6 ms·

It starts with the false premise that a psychologist can say that someone "is of no further danger to society." If that were true, then the solution is easy -

by dalke 10y ago

It starts with the false premise that a psychologist can say that someone "is of no further danger to society." If that were true, then the solution is easy - psychological evaluations for everyone and rehabilitation until they are no threat! It then posits that a new criminal system would choose "a prison system, similar to what we currently have in the States." Which is a horrid system; what sort of people, working with a fresh slate, would decide that? > "Sounds too good to be true? It shouldn’t be." Or, why not choose the Norwegian approach? Low crime rates, jail programs to help rehabilitate, and their prisons don't "cripple the convict's future." It's almost as if there were other alternatives between choosing the US prison system or caning. > But what does that really mean? Instead of carelessly tossing around that term, as though it’s supposed to end all debate, let’s critically analyze it for a second. All that analysis, and not one link to the US Supreme Court cases on that topic or other legal definitions? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment says "There are generally tests that can serve as a guide to what cruel and unusual punishment is according to various legal textbooks in accordance with the law. These are: 1) the frequency at which the punishment occurs in society, 2) overall acceptance in society, 3) severe (the punishment fits the crime), and 4) if the punishment is arbitrary." Caning in the US does not fit #2. > Our current system of mass incarceration is horribly broken. Agreed. > But in order to truly punish and deter criminal behavior, and do so in a manner that imposes minimal long-term costs on both society and convicts, it’s time we started considering other forms of punishment. Or, you know, a strong social net, more social equality, a reform of the prison system to treat prisoners as people and not a modern form of slavery, and other things which aren't simply a shift in how we punish people.

whack 10y ago
You've nitpicked a large number of details but failed to address the central point. If you have a convicted mass-murderer, and a wonderful rehab program that has succeeded in rehabilitating the murderer, what do you propose should happen next? If you say the prisoner should be released on some sort of parole, you've just broken the hearts of the families of every one of the murderer's victims, and also sent a chilling non-deterrent message to anyone else considering a life of crime. If you say that the prisoner should continue to serve a substantially long prison term, and eventually be released decades later with the prime years of his life taken away from him, you've just wastefully crippled his long-term prospects and potential. Taking all the punishment that is spread out over a long term prison sentence, and compressing it into a short period of time, is the only sane approach that avoids both of the above problems. If you disagree, we'd love to hear you describe how you'd handle the above scenario.
- dalke 10y ago
  I think it's proper to nitpick by pointing out when scenarios are highly artificial and therefore should not be use to make policy decisions. Why not use actual examples, rather than make one up? Look to Norway. They have a mass-murderer, Breivik. They have a wonderful rehab program. If they are convinced that it doesn't work, then the state will place him in custody for longer than the 21 year maximum sentence, in order to protect the population. If they believe he is rehabilitated, and his sentence is over, then he will be released. But don't confuse punitive punishment for preventive detention! Now, you argue that we should not break the hearts of the families of the victims. We surely cannot use that as our primary guide, for that means that killing an unloved homeless man would carry less punishment than killing the beloved mother of 8. Is that what you want? How much weight should heartbreak place on the decision? If the family hated their abusive father, and had no remorse over his death, should the murderer get less of a sentence? I don't agree with the importance of "prime years of his life taken away from him". Do you think Breivik should have been caned then set free? Or that if Norway had caning for mass-murder that Breivik wouldn't have done what it did? Given that Breivik can play X-Box and is a full student in the bachelor degree program in political science at the University of Oslo, can you really say that his prime years are "taken away"? What do you think are Breivik's "long-term prospects and potential", should he have been caned instead of being placed in prison? Feel free to explain the likely long-term prospects and potential of any other mass-murderer you are thinking of, had they been caned instead of imprisoned. Does your argument change if the mass-murderer is past the prime years of life? Specifically, Andrew Philip Kehoe, at 55 years of age, who killed his wife and 43 other people (including 38 children). Now, he committed suicide, so it's clear that no amount of punishment - caning or otherwise - would have affected him. But if he had been sentenced, is your argument that it would have been okay to put him in jail for the rest of his life, because the prime years of his life were over? And you'll notice that nothing - caning, prison, preventive detention, etc. - can deter a mass-murderer who plans to commit suicide, so it's not like the threat of punishment (even corporal punishment) can be convincingly dissuasive. So, rather than construct artificial scenarios about a young mass-murderer who kill people from loving families, why not point to real-world examples instead, and argue how institutionalized caning would have improved things? And why not use as your baseline a country like Norway, with a human prison system, instead of one which is inhumane, like the US?

by dalke 10y ago

whack 10y ago

You've nitpicked a large number of details but failed to address the central point. If you have a convicted mass-murderer, and a wonderful rehab program that has succeeded in rehabilitating the murderer, what do you propose should happen next? If you say the prisoner should be released on some sort of parole, you've just broken the hearts of the families of every one of the murderer's victims, and also sent a chilling non-deterrent message to anyone else considering a life of crime. If you say that the prisoner should continue to serve a substantially long prison term, and eventually be released decades later with the prime years of his life taken away from him, you've just wastefully crippled his long-term prospects and potential. Taking all the punishment that is spread out over a long term prison sentence, and compressing it into a short period of time, is the only sane approach that avoids both of the above problems. If you disagree, we'd love to hear you describe how you'd handle the above scenario.

dalke 10y ago
I think it's proper to nitpick by pointing out when scenarios are highly artificial and therefore should not be use to make policy decisions. Why not use actual examples, rather than make one up? Look to Norway. They have a mass-murderer, Breivik. They have a wonderful rehab program. If they are convinced that it doesn't work, then the state will place him in custody for longer than the 21 year maximum sentence, in order to protect the population. If they believe he is rehabilitated, and his sentence is over, then he will be released. But don't confuse punitive punishment for preventive detention! Now, you argue that we should not break the hearts of the families of the victims. We surely cannot use that as our primary guide, for that means that killing an unloved homeless man would carry less punishment than killing the beloved mother of 8. Is that what you want? How much weight should heartbreak place on the decision? If the family hated their abusive father, and had no remorse over his death, should the murderer get less of a sentence? I don't agree with the importance of "prime years of his life taken away from him". Do you think Breivik should have been caned then set free? Or that if Norway had caning for mass-murder that Breivik wouldn't have done what it did? Given that Breivik can play X-Box and is a full student in the bachelor degree program in political science at the University of Oslo, can you really say that his prime years are "taken away"? What do you think are Breivik's "long-term prospects and potential", should he have been caned instead of being placed in prison? Feel free to explain the likely long-term prospects and potential of any other mass-murderer you are thinking of, had they been caned instead of imprisoned. Does your argument change if the mass-murderer is past the prime years of life? Specifically, Andrew Philip Kehoe, at 55 years of age, who killed his wife and 43 other people (including 38 children). Now, he committed suicide, so it's clear that no amount of punishment - caning or otherwise - would have affected him. But if he had been sentenced, is your argument that it would have been okay to put him in jail for the rest of his life, because the prime years of his life were over? And you'll notice that nothing - caning, prison, preventive detention, etc. - can deter a mass-murderer who plans to commit suicide, so it's not like the threat of punishment (even corporal punishment) can be convincingly dissuasive. So, rather than construct artificial scenarios about a young mass-murderer who kill people from loving families, why not point to real-world examples instead, and argue how institutionalized caning would have improved things? And why not use as your baseline a country like Norway, with a human prison system, instead of one which is inhumane, like the US?