This forum title refers to a fantastic book by the post-modernist philosopher Michel Foucault. The purpose of punishment for offenses has changed throughout history and has evolved into what it is today. But what is it? Is the purpose of imprisonment and capital punishment for retribution or as a deterrent? Or does it serve some higher function?
No need to get info. Just your gut feeling, why is there prison? Do you feel compelled to obey the law because you're afraid of going to jail? Or do you think jail is just a way to make sure something bad happens to people who do bad things? Why kill someone for certain offenses and not others?
The whole justice system is laughable. Even more so when it comesto drug charges. In the states, if you are found with a certain amount of a drug (amount depends on kind of drug) you are almost better of killing someone. The time is almost the same, and when you kill someone you atleast have a chance to get out of it one way or another.
But, that one point aside, prisons do not work. If some commits one of the lesser crimes, say burgalry, the time that person stays in a prison system does not help at all. Does anyone try and figure out why they did it? Does anyone try and help them out? For the most part, no. They do their time, get a change of clothes and two-hundred dollars and sent on their way.
Most of them have no families to fall back on, no real skills to get a job. Even if they did, the chances of them getting hired after are next to none. Even if they do somehow get back on their feet they may still harbour ill feelings towards society. And who can blame them? They just lost a good chunk of their lives for what? Stealing someones material possesions? Getting caught with some drugs for their own personal use, not hurting anyone?
Then they commit crime after crime. Now it is all they know. After being arrested, they are an outcast of society. Crime is their trade.
Now for murderers! We all love them, right? Anyways, I see know point in giving someone a life sentence in jail. When someone gets a life sentence without parole, you think they are going to accept it and be all meek and quiet? Hell no. It is like cornering a really pissed of badger. With rabies. They do not care what happens to them now because there is nothing for them to lose.
In my opinion, it is just begging for them to cause problems and kill other inmates or guards. Further more in my opinion, it is cruel and unneccesary. If you want them to die eventually, why not just get it over with as soon as possible? Why let them rot in a cell, taking up space? I am sure they could use the space to put a minor drug offender.
I know some people are against capital punishent, but do those people even consider what the inmate has to look forward to? I am sure many inmates would rather die as soon as possible rather than be subjected to being shanked, beat, sodomized and dehumanized for the rest of their lives.
There are certainly some inherent problems with our justice system. It seems like, Devoidless, that you subscribe to the idea that prison is meant to reform criminals, which I think the justice department also strives for. This cannot be the only goal, however, since people are sentenced to life imprisonment or death. Also I don't really accept that inmates would rather die than spend life in prison. Many inmates spend years and years on death row trying to appeal their sentence. Although you're right - I'm sure there are quite a few who would rather die (myself included if I ever got caught, that is). So one accepted purpose is rehabilitation. We have to look at this ideologically because obviously our prison system does not function in this way like it should. Does that mean that rehabilitation is not possible, or is there a better approach? And if our justice system is not successful at rehabilitation, then what purpose does it serve?
I think that the prison system is a cycle you don't want to go through. Here are the steps: 1 you commit a minor crime 2 you get caught and sent to jail 3 you gain more hatred for life 4 repeat
The system needs to be redone. The biggest example of this is the crime suicide. If you get caught doing it, you go to jail, only making you want to do it more. Instead, they could get you therapy and it would at least help somewhat. It seems (probably not) that people who commit suicide are capital resources. They get fined for it, do it again, and get fined again. It is a cycle that you can't escape.
I think the reason for capital punishment was to protect people from big criminals. It, I think, is now to strike fear into people.
I never said that there should be no dicipline, I just said that people should get another chance if they want one. Dicipline should reform, not furhter corrupt.
Foucault does acknowledge that punishment has become for individualized. His language, though, is really obscure and enigmatic. I'm not sure he felt that the penal system was either good or bad, it just was what it was. Foucault has some really intriguing ideas about the evolution of punishment, but I think they're probably beyond the scope of a forum-style discussion.
Several of you have touched on of the accepted ideas of the function of prison: to reform. Since prison seems to fail at this function is it useless? Surely there are other reasons to have prison, but which one is "best?" In your opinion, what function is most effectively served by prison?
Maybe what we see as reform is their way of sugar-coating what it really it. I see criminals just like addicts. It's a struggle every day for them. Just as an alcoholic will always be one even if he doesn't drink currently. Reform without some radical behavior therapy isn't going to work in my opinion. You'd have to be brain-washed (thinking of A Clockwork Orange). But I think the government has such great motivational tools for the general population to adopt almost all the ideas they throw out there. Again, we (general public) think it's reform, when it's something else entirely.
So, maybe the current function of prison is to keep the population safe from the non-reformable criminals. Keeping violent criminals in for life and so forth.
(Oh, there are so many objections to what I just wrote...)
Well, it certainly does achieve that goal, at the very least. We see keeping criminals away from the population as something good, and this accepted as an intrinsic good. But if they've already committed the crime, why keep them away from society? Haven't they already done their damage? Is there another end to having them separated from society?
Well, my point is the once a criminal always a criminal (like alcoholics). So, locking them up keeps future criminal activity at bay. This could work as a deterrent for free potential criminals and a punisher to criminals in prison.
So you saying that once an alki always an alki? Once a criminal always a criminal? There are major parts of that I disagree with.
First, alcoholics. I know many people who are both alcoholics and reformed alcoholics. The one who a reformed are my dear friends. If we were all hanging out in a group and someone I knew (or did not know, it does not matter) call one of my reformed friends an alcoholic in a serious and negative matter, that person would have the pleasure of playing the game "Find Your Missing Tooth!" That is assuming it was a man. If not, I know enough ladies around me to do my dirty work for me.
And the criminal part: Just because someone was charged with a crime and could be convicted of it does not mean they were doing a horrible thing. Confused? Then let me weave you a story! Back when I was sixteen, my best friend and the rest of my group were hanging out in a local LAN gaming area late on December eve. When suddenly, the father of one of our lady friends barges in the door looking pissed of and crazy as all hell. After my best friend and myself try to tell him to chill out for a minute or two, he rushes towards his daughter with intent to beat. She luckily gets into a bathroom and locks the door. Her father tries to rip the door off of its hinges. When my friend and myself try to get him away from the door, he pushes me down and tries to throw a computer monitor on my head. It was not on of those light LCD ones. The old skool heavy cathoray ones. Thankfully it was tethered down. When I get up, he is already swinging a chair at my best friend. Concerned for my friend (and very angry) I rush him, knock the chair out of his grasp and tackle him to the ground. To make sure he does not do anything else dangerous, my friend and I hold him down until the cops come. Outcome? The crazy father gets no charges, while my friend and myself get two second degree felony charges. At sixteen. For protecting someone.
Thankfully, since we were youthful offenders, we took our one ACD and got off with six months of good behaviour.
Moral of the story: Just because someone has done something society deems as bad, do not assume they are still a bad person after all is said and done.
I just think there is no such thing as a reformed alcoholic. I have been apart of a few research groups during my masters work and my girlfriend did her Thesis and is working on alcohol research with her Ph.D. Every one of them say it is a constant struggle. CBT and group meetings only help them control it, but they are still alcoholics. They could not drink for 30 years and then one day pick it right back up. I feel the same for criminals. Some people have such addictive personalities.
