On 25 Apr, 19:58, AmandaRheen <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
Amanda, you're classic "Think-Tank" material. Keep up the good work!! > 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 > > ... > > read more »- 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 at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
