I am sorry to get back to you so late Drafterman. Sometimes my life gets in the way of my thinking ;) Plus I think your question is a good one and therefore requires some thoughtfulness.
I guess I have decided that I am pragmatic about the function of prison and don’t necessarily believe that it serves only one primary purpose. I think each of the functions you described above i.e. to punish, to rehabilitate and to merely isolate, are each relevant and legitimate purposes depending on the individual case. In answer to your question to Lee “So punishment is an end unto itself?” for some I agree this can be true. The punishment of jail time is something I suspect, deterring a proportion of people from committing crimes at different times and for different reasons, especially if a person feels they would on balance sustain loss, be it material, psychological or social. For the normal learner, the experience of punishment and the further avoidance of punishment alone can a very effective extinguisher of unacceptable behaviour. The opportunity to access decent rehabilitative experiences for a person being punished with jail, is I believe a requirement of an ‘ethical’ society. Whilst punishment may affect an individual, jails are widely known to be disproportionally associated with certain social demographics, including male gender, indigenous populations, low educational levels, the unemployed, and people under 30. You might also like to include drug and alcohol abuse / addiction and or those with chronic / acute mental health problems as other issues. More power to the individual who is prepared to genuinely take advantage of the self-development opportunities available to him / her whilst in custody. The concepts of punishment and rehabilitation are learning processes, and are particularly useful for those who do experience genuine remorse, using (simple explanation) a combination of positive and negative reinforcement. For those who have genuine remorse (not just sorry about getting caught), I am more inclined to think punish as appropriate time to learn what the judge has in mind. In order for rehabilitation to work however, you must necessarily have people who are genuinely distressed enough by their actions or their current circumstances to want to be different - motivation to learn. Generally a psychopath is not distressed by his / her predatory behaviour, but rather enjoys the damage he / she is able to inflict upon others. And whilst as Lee states remorse does not take away the original crime, I perceive a lack of remorse for a serious crime as much more problematic issue and perhaps therefore more worthy of greater punishment. In fact rehabilitation may only serve to provide the criminal psychopath with extra skills and opportunities to manage and manipulate others for his / her purpose. Whilst it might be more convenient for the rest of us if all psychopaths were isolated from general society, according to legal systems, this is unjust and illegal. Instead of viewing punishment and rehabilitation as learning, for the serious and chronic criminal, jail really is serving as nothing more than a legal means of isolating dangerousness from society. I suspect however this purpose is not really the primary purpose of the system, but can become that purpose as an chronic outcome. On Apr 20, 1:12 am, Drafterman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Apr 17, 9:10 am, AmandaRheen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > To my understanding, a jail sentence is imposed as punishment for > > crime/s committed. > > And do you believe that is the way it should be? > > > > > > > Jail is the punishment. Quadriplegia is not by > > laws of which I am aware, criminal punishment. > > > If the parole board considers that the granting of parole is based on > > certain conditions being met by the prisoner and these conditions are > > not met, parole does not logically need to be granted. I suspect that > > remorse about the crime for which a prisoner is currently being > > punished plays a central role in the granting of early release from > > jail for THAT crime/s. Surely a clear lack of remorse would still be > > a reasonable factor affecting the outcome of even a compassionate > > parole hearing, when the medical condition is of a chronic not fatal > > nature. > > > Sustaining quadriplegia does not erase the historical facts of > > previous crimes, nor does it erase the impact the crimes, for which > > the prisoner is currently serving sentence, have on his / her > > victims. Jail not quadriplegia is the punishment. Idealistically, > > parole is the outcome of good behavior whilst in custody, not the > > outcome of sustained physical injury. Pragmatically, parole is a > > means of managing prisoners between secure custody and the community, > > not the means by which possibly good old ‘common law justice’ within > > custody can be used to remove increased financial costs to the prison > > system. > > > As the victim of a crime the prisoner suffering quadriplegia also has > > the right to take recourse through the legal system in the same way > > the murder and rape victims of his / her own crimes have been > > required. The outcome of this legal process will be presided over by > > a judge and or jury, not a parole board. > > > On Apr 8, 12:48 am, Drafterman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Not sure how on topic this is, but consider the following thought > > > experiment: > > > > A man commits a series of various heinous and grevious crimes (murder, > > > rape, etc), such that he gets life in prison (though parole is not off > > > the table). > > > > During his imprisonment, a confrontation with a fellow inmate results > > > in the man becoming paralyzed from the neck down. > > > > At his parole, one of the primary considerations is how much of a > > > threat the man poses to society. As a quadriplegic, he poses minimal > > > threat. He is, however, completely unrepentant about his crime and his > > > state of mind is still that of a viscious killer. > > > > Another consideration is that, above and beyond the cost to society of > > > keeping someone imprisoned for life, he now has intense medical care > > > that the state must absorb. > > > > With these considerations, should he be released on parole? > > > > The core of this lies in the philosophical underpinnings of > > > incarceration. Is the primary function of prison to punish? To > > > rehabilitate? To simply isolate society from dangerous elements? > > > > It seems clear that rehabilitation is off the table. Furthermore, it > > > seems unlikely that prison would provide more punishment then him > > > simply being paralyzed. In fact, if released he would have to account > > > for his own medical costs, probably resulting in worse care. Being > > > free may be more punishing tham keeping him in prison where he has > > > guaranteed medical care, shelter and food. As a quadriplegic, he is > > > also a minimal threat to society. (I say minimal because such people > > > have managed to commit crimes, but the rate is as probably as low as > > > you are going to get for any person). > > > > I feel this situation reveals an underlying paradox. In most > > > situations, people would espouse the utilitarian aspect of prison: it > > > reduces harm to society by acting as a deterrant through the threat > > > and enactment of punishment, isolating threats from society, and > > > rehabilitating people so they are less of a threat if and when they > > > reenter society. > > > > What is often underplayed is the emotional aspect. If a person shows > > > genuine remorse at a crime committed, they are generally treated as > > > being less of a threat. This makes sense since not all crimes are acts > > > of malice. A person that genuinely feels guilt *is* less of a threat > > > and should be treated as such. But this association remains valid only > > > when there is a tie between a person's mindset and their ability to > > > commit a crime. When that tie is severed, a person's emotional state > > > no longer represents their potential to be threatening and can no > > > longer be used in this manner. The paradox arises from the fact that > > > most people would continue to use emotional state as requirement for > > > release and would recoil at letting an unrepentent killer be freed > > > from prison. > > > > Notes: > > > > This situation is an based on an actual case > > > -http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C061031.PDFthoughsome > > > elements have been generalized for this philosophical exercise. To > > > summarize the actual case, the prisoner was attemtping to involve a > > > special statute that allows prisoners to be released under > > > "compassionate" consideration if certain conditions apply (terminal > > > illness, medically incapacitated or otherwise no longer a threat due > > > to medical condition). The parole board denied the claim under the > > > ruling that quadriplegics can still pose a threat, as evidenced by > > > several intances they were able to find. A court overturned that > > > ruling on the basis that, on a long enough time line you can find > > > instances of anyone being a threat and the statute does not require > > > that a person be no threat what-so-ever. A superior court then > > > overturned the lower courts ruling, so it would appear that the man > > > remains in jail. > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > ""Minds Eye"" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]. > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.-Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > ""Minds Eye"" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
