Hurt the criminal or hurt the crime?

[barts]

In a column in Canada's Globe & Mail newspaper, writer Doug Saunders in Hurt the criminal or hurt the crime? raises the issue of dealing with criminals with revenge or rehabilitation.

If a neighbourhood kid grabs you on the street, slashes you with a knife and steals your wallet, once you get over the pain, the rage, the fear and the police bureaucracy, you’ll probably want him sent to prison.

But what sort of prison? That’s where you, as a victim, confront the question that most countries face today: Correction or revenge? Do you want to hurt the criminal, or do you want to hurt crime?

Revenge or rehabilitation. In some countries, the United States, Great Britain and Canada, for example, more and more revenge is the purpose of prisons, notwithstanding claims to the contrary by politicians and prison officials. The problem is that revenge increases the risk to the public.

Norway takes a different approach, Saunders points out,

...revenge and suffering have no place in the Norwegian prison system. “We want to build them up, give them confidence through education and work and have them leave as better people.”

Does that make you feel all warmhearted and hopeful for the kid who disfigured you? Are you yearning to give him the chance to become a better person? Probably not. There’s a good chance it infuriates you. Especially when you learn that it’s costing more money to keep him in this luxe prison than you earn in a year.

But consider this: Fewer than one in five prisoners in Halden will commit another serious crime after being released. In Canada, the United States and Britain, the rate is more like three in five.

Personally, I think it is smart to treat prisoners as the Norwegians do and make communities safer. I would rather not be the victim of a crime in the first place rather than see society take some perverse pleasure in what amounts to torturing prisoners and returning even more violent, anti-social people to the streets to harm others.

It troubles me, in particular, that so many people on the Right, particularly those who profess Christian love. seem to take such giddy delight and joy in treating prisoners as brutally and cruelly as possible. This is certainly the prevailing attitude in the US, and it's growing in Canada and the UK.

The evidence is unequivocal. If criminals are afforded respect and dignity, and are given opportunities to earn a livelihood, communities and people are safer.

What say you? The perverse joys of revenge and increased crime or the wisdom of rehabilitation and reduced crime?

[ruksak]

What say you? The perverse joys of revenge and increased crime or the wisdom of rehabilitation and reduced crime?

You're making the assumption that Norway has less crime because they wipe their prisoners asses for them. America has it's reasons for a higher crime rate, and they are many.

Though I do feel, for example, that many of Americas mandatory sentences for drug crimes are not only cruel but actually proliferate crime.

[Jack]

I agree with ruksak to the degree that the first step we need to take is to reduce our prison population by eliminating prison penalties for drug possession (just legalize drugs) and stop the practice of privatized, for-profit prisons. Once we're only sending the truly dangerous sociopaths to prison we can decide if revenge or rehabilitation is more appropriate.

[Angry Citizen]

I think a meld of the two systems is more appropriate. Some offenders simply do not deserve rehabilitation, with the risk of recidivism too great to allow their release. But most offenders do deserve our full support. I think one of the best ways of changing our prison system would be to drastically reduce the populations in prisons. Prisoners should mix with normal, everyday people (under careful supervision of guards, of course). By sending otherwise decent people who made a single mistake into the prison system, they encounter a truly barbaric culture filled with the worst of the worst. This often turns decent people into career criminals.

[barts]

Apart from enjoying the prurient thrill of exacting revenge and suffering on other human beings who cannot defend themselves, I'm at a loss as to why any reasonable person would condone the harsh treatment of criminals. The evidence is clear. If we want a safer society, treating criminals with compassion and providing them the skills and means to become productive members of the community is the strategy to pursue.

I understand that many people want to punish, sometimes as cruelly as possible, criminals. That being said, I do think they should acknowledge that however personally satisfying that may be cruelty towards criminals encourages further crime.

But, perhaps many people would prefer their enjoyment of revenge at the expense of a safer community.

[Angry Citizen]

That being said, I do think they should acknowledge that however personally satisfying that may be cruelty towards criminals encourages further crime.

I fail to see how locking someone up in perpetuity for an evil act can actually encourage crime. At worst, it would be neutral.

But, perhaps many people would prefer their enjoyment of revenge at the expense of a safer community.

If that's what it came down to, then yes.

[barts]

I fail to see how locking someone up in perpetuity for an evil act can actually encourage crime. At worst, it would be neutral.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think all criminals, guilty of all crimes are locked up "in perpetuity." Is my perception wrong that most murders, rapists, and thieves are eventually freed?

If that's what it came down to, then yes.

That's a choice that many make. Personally, I'd rather have safer streets and homes for my family, friends, others, and me to enjoy. I don't find revenge very gratifying. But, as you say, others do.

[Angry Citizen]

Is my perception wrong that most murders, rapists, and thieves are eventually freed?

That is unfortunately true - unfortunate in the former two cases, at least. But I thought your post was a response to mine. Was it not?

Personally, I'd rather have safer streets and homes for my family, friends, others, and me to enjoy.

Well, again, I doubt it would come down to that. If murderers and rapists were locked up in perpetuity and/or killed, as they should be, then it's rather hard to re-offend.

[Jack]

I'm at a loss as to why any reasonable person would condone the harsh treatment of criminals.

We first need to define "harsh". That aside, I agree there's no benefit to torturing prisoners or subjecting them to inhumane treatment.

Let's divide the majority of those in prison into two camps, those who have been convicted of victimless crimes, white collar crimes, crimes of possession, nonviolent crimes, etc., and those who have been convicted of violent, antisocial crimes.

Those in the first camp should be eligible for a minimum security prison with the intent and means to rehabilitate them for later reintegration into society. Those in the second camp, especially those with psychopathic personalities, we would lock up with less intent of rehabilitation and more intent to simply keep them out of society. (I know this is grossly oversimplified but I'm trying to think in generalities rather than specifics)

Prisons need to be segregated by the potential to be rehabilitated. Prisons should consist of two types; those designed to rehabilitate and those designed as warehouses for those too violent or too sociopathic to ever be released back into society.

But first, as I said, we need to reduce the number of people in prison by decriminalizing drug possession and prostitution (and other laws based on morality rather than antisocial offense) and get rid of the for-profit prison business.

[barts]

Well, again, I doubt it would come down to that. If murderers and rapists were locked up in perpetuity and/or killed, as they should be, then it's rather hard to re-offend.

As you say, there are many who would prefer that criminals were routinely executed for even relatively minor crimes.

[grandpa]

As you say, there are many who would prefer that
criminals were routinely executed for even relatively minor crimes.

There's little proof that capital punishment, or even imprisonment, is indeed discouraging to potential criminals. At most, it will encourage some to avoid being caught. What needs to occur is a transformation at the cultural/societal level. Somehow it routinely escapes notice, but there are societies with considerably lower crimes rates than others, and it's not due to prisons endlessly dotting their corresponding landscapes.

Grandpa h.

[barts]

We first need to define "harsh". That aside, I agree there's no benefit to torturing prisoners or subjecting them to inhumane treatment.

Let's divide the majority of those in prison into two camps, those who have been convicted of victimless crimes, white collar crimes, crimes of possession, nonviolent crimes, etc., and those who have been convicted of violent, antisocial crimes.

Those in the first camp should be eligible for a minimum security prison with the intent and means to rehabilitate them for later reintegration into society. Those in the second camp, especially those with psychopathic personalities, we would lock up with less intent of rehabilitation and more intent to simply keep them out of society. (I know this is grossly oversimplified but I'm trying to think in generalities rather than specifics)

Prisons need to be segregated by the potential to be rehabilitated. Prisons should consist of two types; those designed to rehabilitate and those designed as warehouses for those too violent or too sociopathic to ever be released back into society.

But first, as I said, we need to reduce the number of people in prison by decriminalizing drug possession and prostitution (and other laws based on morality rather than antisocial offense) and get rid of the for-profit prison business.

All that being said, I see no reason, apart from a delight in cruelty, for treating even criminals poorly. What's to be gained? It's not a deterrent to crime. And, it makes communities less safe when these people are released.

In my view, there is a moral argument for incarcerating people to protect society. There is no ethically justifiable reason for any harshness in treatment at all. All harshness is mere revenge, which has no role to play in making communities safe.

It is criminal, in my view, to hold people who will never return to society under harsh conditions. Indeed, their conditions should be made as comfortable as reasonable.

I would add too that when we are unnecessarily harsh to anyone in custody, we as a society are diminished and we lose our moral authority. We become them.