@Mrowak
mrowakus said:
Yes, I am too in favour of permanent solutions in case of people who inflict permanent harm, and I too prefer life imprisonment to death penalty. I have some doubts about utilitarian aspect of the mandatory work, however. My major concern is that this system opens the way to abuse, creating effectively slave labour. I am less concerned about the fate of prisoners here, but the impact on the society itself. How would such system be executed? How to force a morally bankrupt, often psychotic prisoner to work? Who would be responsible for upholding the order in such environments with most homicidal maniacs on lose? What impact would such environment have of the prison guards? What "rights" would such prisoner have? Who would be resonsible for overlooking that, and making sure the people are not abused? What about prisoners' rights to appeal?
The whole idea sounds supicously like Soviet Russia's gulags, and I am last person on Earth who would condone that.
Since we have agreed that the worst criminals get permanent punishment, we can discuss the nature of rehabilitation for the rest. Work is a key component of rehabilitation and restitution (paying back the victims).
Society functions on the principle that all people who are able to work should work (or actively seek employment as a requirement for welfare). Those unable to work are supported by the society. A free person, who is able to work, but does not want to work will be unable to keep up with the costs of living and by that reality is forced to work or perish. While the requirement to work is implicit, it is present.
Convicts should in no way be priviledged in comparison with free people. With sentencing, convicts temporarily or permanently lose certain rights and gain none (at least they should not gain none). It is not fair to expect the taxpayers to bear the costs of living of prisoners who are through work able to bear the costs themselves, but choose not to, just like it is not fair to expect that the taxpayers support the free people who, though able, do not want to work.
From two above paragraphs follows: convicts who are able to work should work. Those unable to work should not be subjected to this requirement (I haven't stated that explicitly, but I assumed it implicitly – forcing a person to work on a task that he is not fit for is neither moral nor productive), so they would be a burden on the state just as if they were free. The best way to force convicts to work (if able) is to create the implicit requirement such as the one for free people – with the cost of food, habitat, services like cleaning, clean clothes, etc. Solitary confinement (minimum levels of comfort and minimum levels of food for sustainability) for those who can, but refuse to work could be one enforcement method.
In order to avoid comparisons with the slave labour, the system is set up in such a way that the convict recieves money for his work. However, he needs to pay the costs associated with his stay in prison and, as the restorative function of the punishment dictates, compensate the victim(s). The rest of the money (if any is left) is his to keep. There should be a mandatory requirement of working hours corresponding to the accepted standard in the state (if there is one), with the possibility of overtime (if the employer and the prisoner agree on it) and vacation (meaning time free from work in this case).
Once again, this is not different from a situation where a free person works, spends most of the money to support himself (food, home, clothes, services -> the same things that are provided to the prisoner) and pay off loans (in the case of the prisoner it is the debt to the victim) and gets to save or spend the rest (if any is left at all).
In this way, the prisoner is put into situation that has many similarities to the situation that he would face while free. For those who would undergo rehabilitation and eventual resocialization (i.e. not the worst criminal category), working and paying costs of living can only contribute to resocialization.
The important question of execution is whether the prisons should be run privately or by the state, which is associated with the question whether such a venture would be profitable (profitability being the requirement for privately run prisons). This would require thorough analysis on a case by case basis, starting from the current average yearly cost of stay in prison, which is somewhere between 20000$ and 25000$, but we have to add possible rehabilitation costs and restitution costs to that. In the worst case, of non-profitability, prisoner's work would at least alleviate the costs to taxpayers. Also, in those cases, the prisoner who will eventually be released would receive certain minimal „extra“ compensation to save for when he is released.
Regardless of whether the system is privately run or run by the state, prison guards should be selected from the same pool of people trained and licensed specifically for this situation, which goes for the rest of the important personnel (management and personnel in charge of rehabilitation). In this way, we get the system that in essence does not differ from the current one when it comes to the question of supervision of the prison system. There would be a certain component of internal supervision present between different components of the system itself (management, guards, social workers) as well as external supervision. Like any new system, this one would be introduced as a modification (improvement) of the existing one. That includes right to an appeal.
All of this illustrates important differences between such a system and slavery (or a Gulag, which reminds me that I have to read Solzenjicin when I find time). Some commonalities with bad systems do not make a system bad (e.g. every prison system shares denial of freedom with slavery, which does not lead to the conclusion that every prison system is bad).
Death penalty is the valid option for me in evident cases where the culprit is proven beyond any doubt that he has conducted manslaughter e.g. Brevik's case. Else there's always the risk of miscarriage of death penalty, which is the ultimate crime society can inflict against individual.
In this context, I find the "deterring" role of the penalty to be close to worthless. In case of homicidal killers they are usually prepared to be taken down (like Brevik or Seung-Hui Cho), so future mass murderers are practically unaffected by its severity.
Deterrent (fear of punishment) works for rational actors. Prison itself is a form of deterrent for rational actors and while it is a logical assumption that harsher sentence represents bigger deterrent, I haven't been looking at the data to confirm the extent of the gradation. For example, it is unknown to me whether death penalty is a greater deterrent (and if it is, whether the difference is significant) than life imprisonment.
It all depends on the motif. While the background of the convict is irrelevant, it's goal in wrongdoing makes the difference. There's a whole world of difference between a woman who plots murder of her husband on account of physical and sexual abuse and a "black widow" who disposed of the man to get his money. The first, clearly can be rehabilitated, the second is less likely to.
I agree with this. In fact, as I have stated before, when I say „murder“, I already include the motive and other immediate circumstances (like the way of execution and premeditation). In this sense, the first case is not murder and it could very well be justifiable homicide (depending on the exact circumstances), by indirect self-defense (in addition, this would represent a horrible failure by the system, which was supposed to punish the husband in accordance with his crime). The woman in the first case should undergo rehabilitatory treatment as the only form of penalty. The one in the second case is beyond rehabilitation, and should be permanently punished.
I would like to take this opportunity and ask what you think of the following case described in the said paper:
Originally Posted by Brain Waves Module 4: Neuroscience and the law
Box 2: Orbitofrontal tumour and ‘acquired paedophilia’32
An American man in his late 40s, was found to have developed unusual sexual arousal behaviours and had begun to secretly collect child pornography. He was eventually removed from the family home for making sexual advances towards his step-daughter, and was subsequently diagnosed with paedophilia and convicted of child molestation.
The man was ordered by the judge to undergo rehabilitation for sexual addiction or go to jail. Attempts to complete rehabilitation were marred by the man’s inability to restrain himself from soliciting sexual favours from staff and other clients and he was expelled from the programme.
The evening before sentencing, the man was admitted to hospital with a headache and balance problems. Neurological examination, which included magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed a cancerous tumour that displaced the right orbitofronta cortex.
The orbitofrontal cortex is involved in the regulation of social behaviour. Lesions
acquired in early life can lead to an impedance in the acquisition of social- and moralknowledge, which may result in poor judgment, reduced impulse control, and
antisocial personality. A similar acquired antisocial personality occurs with adult onset damage, but previously established moral development is preserved.
Nevertheless, poor impulse regulation is thought to lead to poor judgement and sociopathic behaviour. Disruption of this system can result in decision-making that emphasises immediate reward rather than long-term gain, impairing the subject’s ability to appropriately navigate social situations.
Following examination the tumour was removed and after several days the patient’s balance improved and he was able to complete a Sexaholics Anonymous programme. Seven months later the patient was deemed to no longer be a threat to his stepdaughter and returned home.
Almost a year later, the man reported persistent headaches and that he had begun secretly collecting child pornography again. Tumour recurrence was revealed by MRI studies and surgery was performed to remove it for a second time. Once again the patient’s behaviour returned to normal after a couple of days.
It took me some time to read the whole paper.
As for this, case, the facts are:
- in the absence of the tumor there was no reported criminal behaviour
- in the presence of the tumor there is reported criminal behaviour
- onset of criminal behaviour has coincided with the onset of criminal behaviour
- there is a viable explanation of the mechanism that links the tumor to changes in behaviour
- the man hasn't performed sexual abuse on the physical level, so the consequences to his crime are moderately severe and temporary
- after the recurrence of the tumor and the criminal behaviour, the man reported himself
What can be concluded? I conclude that there is a very high probability that tumor has compelled the man to commit criminal acts. However, the man was aware that his criminal acts are wrong (otherwise he wouldn't be secretive about collecting child pornography). Additionally, his crimes haven't escalated to the worst. Finally, he has taken a responsible step by reporting the reoccurence of paedophilic impulse.
Given all that, a rational decision would be that the man be released, on condition of undergoing frequent neurological exams and psychotherapy sessions (with the family, if necessary).
Agreed. I will point here that the status of the victim alone may be not enough to penalise criminal who by all accounts is ready to return to society - like is the case with neurological defects. The problem is in determining the readiness.
When it comes to comparable case (where orbitofrontal cortex is affected, while dorsolateral PFC is clear) with different (more severe) consequences, with this case pointing to the possibility of controlling one's own actions to an extent so they don't escalate, I would still judge the case according to the severity of the consequences.
If a comparable case escalates to rape, I would advocate permanent punishment.
This (punishment fitting the severity of the crime) follows from the principle of reciprocity. The principle of reciprocity cannot be discarded without discarding the society, given that all types of partnership rely on it, and partnership is the cornerstone of the society. I think that all participants in this discussion accept the social norm of reciprocity (if someone doesn't, let him speak up).
@Vii Zafira and Mrowak
Nuttin' but love! And all is fair in love and
war debate.
So, you two just kiss, make up and continue debating.
@JemyM
I will probably respond after I get back from the trip, that is, not earlier than Saturday.
