Punishment vs Deterrence

[ksen]

This is in response to the death penalty thread.

Which do you think the primary role of the justice system ought to be: punishment or deterrence?

I vote that the primary responsibility of the justice system is to punish offenders. If they get rehabilitated that's great.

[Teshi]

I think the purpose of the justice system should be deterrance, public safety and rehabilitation, both from a practical standpoint and a moral one. From a practical standpoint, I don't see that the state punishing someone serves any useful purpose. It's an expenditure of time, resources, space and money for no useful result...I do suspect that there are some people who can't be rehabilitated by any currently known human method, and in that case, they just need to be kept away from people they could hurt. But I think if someone can be shaped into a functional member of society, it's in our best interests to do so.

[ravenscape]

The justice system IMO should serve two main goals that are not entirely reconcilable: Public safety through deterrence or removal (incarceration), and rehabilitation. Ignoring the rehabilitation end of the equation has a direct and negative impact on public safety. In the years since rehabilitation went out of fashion, the public safety end of the equation paired with an upsurge in the "punish" paradigm has resulted in longer sentencing guidelines, "3 strikes you're out", and a frightening proliferation of prison population growth, as well as a growth industry in prisons-for-profit.

It's not working. We're creating a sub-society of convicts, and de-socializing them in foul, unsafe pressure-cookers.

[praying]

This is in response to the death penalty thread.

Which do you think the primary role of the justice system ought to be: punishment or deterrence?

I vote that the primary responsibility of the justice system is to punish offenders. If they get rehabilitated that's great.

Did you really mean deter or reform?

At any rate I think it depends on who the perpetrator is. For an adult defendant, career criminal; yes punishment is the route. However for the young and first time offenders I think it behooves us as a society to first try and deter crime and second reform in conjunction with punishment.

[pageroks]

So you know where I'm coming from: Deterence - to prevent
Rehabilitate - to teach skills to those in the system to help prevent reoffending
Punish - to give consequence for an action

The criminal justice system should be doing all of the above. Prevent crime is hit and miss but there are programs that the police and others are doing to try and reach out to young people. SADD, MADD, DARE, Scared Straight may or may not work but at least the field has become open to police becoming proactive in the community.

Rehabilitation to me includes community based diversions and probation/parole as much as programs offered in corrections. Without education, counseling, AA, NA, and specialized sex counseling prisons are no more than housing facilities.

Since most American's will say that any action should also have a consequence punishment will also always be part of the plan. This is basically coming up with different levels of supervision, length of time served and even life or the death penalty for crimes committed.

Since the system is made up entirely of people it is never going to be perfect. I do think in the last 20 years it's improving. While in the Criminal Justice program I graduated from you don't just see people wanting to be law enforcement. The field has grown to include professionals in various areas from study of thought processes and better counseling techniques to proventative programs, vocational rehab, drug rehab. Classes about dealing with the different sexs, types of criminals and races is becoming more standardized as well. It is also becoming standard that those who wish to go into the field have at least a bachelors degree.

Short story made long, sorry. The Criminal Justice System should have as it's main goal to protect the community. That to me means apprehention, incarceration, preventative programs, rehab and punishment.

[GraceInHim]

So you know where I'm coming from: Deterence - to prevent
Rehabilitate - to teach skills to those in the system to help prevent reoffending
Punish - to give consequence for an action.


agree with this ;-)

[seebs]

Given those meanings, I see no benefit at all to "punishment". If the hope is that the consequences will lead people to behave differently, then it's really rehabilitation; if it's that fear of consequences will prevent crime, then it's deterrence.

I don't see any value to punishment in and of itself.

[seebs]

Thinking about it, I think there's another category: Straight up prevention. We lock remorseless killers up, not because it hurts them, but because it denies them further opportunities to kill people. This is neither deterrence (it's not aimed at being a warning to others) nor rehabilitation, but its own benefit.

Of course, they all tend to come together.

[GraceInHim]

agree ^ and punishment should not be killing (death penalty)

[Texas Lynn]

This is in response to the death penalty thread.

Which do you think the primary role of the justice system ought to be: punishment or deterrence?

I vote that the primary responsibility of the justice system is to punish offenders. If they get rehabilitated that's great.

What's the benefit of that except revenge?

[gomichan]

I think from the perspective of the state, punishment is completely useless.

Punishment can be a teaching tool, or it can be vengeance. As a teaching tool, it has little use in the modern justice system, because those who commit crimes have already demonstrated that their concept of action-and-consequence is broken. Whether they were taught wrong by parents or circumstance, or are mentally or emotionally damaged for some other reason, they were not considering consequences properly in the first place, and will not learn properly from the application of consequences. As vengeance, it's only use is soothing the hurt feelings of the public, which is not productive in the long run, because it fosters an atmosphere that condones vengeance, thus encouraging further crime.

Deterrence is perhaps a slightly more useful effect; it's hard to get data on it, because there's no good way to get numbers for how many people would've committed crimes if there were no punishment. However, those who commit crimes despite the consequences generally don't think past the binary of 'getting caught' -- either you do or you don't. Any further granularity is mostly disregarded. Severity of punishment is pretty abstract past the distinction between slap-on-the-wrist and hard-time.

Public safety is a much clearer benefit. Those who harm society are removed from it. The big problem here is that, as things stand, those who harm society are removed to an environment which favors more severe crime. For this reason alone, I would favor a change in the prison atmosphere to something more monastic, where prisoners are kept busy and engaged in work all day and sleep alone at night. At present, prisoners have too little to do and have too many opportunities for conflict. Boredom and enforced proximity will turn anyone into a troublemaker, as any schoolteacher knows.

[kiwimac]

The job of the justice system is to restore the relationships which have been shattered both by the criminal(s) and the unjust systems in society.

[pageroks]

Given those meanings, I see no benefit at all to "punishment". If the hope is that the consequences will lead people to behave differently, then it's really rehabilitation; if it's that fear of consequences will prevent crime, then it's deterrence.

I don't see any value to punishment in and of itself.

The only outcome of punishment is to penalize the person that did the deed. If punishment lead people to behave differently then no one would commit crime again. No one expects that simply sitting in a cell changes behavior. Fear of penalty obviously doesn't work.

[pageroks]

What's the benefit of that except revenge?

If you consider putting your child in the corner for hitting their brother revenge or punishiment. Are we really going to say there is not such thing as punishment now. That any time we don't let someone get away with infringing on others rights it revenge? I don't think many will agree with that.

[seebs]

The only outcome of punishment is to penalize the person that did the deed.

So why bother?

If punishment lead people to behave differently then no one would commit crime again. No one expects that simply sitting in a cell changes behavior. Fear of penalty obviously doesn't work.

I don't think "work" is all-or-nothing. I would expect a change in frequency, not a complete elimination.

[pageroks]

So why bother?
I don't think "work" is all-or-nothing. I would expect a change in frequency, not a complete elimination.


So all behavior should be allowed to occur with no consequece? Is that really what people think? That criminals should get to do what they want with no action taken by society. If that is what people really think no wonder today's youth are so amoral.

[seebs]

So all behavior should be allowed to occur with no consequece?

I don't recall saying that.

Is that really what people think? That criminals should get to do what they want with no action taken by society. If that is what people really think no wonder today's youth are so amoral.

I am all for behaviors aimed at preventing or discouraging bad behavior.

I see no point in harming people without even the justification of some actual benefit to doing so.

Should we take no action? I don't think so. I think we should deprive them of ill-gotten gains where possible, attempt to make restitution at their expense, and possibly in some cases actively deny them future opportunities to do harm.

Each of these things is justified, not in terms of harm to the criminal, but in terms of benefit to others.

See? No need to "punish".

It sounds to me like you're just arguing for punishment in terms of its implicit deterrent effect; that, if people know there are "consequences", they will be less likely to commit crime. Seems likely enough... But that's an argument in terms of deterrence.

[pageroks]

It sounds to me like you're just arguing for punishment in terms of its implicit deterrent effect; that, if people know there are "consequences", they will be less likely to commit crime. Seems likely enough... But that's an argument in terms of deterrence.

I have never argued that. I am well aware that prison, probation, counseling and rehab don't keep people from comitting crime. Deterrence does keep some people from committing crimes but those that do then get punished by having their freedom taken away. I'm sorry I must not be smart enough to participate in these discussions. I gave definitions for what I meant because one of you always asks for that and now the words don't mean what I said. I really don't care who thinks what about crime, punishment or death penalty. I was giving input based on the fact it's the field I was once in and enjoy the dialogue but I'm not going to argue about sitting in a cell being punishment or a deterrent because someone wants to argue definitions.

[seebs]

I'm sorry, I seem to have offended you. I may be misunderstanding your point.

[Teshi]

So all behavior should be allowed to occur with no consequece? Is that really what people think? That criminals should get to do what they want with no action taken by society. If that is what people really think no wonder today's youth are so amoral.

I think there should be consequences. It's just that the consequences should have a point.

When my students act up, I make them do reparations. A letter apologizing to the person they hurt, staying after school to clean up if they were sloppy or defaced property, additional assignments if they cheated, etc. Something that does something to make up for what they did wrong, and hopefully that gives them an opportunity to see the effect their actions had on the people around them. That's a rehabilitation-oriented consequence, to me, whereas a punishment-oriented consequence would be, I dunno, sitting them in the corner with the dunce cap on. Or smacking them. It doesn't make anything better. It might intimdate some people out of doing it again, or might intimidate others out of following their example, but it might also backfire and make the kid into a bigger jerk than they already were. Plus, it's a waste of my time and of theirs.

So I'm in favor of consequences. I'm just not in favor of pointless consequences, or consequences that can channel people into maladaptive behaviors.

This might sound ridiculously bleeding-heart, but I really do believe that vengence is pointless and attempting to help criminal offenders improve their behavior and character is both the right thing to do for the offender, and for the rest of society. And I do believe that people can change.

[pageroks]

I think there should be consequences. It's just that the consequences should have a point.

When my students act up, I make them do reparations. A letter apologizing to the person they hurt, staying after school to clean up if they were sloppy or defaced property, additional assignments if they cheated, etc. Something that does something to make up for what they did wrong, and hopefully that gives them an opportunity to see the effect their actions had on the people around them. That's a rehabilitation-oriented consequence, to me, whereas a punishment-oriented consequence would be, I dunno, sitting them in the corner with the dunce cap on. Or smacking them. It doesn't make anything better. It might intimdate some people out of doing it again, or might intimidate others out of following their example, but it might also backfire and make the kid into a bigger jerk than they already were. Plus, it's a waste of my time and of theirs.

So I'm in favor of consequences. I'm just not in favor of pointless consequences, or consequences that can channel people into maladaptive behaviors.

This might sound ridiculously bleeding-heart, but I really do believe that vengence is pointless and attempting to help criminal offenders improve their behavior and character is both the right thing to do for the offender, and for the rest of society. And I do believe that people can change.

I have never said any of the above. Obviously it's become this us against you thing without people even reading what I have previously posted. I choose to become a juvenile probation officer to help kids to hopefully stay out of the criminal justice system. I don't think just punishing someone does anything, there has to be an effort made to help the person help themselves. The fight that has been brought to me seems to be that people refuse to see prison as both punishment and a place for help to be received. Everyone keeps saying that prison is just vengeance or revenge but it isn't just that. No prisons just have people sitting in cells, not even on death row. Either people are arguing with me because they know in general I am more conservative and agreeing with me would be equal to the plague or they haven't bothered to read the previous post and just want to bitch about what the think is being said. Either way I'm done. There is no reason to keep repeating myself over and over and over again since it makes no impact.

[Teshi]

Maybe take a break and come back? I didn't say or even think any of what you're saying I said and thought. I don't know you from Adam; I have no assumptions about your conservatism, liberalism, whatever. I didn't know you were a corrections officer or anything else about you.

I'm one of the minority of my family that hasn't been an involuntary guest of our US judiciary; I'm probably seeing this from a very different view than you are. But I'm not actually sure how you interpreted anyone's posts in this thread as saying that they didn't believe in consequences.

[seebs]

NBTB, I think this may be coming into a question of terminology.

I am not arguing against prison, although I think it might work better. (And, in fact, I think people like you may be a big part of what would make it work better.)

What I'm arguing against is the notion that punishment in and of itself is a good end. I don't think it is. I think the safety of others is an end, and rehabilitation is an end. In some cases, "punishment" (such as "putting people in prison") is a part of pursuing those ends.

Re-reading this, I think the problem is probably on my end. I've been using "punishment" both to refer to the general case of all retaliatory behavior, and to the specific case of harming someone solely for vengeance, and that makes my posts confusing.

What I am for: Attempts to rehabilitate criminals, compensate victims, or deter prospective future criminals.
What I am against: Harming anyone for the sake vengeance.

In some cases, it can be hard to tell; are we locking Bob up for 20 years because we are mad at him and want him to suffer, or are we locking Bob up for 20 years because we think that the prison system could perhaps rehabilitate him, and in any event, we don't want him out on the streets mugging anyone anymore?

The same visible action ("lock Bob up for 20 years") might be either part of a system attempting to deal constructively with crime, or part of a purely retaliatory system that will accomplish nothing good except by coincidence.

[flesh99]

I am actually anti-incarceration. I know that may sound weird but I think a system of swift punishment and immediate return to societal standing thereafter with behavioral counseling would work far better than what we have now. Of course there will be those who cannot or will not reform and in those cases the alternative is the death penalty or life in a prison camp. I don't think the death penalty is fitting in many cases so in my hypothetical system there would be prison camps but they would be the last resort and in essence giving up on the person.

I have given quite a bit of thought to this and I think caning wouldn't be a bad option for punishment for most offenses. I am undecided on whether or not to make these punishments public. I have not given that enough thought to have an opinion. Reparations would be mandatory as would certain other steps. By other steps I mean things such as chemical castration for rapists and things like that. Strictly steps to stop the offender from offending again and nothing punitive. Counseling in the form of behavioral as well as job related could be mandatory or voluntary depending on the offense. The punishment is strictly a deterrent.

In the instance of hard cases the system makes use of prison camps. These camps are spartan but not barbarian. They are designed to be mostly self sufficient and maybe even a self sufficient system wherein the camps provide for the needs of other camps in different locales that do not have the same resources. The are heavily guarded and once committed you are in for life. They could be privatized or government managed but with civilian oversight to insure proper treatment of the residents. Again this is a final step for those unable to change their ways and as such remain a threat to society despite the best efforts of society to integrate them.

At no point does long term incarceration occur unless the person is not able to function as a member of society. There may be short term incarceration prior to trial but that is done only as a necessity in cases where the suspected offender may flee.

[seebs]

Interesting thought.

I don't generally like irreversible punishments. I don't much like the "chemical castration" thing, as it has irreversible effects. There's been cases of errors already; I don't much like that.

I don't entirely like the use of corporal punishment, because I think it establishes the wrong tone.

Incarceration is a rough one. A good and well-designed prison program can have real potential for rehabilitation. But maybe we can do that without prison? It does seem that some people only really "take" to programs when they are stuck in them for a few months. Hmm.

[fragmentsofdreams]

I agree with those who have said that punishments should serve purpose. If a punishment helps no one (doesn't protect people from crime, doesn't deter people from committing crimes, doesn't rehabilitate the criminal), we shouldn't use it.

[Texas Lynn]

I don't generally like irreversible punishments. I don't much like the "chemical castration" thing, as it has irreversible effects. There's been cases of errors already; I don't much like that.

I need to read up more on that. I wasn't aware of that problem. My problem with it has been the concept among its advocates that it's kind of a "magic bullet" because it prevents erection, but more child sexual assuaults at least involve use of hands rather than genitals.

[seebs]

Pretty much any punishment you hand out, by the time it's been around for a year or two, there WILL be errors. Worth keeping in mind, I think.

[His Noodly Appendage]

As I said in another thread, suffering is bad.

Trouble is, our primate heritage leaves us very sensitive to asymmetry of suffering; being a victim is equated with being a low-status, submissive little whipping-monkey, which is intolerable to virtually everyone.

So by symmetrically copying suffering back to the aggressor, they regain their status in the group and in their own estimation. Empathy exists in all of us, but it's generally drowned out by dominance-jockeying.

Not wishing to perceive ourselves as shallow and insecure, we generalise the principle: all victims must be avenged; asymmetrical suffering is intolerable wherever we find it. Aggressors must be made to suffer as much as their victims, because the alternative makes us uncomfortable.

I think humans have the potential to rise above such thinking.

Suffering has inherently negative value, wherever it is found. If it buys us some other benefit, then we should shop around for a better deal, for the price we pay is repugnant.

The state should do all it can to prevent aggression. Rehabilitating offenders, deterring potential offenders, and removing likely reoffenders from the opportunity to offend.

Some suffering in order to achieve this may be necessary, but we should aim for the minimum possible amount.