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?
I think I agree that criminalistic behavior is a set of activities that certain people have a hard time controlling. So the real goal here is not so much keeping a criminal out of society, it's helping to ensure they don't do further damage to their society. To that end, why do we have them serve a limited sentence? It certainly seems that if you're a petty thief and then you meet some hardcore criminals that when you get out you might have some skewed perspectives. There are, of course, plenty of cases of "reformed" criminals who lead normal lives after prison. I think this is actually getting somewhere. Perhaps our current maxim is: Reform a criminal if at all possible and if not, then remove that criminal from society until they are reformed or are dead.
Before reading what I have to say, understand that I am educated about the American legal/punishment system entirely through word of mouth and tv specials.
Here's my two cents...
It's hard to label some crimes. It's even harder to label the severity of crimes. One thing I do feel very strongly about, those who would do or do harm to others should be punished with an equal to greater than severity akin to an eye for an eye. You steal from some one, you pay it back and then some. NOT TO THE STATE, but to the person you stole from. You stab some one to death, fine some slack jaw in a black hood now gets to stab you and watch you bleed to death.
What I HATE about criminals is they don't care about others. They only care about their own gain/sick pleasures. No matter what you tell me I will always believe this to be true.
Whether some one is raping another person or swiping french fries from a tray at McDonalds, the thought process is the same. "I want to do X." Simple, they want to do something, think about how, and then they do it!
So as far as our current justice system goes, jail is all right and everything. But severity needs to be upped a lot.
Some of you are now thinking, "What about some one who gets a parking ticket?" Then charging them a fine... is fine. It's the crimes against others that I think aren't being dealt with properly.
haha I belive that we are far from a good system of punishment. when peolpe are sent to jail they pay for their crimes but how are they supposed to live when they get out? i don't think it's fair. and ya i know that some peolpe are in their for pretty bad stuff but we shouldn't just piss them off and let them rot in jail for years and years. why not set them a good path so they can turn their life around. although some peolpe actually do come clean when they leave jail.
Reform a criminal if at all possible and if not, then remove that criminal from society until they are reformed or are dead.
So, now things have gotten subjective. How will we ever know if someone is truly reformed? Do we just weigh out the risks of them never doing it again?
The main reason for prison nowadays (I couldn't think of a better word) is to stike fear into others, so that others won't do it. Prison ruins a person's life in attempt to save another's. I think that prisons should focus more on reform than protection, but protection is not bad. Depends on the crime, I guess.
Chiliad, the point we are at is if reform is even possible. The argument I make is that criminals are like alcoholics, they will always be that which they are. They will only struggle with it. Reform is subjective and personal.
I felt that piont needed to be brought out. Reform is only possible through trial and error, the will to change, and a promise of better life afterwards. If any one of these condiions are not met, then the person cannot reform. I believe reform is only available to those strong enough.
Yes, that is my point. But no one can know if someone else is reformed. Only the reformed know. Though, I really don't think anyone is ever reformed as much as they have learned to control it. But there are risks in the reformed and no guarantee that they will remain that way. So, I ask, can we toss out those risks?
In my opinion, yes, to a certain extent. There should be prolonged probations and that will lessen the risk. If a person commits a crime after there probation, we can be 75% sure that they will never reform. That is better than "in jail" "you're out" "weren't you just released yesterday"
The probation period needs to be stricter in the beginning and less strict over time. Similarly like drug addicts. They have to live in sober-living for a while. Maybe criminals should live in something similar.
People don't get arrested for killing the enemy in the army because it's not a crime... although there are rules of engagement that must be followed. But that's a little off topic. The subjective nature of "reform" is certainly something we would have to work past. I think there are 2 factors here (this is sort of spur of the moment reasoning, so it's very likely to be faulty). 1) Intent - when deciding how to punish a criminal, the justice system takes into account what the accused's intentions were. If they intended to kill someone then it's first degree murder. If it was not preemptively planned then it's a lesser offense. Now, certainly we can't truly know what a criminal's intentions are but we have operationally defined ways to determine intent. This is factored into the sentencing and perhaps we could use this data in determining whether or not the criminal could be reformed. Maybe you guys can come up with some parameters for this. 2)Prediction - Here you have to determine the likelihood of the person committing any criminal acts in the future as well as the impact on society this act would have. Example: if someone is in jail for embezzlement, it is very unlikely they would even have the opportunity to commit this crime again. Or if someone killed in a moment of passion, this would be a less likely repeat offender than a serial killer. Perhaps a utilitarian approach might be best here, but let's see what everyone else thinks.
Also feel free to reject my premise entirely, I'm not entirely sure it's cogent.
I like that. "eople don't get arrested for killing the enemy because it is not a crime." Just because it is bad does not mean it is a crime. I do feel however there should be a third factor: The criminal's life: this should be the least influential on the jail sentence, but definitly influnces the chances of the criminal reapeating a crime. If a criminal comes from a good family, he will probably not commit the crime again. If his/her family/neiborhood was corrupt, then there would be a big chance that the criminal would turn corrupt again and should be banished from the corrupt group, and given therapy.
