5 ms·

It seems to me that issues like this one expose a fundamental flaw with how criminal justice is generally practiced - one that's evident in the term itself. Th

It seems to me that issues like this one expose a fundamental flaw with how criminal justice is generally practiced - one that's evident in the term itself. The focus is on assigning blame and just (fair) punishment. ISTM a better framing might be to determine the desired outcome and how best to achieve it. How likely is someone to re-offend, and what is the best intervention to reduce that likelihood? In the most extreme cases that might mean physically preventing recidivism through imprisonment. In other cases there might be other interventions that could be more beneficial. How likely are others to commit a similar crime, and to what extent, if any, will the outcome of this case affect that (ie deterrence)? And yes, also relevant is how will people - especially victims - feel about the outcome? Does it seem just? However if different norms around the response to crimes were established, feelings would presumably change as well, gradually. I'm not saying that no one should ever be punished for their crimes, just that the intent of punishment, or of any other intervention, should be to have positive impacts on the future, as opposed to simply an abstract balancing of scales. From that point of view, I expect the handling of cases like these would become significantly simpler.

NoGravitas 4y ago
> The focus is on assigning blame and just (fair) punishment. ISTM a better framing might be to determine the desired outcome and how best to achieve it. How likely is someone to re-offend, and what is the best intervention to reduce that likelihood? That would be rational, and, especially in the US, our criminal justice system very rarely intersects with rationality. In general, it's based on what will provide the most extreme emotional response among voters.
AbrahamParangi 4y ago
I think you dramatically underestimate the harshness of a “rational” system. According to one study 63% of violent crimes are committed by 1% of the population (your mileage may vary but the order of magnitudes will be about the same). This implies that a person that commits any violent crime should be imprisoned for an extremely long time, because the odds are very good that they’ll assault, rape, rob or murder someone else. Said another way, with the policy of locking people up for a very very long time on a first (violent) offense, you would eliminate nearly half of all violent crime- and that’s not even counting the deterrent effect.
- koprulusector 4y ago
  First, to get it out of the way, there are some (serial killers come to mind) that modern psychology is unable to much about. However, of the 1% you mention, I imagine (without looking at any data to verify) many offenders may suffer from mental health issues or live in harsh socio-economic environment. It seems to me the best thing to do is address these two factors. Then no one need be locked up, and public resources can be put toward things positive for society rather than negative. As for the serial killer psychopath types.. I’m generally against capital punishment; hate the idea. But like, next to nothing can be done for these people today (I am not an expert, could be way off), and thus they pose a permanent threat to the people they’re around. I can’t think of a solution beyond some kind of exile, which seems silly or difficult to enforce. We could lock them up, but it seems like a waste of resources and overall a miserable way to live. So.. and I reserve the right to change my mind with the availability of more information, but perhaps it makes more sense to simply execute (in the most humane way possible) this very minuscule portion of the population when the offenses occur (specifically more than one near lethal assault or one or more lethal assault) and they are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

NoGravitas 4y ago

> The focus is on assigning blame and just (fair) punishment. ISTM a better framing might be to determine the desired outcome and how best to achieve it. How likely is someone to re-offend, and what is the best intervention to reduce that likelihood? That would be rational, and, especially in the US, our criminal justice system very rarely intersects with rationality. In general, it's based on what will provide the most extreme emotional response among voters.

AbrahamParangi 4y ago

I think you dramatically underestimate the harshness of a “rational” system. According to one study 63% of violent crimes are committed by 1% of the population (your mileage may vary but the order of magnitudes will be about the same). This implies that a person that commits any violent crime should be imprisoned for an extremely long time, because the odds are very good that they’ll assault, rape, rob or murder someone else. Said another way, with the policy of locking people up for a very very long time on a first (violent) offense, you would eliminate nearly half of all violent crime- and that’s not even counting the deterrent effect.

koprulusector 4y ago
First, to get it out of the way, there are some (serial killers come to mind) that modern psychology is unable to much about. However, of the 1% you mention, I imagine (without looking at any data to verify) many offenders may suffer from mental health issues or live in harsh socio-economic environment. It seems to me the best thing to do is address these two factors. Then no one need be locked up, and public resources can be put toward things positive for society rather than negative. As for the serial killer psychopath types.. I’m generally against capital punishment; hate the idea. But like, next to nothing can be done for these people today (I am not an expert, could be way off), and thus they pose a permanent threat to the people they’re around. I can’t think of a solution beyond some kind of exile, which seems silly or difficult to enforce. We could lock them up, but it seems like a waste of resources and overall a miserable way to live. So.. and I reserve the right to change my mind with the availability of more information, but perhaps it makes more sense to simply execute (in the most humane way possible) this very minuscule portion of the population when the offenses occur (specifically more than one near lethal assault or one or more lethal assault) and they are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt?