Saturday, October 17, 2009

Criminal Justice (macro level: Deterrence, Rehabilitation, and Retribution)

I've heard it said that there are three reasons for sending people to prison: deterrence, rehabilitation, and retribution. In the previous post, I commented on the specifics of the Polanski case. Now, I want to consider the way these factors work in his case, and on society in general.

Deterrence, I believe, works in general: I'd guess that many people thought about committing crimes but didn't because of the danger of being caught and punished. Since many criminals are not caught, of course, this purpose is hardly perfect. Criminals are therefore either rational people who think they won't be caught and punished, or irrational people who don't sufficiently think through the notion of evading punishment. I'm sure this has been done, but I'd be interested to see research showing how many people want to commit crimes but were deterred because of the prospect of punishment. I certainly think we need to consider whether prison is a good deterrent for certain crimes, for example, child molestation. Do those who are attracted to children control their impulses because they know taking action will do great harm, or because of the possibility of punishment? I hope it's the former, but it's hard to say. I'd think that deterrence works better for economic crimes than violent ones, since our conscience is more likely to stop the latter than the former. In Polanski's case in particular, his going to prison may be a good idea, more for the bail-jumping than for the rape. (I don't think his going to prison is going to deter any rapists.)

Rehabilitation is a positive goal, and I'm sure it happens sometimes, but as is well known, the problem is that many people find themselves in situations that foster crime, and it's hard to escape those situations. They know they shouldn't hang out with old criminal buddies, but who should they hang out with? The pull of friendship is strong. A lot of social change needs to happen before rehabilitation on a wide scale can occur. Full employment would really help. But as it is, I think rehabilitation gets lip service at best. For Polanski, it's probably unnecessary at his age, but I'd want psychologists to spend some time with him.

Now, the last reason for sending someone to prison: retribution. This is the one of the three reasons for imprisoning people that I'm very uncomfortable with. Of course I understand the desire for retribution, especially on the part of the victims and their families, but it's difficult for me to see how we get any social value out of it, and doing it for its own sake seems to me to be somewhere on the 'morally wrong' spectrum. Jesus is supposed to have said something about turning the other cheek, something which the people who most loudly proclaim themselves 'true' Christians tend to forget. Making someone suffer for no purpose other than that they seem to deserve it... certainly doesn't seem admirable. It's difficult to think of another way to say it than that it feels wrong. I suppose a counter-argument would be that it's a statement of our priorities, our determination that crime can't be tolerated. I can understand that argument, but I can't agree with it. I think a better statement of our priorities would be to do everything possible to see that crime is reduced, so people in the future don't have to suffer.

In addition, if we unproductively imprison someone just because we want them to suffer because they did something to us, it only escalates the cycle of harm and violence that started them on this path. In a way this is a practical argument, but it feels a little moral as well. But for me practicality is important, so I don't want to do anything to make the situation worse.

I've argued before in this blog that public opinion shapes policy in negative ways due to public ignorance, apathy, and emotion; this is another example. People who argue that prison should mainly be about rehabilitation tend to get tarred as squishy-headed liberals by conservative politicians, who use people's anger at criminals as a way to get political support. Attempts to understand the criminal's point of view, necessary for any attempt at rehabilitation, are condemned as 'coddling' criminals. (After 9/11, anyone who dared to consider Al Qaeda's grievances was accused of wanting to give Osama Bin Laden 'therapy' rather than justice.) These attacks are effective, so politicians back off any attempt at large-scale rehabilitation programs, especially those that cost large amounts of money. (Ironically, if they work, they could save money on prison costs in the long run, but it's easy for opponents to ignore this.) So, the situation as it is continues, largely through the support of the citizens for policies that are unproductive, indeed counterproductive, in the long run.

Now, I'm far from an expert, and I haven't read any books by those who are. But it seems obvious that if our country has the highest incarceration rate in the world, we're doing something wrong. The Polanski case would seem to have little to do with the criminal justice system on a macro level, but the first step towards reforming the system is to consider what we hope to accomplish by incarcerating people in the first place. But what we really need is to have people, not only experts but especially voters, look at the situation with rationality rather than emotion. And the first step in that direction is for people to look at those who've broken the law not as scum to sweep away into the nearest pit and forget about, but as fellow humans who have had difficult lives, emotional problems, economic insecurity, or all of the above. (And for God's sake, we could free up a lot of prison space by having a drug policy that focused on public health rather than punishment.)

The last thing I want to mention, and the thing that may be the most crucial, is the trend towards privatizing prisons and the increasing political influence of the "correctional officers'" unions. (The finger quotes are because I don't think they're correcting a whole lot.) Especially in California, those unions have spent a lot of money trying to pass laws to keep prisoners in prison for a longer time: not because it improves public safety, but because it means increased job security for them. It's hard for me to think of a worse way to run a prison system than for those who control the inmates' lives to have an interest in keeping the prison population high. Rehabilitation would be bad for them! We should want fewer people in prison, but they want more. A lot of people vote for ballot initiatives supported (usually, originated) by the guards' union because it's advertised as 'tough on crime'. What I'm saying is not that we should let out dangerous criminals quickly, but that time and money should be spent on trying to see to it that they can get by without crime when they get out, and building a society that has less crime for structural and socioeconomic reasons. That could be done, but only if a lot of people supported the idea, and opposed those who wish to keep people (some of whom, such as drug offenders, have harmed no one) locked up for long stretches so they can have job security. As with any objective that requires thoughtful consideration of large numbers of people, it's hard for me to be optimistic.

5 comments:

  1. (In two parts because I'm getting the cryptic errors when I try to make a single post. Crossing fingers ...)

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    But it seems obvious that if our country has the highest incarceration rate in the world, we're doing something wrong.
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    I think I'd be interested in your opinions on gun control; it seems to me that the easy proliferation of guns in the USA is an integral part of why crime is so rampant? Or why it's so *extreme*?

    That and the lack of welfare, maybe, although I'm really quite confused as to the latter. There *is* a welfare scheme for the unemployed, isn't there? And health benefits? I know the latter is a hot topic ... as an Australian with socialised unemployment and health benefits I had the impression that the USA didn't have *any*, but I believe that's not the case. Maybe they are limited schemes that don't assist the long-term unemployed?

    As you know I thought about this topic recently because I was spurred to do so by one of the sub-plots in your most recent Harry Potter novel. I still feel antsy about letting Malfoy off the hook, but if he is *truly rehabilitated* I find myself unable to think of a good reason to keep him in Azkaban. It was an interesting fictional test case for what you're talking about here.

    'Deterrence' and 'rehabilitation' are fine, but without the 'revenge' factor do you think there'd be an upsurge in 'one-shot' crimes? I can't think of a good example ... say if I wanted to kill just one person, for emotional/personal reasons ... if I get away with it, fine. If I get caught ... well, I'll marshal all of my reasons for the crime, my motivation, make everything extremely clear that this was a singular event that will never happen again, ever. Thus assured, under a system of 'deterrence and rehabilitation, no vengeance', there would be absolutely no reason for the system to lock me away, since they'd be guaranteed that I'll never be a repeat offender ... and so I will suffer very little for the crime?

    It's a bad example, but I dare say there would be a sheaf of crimes that are proven 'one shot' deals - unlike theft and such which satisfy a general and ongoing need for money - which might swell were it not for the 'vengeance' component of the incumbent system?

    ReplyDelete
  2. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    ... those unions have spent a lot of money trying to pass laws to keep prisoners in prison for a longer time: not because it improves public safety, but because it means increased job security for them.
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    Really? Ugh. That's horrible.

    As a rule I generally dislike politicians who bleat and lobby for particular industries or installations purely because it will save or generate jobs ... regardless of the actual nature of the industry itself (logging in Tasmania, mining coal) ... with such hide-bound and short-sighted views it's even more difficult for things to get done which are *right* for the long-term. I guess I'm mainly thinking of all the initiatives that would take off if jobs and factories directly related to harmful polluting industries properly/correctly judged or penalised. The 'free market' people probably feel the same about the Detroit car industry being propped up with taxpayer funds. But I had no idea about this prison guard thing! Sheesh.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    As with any objective that requires thoughtful consideration of large numbers of people, it's hard for me to be optimistic.
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    And yet you seemed relatively content/complacent, in an earlier comment, I think, about the people 'getting what they want'? Maybe you were just resigned to it. :-(

    I'm not happy, either, about leaving long-term goals and pursuits under the control of the masses who are mainly interested in their immediate best interests. I'd love to hand over some/much of the power to a group whom I *knew* could be trusted with the authority! Ah, if only we had some lensmen around (E. E. Smith) or an Auror Leader or two, folks that everyone could trust completely.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I know you asked semprini the questions, but I'm going to horn in and answer with my opinion (and he can answer with his anyway so it's not taking away from him):

    "I think I'd be interested in your opinions on gun control; it seems to me that the easy proliferation of guns in the USA is an integral part of why crime is so rampant? Or why it's so *extreme*?"

    I think that the disparity between the rich and poor, particularly in capitalist countries with a heavy emphasis on materialism, causes crime everywhere and America has these problems and attribues. The gun situation is extreme because the gun lobby is very powerful and wealthy and wields power disproportionate to its base of support. This is a problem in most countries, but it seems the most destructive and extreme in the U.S.

    Guns make crime more depersonalized, but they don't actually increase the incidence of them. In Japan, few people have guns, but as the economy has been crapping out, there have been more violent crimes including random mass stabbings. People will do harm whether there are guns or not.

    Another factor in the U.S. is the ethnic diversity. Where you have a variety of cultures and skin colors, you have more violence as the inequity between the groups results in more crime and hostility toward the groups that are viewed as privileged.

    In the U.S., the system is heavily skewed toward supporting the unemployed only when they have children (hence the image of "welfare queens" who have a lot of kids and collect a lot of money from the state). The poor get free medical care and welfare. The lower middle class and those who are on the edge of poverty are the ones who are stranded without a support network.

    Regarding your "one crime" question, I'm of the opinion that no one commits a murder unless they are mentally disturbed. People who kill step over a line most of us can't fathom crossing. You need to be rehabilitated if you can murder someone. You may not know it, but you do.

    I disagree with semprini to some extent on the notion of vengeance being a less than valid component of the justice system. I think that the issue is one of allowing the family of the person who has been harmed gain some sense that the scales are balanced. Part of Christianity is "turn the other cheek" and part is "an eye for an eye". I don't agree with that sort of thinking, but I understand it, and I think that the fear of that scale balancing does act as a deterrent. People don't murder someone if they fear they will be executed as a punishment.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi, Brad, thanks for commenting.

    About gun control, I think the situation in America is ridiculous. The 2nd Amendment made sense at the time, but it has far outlived its usefulness, and now basically serves as an excuse for gun lovers to indulge their passions at the expense of public safety.

    Having said that, I do agree with Orchid that the primary factor that increases American crime is the wealth disparity; I'm pretty sure that sociologists have determined that the greater the wealth disparity, the more the crime. Contributing is an education disparity: education is funded locally, so education is better in rich areas and worse in poor ones, perpetuating the gap in social class.

    America does have welfare, but less than European countries, and there's now a five-year lifetime cap for most people.

    I see what you mean about the Harry Potter story; I hadn't thought about it, but yes, that does reflect my general leanings on the subject. The 'other' Lucius has truly reformed, leading Harry to wonder whether it's possible for this Lucius to do so as well. What purpose would there be in throwing a reformed person into Azkaban?

    As for your 'one-shot crime' idea, it's interesting, and I hadn't thought of it. I guess I'd have to rely on deterrence to stop that, and I think I did say in the post that there's a place for deterrence; it was just when the *sole* purpose was retribution that I'm uncomfortable. So, I'd send that person to prison, mainly for deterrence.

    >And yet you seemed relatively content/complacent, in an earlier comment, I think, about the people 'getting what they want'? Maybe you were just resigned to it. :-(

    That would be a reasonable way to put it. I recognize the reality, but of course I don't like it. This made it into Amulet of the Moon, when Harry and Malfoy are talking about the public's reaction to Voldemort being in control.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Orchid64:

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    In Japan, few people have guns, but as the economy has been crapping out, there have been more violent crimes including random mass stabbings. People will do harm whether there are guns or not.
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    Yes, but will there be as many people doing harm as there would be if guns were easily available?

    Do the Japanese police have guns? If the good guys have guns, and the bad guys don't - or find it difficult to acquire weapons - then I can't see how there'd be the same number of violent crimes per capita. Or as many (innocent) deaths. Might be time to look up the statistics.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    education is funded locally, so education is better in rich areas and worse in poor ones, perpetuating the gap in social class.
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    That's just HORRIBLE, I had no idea. In Australia the schools are funded and controlled by the states (and there are only 7 states or territories across a continent almost as big as the USA's lower 48).

    I'm a big believer in attacking the root of social problems rather than slapping on short-term band aids. Get the poor people educated and, hopefully in a generation, things will start to improve. But it might never happen under such circumstances! :-(

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    America does have welfare, but less than European countries, and there's now a five-year lifetime cap for most people.
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    That's horrible too. I don't *want* to give (my) money away, but I likewise hate the idea of people being at a complete loss for basic sustenance and shelter, and slowly dying/degrading in front of my eyes.

    I dare say a selfish motivation could be derived; more welfare, less thieves robbing out of desperation?

    ReplyDelete