the people it does not deter, it's not a question of scale - i.e. making it harsher does not succeed in deterring the undeterred.
In the future it may be possible to offer some alternative form of punishment like an implant that delivers some sort of medication to reduce aggression/sex drive, or at least something that allows police to not only track them but visually check in on them periodically, or perhaps have an audio receiver that a victim can yell for help from.
What we have now is an imperfect solution in an imperfect world. But going easier on them is probably going to hurt more than it helps. It can be hard enough to catch and convict criminals the first time (particularly for rape). Giving them 1 or more freebies just makes it so much harder.
chi_type t1_j86i2kq wrote
Most rapists already get at least one freebie. Rape is very rarely successfully prosecuted and receiving jail time is even rarer. 25 out of 1000 rapists will be incarcerated.
Perhaps a different approach would get the justice system to do ANYTHING about it.
empfindsamkeit t1_j86iabo wrote
Then we're talking about freebies upon freebies. Even if it's particularly heinous and you're caught dead to rights, we're going to let you off with a warning and some counseling.
chi_type t1_j86you3 wrote
You should look into what restorative justice actually involves. It's not probation or a suspended sentence. It's nothing like what you're describing. First of all - victim involvement and discretion is a key part of the process.
empfindsamkeit t1_j87ae37 wrote
Ah, well the good news then is that victims can already do that in many cases either by not reporting the crime, not pressing charges, or declining to testify, and they could hold that over the perpetrator's head to get them to meet and talk things out. And if they need government force to get the perpetrator to sit down with them then I dunno why you'd think they were being sincere in their contrition in that case. But I'd wager the vast, vast majority of victims want nothing to do with it and so it's all moot.
chi_type t1_j893tj1 wrote
Okay I see you still didn't look into what it actually involves. Never mind I guess
empfindsamkeit t1_j89sefq wrote
Or you could summarize. I don't just read about any random topic someone puts in front of me without being at least somewhat sold on it first. It doesn't seem like anyone else knows what it actually involves either because everyone is just linking random websites and telling you to "look into it". No thanks.
SatanicNotMessianic t1_j86i3xr wrote
If your position is that the raison d’etre of addressing an exhibited criminal activity is to prevent re-offense, then we’re in full agreement. If your major concern is that re-offense may still occur because of our imperfect knowledge, that’s where we can research which approaches are statistically more likely to result in reducing recidivism, and I can agree with that.
For any class of offenses, we should take the approach that most probably reduces both the rate of reoffence by the individual and reduces the incidence of that offense socially. I would agree to that.
eamus_catuli t1_j86qw8u wrote
I was going to reply to you upthread in the specific comment thread we were having, but instead will reply here.
I agree with much of what you've been saying throughout this comment thread. I think that we're probably about 75% in agreement about the goals of and preferred approaches to criminal justice.
Two areas where I suspect we differ slightly:
- I do see some utility in retribution besides simple restoration of "karmic" or "cosmic" balance.
Whereas I agree with you that on a personal scale, I don't find much utility in punishing so as to "balance scales" or what have you, I also understand that you and I are in a distinct minority. Particularly among the Abrahamic religions (which comprise an overwhelming majority of both the global and U.S. populations), retribution is integral to the concept of criminal justice in those belief systems. Therefore, not only is it inevitable that a criminal justice system - a political creation - will reflect the beliefs of a majority of a given population's members, it should do so. For failure to do so leads to the pervasive sense that the justice system doesn't work which leads to both a) more criminality; and b) all manner of vigilantism and lawlessness.
In other words, it's important that we change people's beliefs about criminal justice first, THEN we change criminal justice.
- An area which, IMHO, you are overlooking is the fourth goal of criminal justice. You referred to three upthread (a great comment, BTW), but in my criminal justice studies I was always taught four - with the fourth being general deterrence: the notion that it's important for a society to signal at-large that crime will be punished, and specific crimes will be punished in a specific way.
So while you've been talking a lot about recidivism, or preventing specific criminals from re-offending, there is a view that the justice system should seek to avoid offending in the first place by sending such clear signals.
I'll concede that the justice system shouldn't be the primary method through which we seek to prevent crime from happening in the first place. We should focus on root causes of crime: economic inequalities and deprivations, substance abuse, child abuse, mental health problems, etc., even beyond - into the newer scientific frontiers of understanding the human brain and genetic predispositions to various biological traits that might correlate with criminality.
However, that doesn't mean that we should exclude from the criminal justice system the objective of preventing crime in the first place. It can and should be part of a multi-faceted approach that includes the aforementioned societal changes. Because while the empirical evidence shows that severity of punishment does not reduce criminality, the prospect that criminality will be apprehended and punished does appear effective at reducing it.
In other words, giving people "Get out of jail free" cards, by which we completely forego privation of liberty in lieu of therapeutic methods could, and likely would result in increased criminality. It simply wouldn't be seen as a real punishment.
empfindsamkeit t1_j86jucv wrote
I think your approach rests on the assumption that rapes happen almost by accident. That they don't really know better. Everyone is inherently good or wants to be good, and some just stray from the path. If they were confronted with their victim's pain and you explained why it was wrong, they'll have an epiphany and refrain from doing it again. I think by and large they already know how wrong it is and they just don't care. Some perfunctory counseling isn't going to change their disposition, any more than "a better education system" is going to teach conspiracy theorists "critical thinking" skills that disabuse them of their beliefs. Something inside them is just fundamentally broken and it's probably beyond our abilities to fix right now.
Now, if you want to argue for some kind of early intervention system I think that'd be a great idea. Trying to predict and treat these kinds of behaviors in schoolkids before they crystallize could be worthwhile.
SuperSaiyanCockKnokr t1_j874ina wrote
The approach that most probably reduces recidivism and reoffence rate is elimination. It’s the most hardline and brutal approach, but also the most effective. It likely wouldn’t be accepted or legalized in most modern legal systems, but I also doubt that American society in general is prepared to enact change based on the best available research, at least not in the current generations.
SatanicNotMessianic t1_j8753pt wrote
What do you think the overall cultural effect of that would be? Has capital punishment been broadly applied historically, and what was the environment like at the time?
SuperSaiyanCockKnokr t1_j878rra wrote
Capital punishment and what we call murder today have, in certain contexts, been norms in many past societies and cultures. There’s so much complexity in how these traditions and systems developed that hypotheticals, though intriguing, often produce results that don’t really make sense in the real world. The cultural effect of the sudden introduction of hardline capital punishment here in the US would obviously be incredibly disruptive, riots in the streets and perhaps more. I can’t personally envision a society reliant on elimination that doesn’t eventually look like North Korea. But there’s always the possibility that future research indicates permanent removal or destruction (either via death or transformation to the point that a person is so far-removed from their original self that the destruction of said person has essentially occurred) is the best option in certain cases, if not many. I like restorative justice as a concept and it’s encouraging to see places try out new systems, but I’m not sure there will ever be a time when long-term incarceration won’t be a part of it.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments