A common view is that criminals are like children.
When they
do something we don't like, we punish them.
The common view is
that punishment will deter future crimes.
The common view is
largely wrong.
Like addicts, criminals are not much deterred by punishment or by the threat of punishment. If misery deterred either addiction or crime, there would be no drunks. The prisons would be empty. Indeed, punishment has only a limited value to control children's behavior. The notions of retribution and punishment are deeply ingrained
in our culture.
It is a basic element of religious mythologies,
especially Christian mythology.
If we do "bad" we are punished.
It's the sin/damnation doctrine which is essential for organized
religions to hold on to control.
The common view is that punishment works, or that it should
work, it's supposed to work.
Prayer is supposed to work, too.
(Try praying for your flat tire to be mended.)
Even otherwise
rational observers are so enamored with their assumptions about
punishment, that they refuse to see reality.
Science cannot be based on faith or on hope or on assumptions.
Science needs facts.
With crime, the fact is that punishment
has little effect on deterring future crimes.
If punishment fails as a deterrent, why does society insist
on punishing criminals?
The short answer is that we like to
punish.
We like to "get even."
We like to hurt those who have
hurt us.
The core reason for punishment of crime is not
deterrence.
The core reason for punishing crime is revenge.
Revenge is irrationally pointless.
It simply breeds feuds.
It creates unending cycles of tit-for-tat injuries.
Revenge is
a human weakness with a strong Jewish religious basis: "an eye
for an eye."
Nobody seems to consider how, exactly, taking a
culprit's eye will restore the eye of the victim.
Most civilized peoples realize that revenge is illogical.
It serves no practical purpose.
It's the death penalty reasoning:
two wrongs make a right.
You killed someone.
That life is avenged
by me killing you.
If a crime is a social evil, then revenge is equally a social
evil.
The one wrong breeds the second wrong.
It is never true
that two wrongs make a right.
Most ten year-olds realize that.
Over a few thousand years, punishment has become a little less
barbaric and vicious.
Without going into what constitutes "crime,"
it's true that nowadays punishment is an essential response.
The fact that it doesn't work is ignored.
Of course, that's
exactly what the criminal does, he ignores the adverse consequences
of his conduct.
The punisher does the same kind of thing the
criminal does.
Nowadays for crimes we have five basic punishments:
If the society doesn't like the way you drive, it may deprive
you of your driving privilege.
That's an example of the loss
of a right or privilege.
For somethings it may be a fairly
effective response to the "crime."
As society, especially American society, has become more and
more intoxicated with money and material goods, fines have become
a popular punishment for crime (whatever "crime" may be).
The
idea behind a fine has two parts: to hurt the criminal and to
help (financially at least) the society.
In that respect, fines
make a lot more sense than other forms of punishment.
The other
forms or punishment harm the criminal without doing good for
anybody.
Republicans and conservatives are so obsessed with money that
it's become fashionable to add financial penalties to every kind
of crime.
Prisoners are even charged for being imprisoned.
There
is little doubt that money is America's primary god.
Imprisonment is the common form of punishment in most of
America.
It's very costly in money.
It has very limited benefits.
It's very costly in the harm it does to the social fiber.
It
offers only limited satisfaction to the "victim" who crave revenge.
Of punishment options, imprisonment is perhaps the least rational.
Torture has always been a part of punishment in America.
Beatings, castration, electric shock, starvation and so forth
have long been common practices.
Most of the civilized world
long ago abandoned such barbarism.
In America torture has become
even more common since the Republicans and conservatives became
"respectable" and got into power.
Now, various forms of torture
are national policy.
The core reason for torture in America is revenge.
There is
a savage desire to inflict sadistic pain, to hurt someone.
Somehow, hurting others satisfies a need felt by some Americans.
Torture is morally reprehensible, but, at least, it satisfies
the sadistic nature of the American people.
In that sense, it's
more satisfying than imprisonment.
It's no more effective as
a deterrent to crime, however.
Death is an American favorite.
The simple fact is that
Americans like to kill.
Americans look for excuses to kill, for
reasons to kill, for justifications to kill.
Most civilized
peoples value life.
Most civilized peoples detest killing.
Not
Americans.
Americans enjoy killing.
Sadly, Americans have proven
themselves to be destroyers.
Destroying is easier that creating.
Killing is a major part of American entertainment, from cops
and robbers to cowboys and Indians.
Their toys and video games
center on killing.
Auto racing is better where somebody dies.
America is almost continually at war.
War satisfies the American
addiction to killing.
Killing criminals is a popular desire for many Americans.
They generally rely on the "he deserves to die" argument.
Of
course, the real motivation is that Americans like to kill and
look for excuses to justify it.
What the "he deserves to die"
folks really mean is "I like to kill."
Imprisonment is the major punishment for crime in America.
The customary mythology is that imprisonment is intended to deter
future crimes.
Imprisonment is supposed to be a deterrent.
In
all the states, imprisonment is called "corrections."
The pretense is that imprisonment "corrects" the criminal disease
and deters future relapses.
It's all nonsense.
No part of prison is aimed at "correction."
If any parts of prison is aimed at "correction," they fail dismally.
The euphemism "corrections" is intended as an agreeable term for
"revenge."
There are seven real effects of imprisonment. Imprisonment is not a very useful social institution.
It really should be replaced with something more rational and
less silly.
Preferably, prison should be replaced with something
that works.
While imprisonment has only a slight effect as a deterrent
to future crimes, it does have some effect.
The deterrent effect
of prison is dependent upon two factors: In general terms, imprisonment is a more effective deterrent
the later in an individual's life it occurs.
Imprisonment becomes
increasingly less effective as a deterrent the longer the
individual remains imprisoned.
![]() Deterrent Effect of Imprisonment By Age of First Imprisonment The above graph represents the approximate effect that imprisonment has on an individual based upon his or her age when first Imprisoned. As the graph shows, the young child is somewhat (but not very greatly) deterred from future crimes by the terrifying effects of being imprisoned during his or her tender years. The term "imprisoned" as used for such young children refers to their being institutionalized. Examples of such institutionalization are orphanages, foster homes, detention homes, children's homes and so forth. Placement of young children in such catastrophic settings for any reason has a devastating psychological and social effect. Typically young children are imprisoned in these ways as a result of "abuse." In other words, the children are punished for being abused. In almost all cases, the institutionalization of young children is far worse than the "abuse" the child was supposedly experienced. For a four year-old child the imprisonment is highly destructive, but it does have a small effect on later criminal conduct. The effect would be about as strong as a severe paddling. The effect of imprisoning children has less and less deterrent value as the child approaches puberty. By fourteen years of age, imprisonment of a child has no deterrent effect. It's pointless. To the child, it's simply part of his or her education and schooling. It inures the child to prison and makes imprisonment a natural part of life. Putting children in "homes" is certain to destroy them as useful citizens. They will be lost for life. It would be more practical to simply execute them. Execution would also delight the American lust to kill. It is never socially desirable to imprison a child. It makes matters far worse, not better. As a person matures, imprisonment has a somewhat greater deterrent effect. By age 20, imprisonment has about the same effect as a bad fist fight or a $2,000 fine. If the individual is imprisoned for the first time when he's about 28 years old, the deterrent effect on future crime is something like a $10,000 fine. As the person ages through the adult years, the deterrent effect of imprisonment gradually grows. Generally, a mature person has a lot to lose by imprisonment, wife, family, home, job, success and so forth. With humiliation and loss of freedom and independence, imprisonment has a deterrent effect until an person is quite old. After about sixty-five years of age, imprisonment is a death sentence. Its deterrent effect is nil. The guy's dead. He's not re-offending. In all these instances, the fact that there is some deterrent effect is not an affirmation of the common view that prison is a deterrent. The amount of the deterrence is not great. It's certainly not worth the negative effects which prison also produces.
![]() Deterrent Effect of Imprisonment Based on Time Spent In Prison One's first introduction into prison is a deep psychic and social shock. The first days in prison have the greatest effect on the prisoner. If there is a deterrence, it happens almost immediately. The deterrent "benefit" of imprisonment increases for about two years. After that it diminishes very rapidly. Before a person has spent five years in prison, any "benefit" turns in the opposite direction. A sentence of five years means the prisoner is twice as likely to commit future crimes than if he had not been imprisoned at all. For ever year after five years of imprisonment, future criminality become more and more likely. In addition, the types of criminal activity tend to become worse and more destructive, more serious. None of this serves to accurately quantify the deterrent effect of imprisonment. At its peak, that is at two years of imprisonment, prison has about the same deterrent effect as a $12,000 fine. The effect is somewhat more or somewhat less depending on the individual's financial standing. The individual who's spent ten years is prison is about 4 times as likely to re-offend as the person who spent no time in prison. In other words, being imprisoned guarantees that the individual will commit more crimes. The taxpayers spend more than $350,000.00 to insure that the convict will go back to crime and be "better at it than he was. By any measure, that's irrational. Another system must be found. Most, but not all criminals behave like addicts.
In prison
they smoke, become addicted to sugar or weightlifting and/or to
other repetitive behaviors which they think gives them a reward.
Addicts focus on the potential reward.
Addicts are motivated
by the "reward" they get or they seek.
They're not deterred by
the adverse consequences of their conduct.
The problem lies in
the pleasure centers.
Maybe Viagra cures crime.
To contend with crime, society must recognize that reward works
and punishment doesn't.
It's the same with children.
Reward
desirable conduct.
Condition desirable conduct with rewards.
Punishing "bad" conduct has little beneficial effect.
It serves
only to satisfy society's desire for revenge.
Society should decide what exactly it wants.
If society chooses
for revenge there will be a steady growth in crime.
If society
really wants to reduce crime it must change laws.
It must
decriminalize drugs.
It must tolerate many other conducts.
Intolerance results in hundreds of offenses.
Society should reward good conducts and find effective ways
of dealing with offenses.
Some persons may simply have to be separated from society
indefinitely.
Society will have to admit that it's not smart
enough to deal with them.
Crime is a matter of nonconformity.
Crime is not an individual's problem.
Crime is a social problem.
There is no crime at all unless there is a society to be offended.
Society shouldn't offend so easily.
It shouldn't become so
hysterically offended.
Society needs more rational ideas about
how to deal with its citizens.
A society which devours its own
is psychotic and doomed to collapse.
"How dear of you to let me out of jail"
You are welcome to use or republish
any of our material.
|