Punishments for ...?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nqes7t9
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nqes7t9

Guest
Hi CAF,

So, what do we think about punishments? I’m mostly talking about punishments for crimes, like going to prison.

Suppose I’m a voter, and a candidate promises to imprison more criminals, should I vote for that candidate?

Thanks
n
 
I believe in the concept of amnesty. If we’re giving some criminals amnesty, we should give all of them amnesty. It’s only just.
 
Is anybody suggesting amnesty for anybody? I hadn’t heard such.

Personally, I’m in favor of physical punishment for youth offenders (i.e., the cane or the whip) and mandatory restitution in property offenses.

As this country already leads the world in imprisonment, I would not like to see that increased.

ICXC NIKA
 
I believe in the concept of amnesty. If we’re giving some criminals amnesty, we should give all of them amnesty. It’s only just.
Does that mean we should shut down the criminal courts and just forgive the serial killers, child molesters, wife beaters, car thieves, bank robbers…etc, on the spot and send them on their way? :ehh:
 
I was just reading a bit in the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults & my take is that we kind of want to strike a balance. The law is meant to promote charity in the society, I think is what it said. It didn’t say anything about prison, I don’t think.

I occasionally hear of things like amnesty for those who have immigrated illegally. I’ve also heard of amnesty for those who avoided the draft. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of amnesty for every criminal…except in Church…and then only sort of…

n
 
I am for restitution & work for stealing and the like; treating possession of drugs as we do traffic offenses; and only imprisoning people who commit crimes involving or dangerous to physical harm of others. The whole “prison industry” thing is out of hand.
 
So, what do we think about punishments? I’m mostly talking about punishments for crimes, like going to prison.

Suppose I’m a voter, and a candidate promises to imprison more criminals, should I vote for that candidate?
Punishment is a matter of justice; it is not just a right the state possesses, it is a duty as well. That said, punishment does not necessarily mean imprisonment; it can come in all forms. I think I would be less inclined to vote for a person who promises to imprison more people than for the one who appears to have a clue about what causes crime in the first place. And I would immediately abandon anyone who simply repeats the cliches that crime is caused by poverty and discrimination.

Ender
 
Laws are in place for a reason, but for the most part, sending someone to prison for a very long time does not change them, in fact it ‘schools’ them on how to become better criminals, and they also have access to a network of other criminals, (make more friends).

I think society will eventually come up with a more effective way to deal with crime and punishment, if the intent is truly to rehabilitate someone, and not just warehousing people for profit.

Look at a good deal of laws we have today, they are not even close to being effective, a certain number of people are still willing to break them and pay the price, so that right there shows the laws are not effective.

A great example is traffic laws, speeding DUI, etc, these laws have been in place for decades, but a large number of people still break them every day, all over the country, yet NOT ONE person is suggesting the laws are ineffective and must be changed…?? Its easy to see why in this case, as many cities and PDs depend on the revenue from fines as part of their budget.

I also find it frightening that Law Enforcement in general voices THEIR opinion on laws, or that they even have an opinion in this regard, their duty is to enforce the laws made, NOT to give advice on what laws should be in place and how they should be enforced, that is our elects jobs.
 
Hi CAF,

So, what do we think about punishments? I’m mostly talking about punishments for crimes, like going to prison.

Suppose I’m a voter, and a candidate promises to imprison more criminals, should I vote for that candidate?

Thanks
n
Imprisonment is not a matter of elections, but a matter of due process. A candidate for the executive or legislative branch can certainly influence statutes for what crime is an imprisonment offense, but putting more people in prison is more closely related to the judicial branch.
The judicial branch, therefore, does have the responsibility and the power to imprison those convicted of certain crimes, but it seems to me that we sure do have a lot of folks in prison, and lots more crimes one can go to prison for. Maybe time to reevaluate

Jon
 
I am not a big fan of punishment. I think there should be more focus on rehabilitation.
 
They should focus less on retribution and more on rehabilitation.

Most people want to make sure convicted criminals have it as bad as humanly possible; that is the WRONG approach. Not only is it inhumane, but it also drastically increases recidivism.

Some really insidious laws that need to go away are Felony Disenfranchisement (laws that prevent prisoners and ex-convicts from voting - a practice rooted in racism which still keeps an millions of reformed citizens out of the voting booth and therefore prevents politicians from caring about them), three strike laws (where crimes receive harsher punishments the more they are enforced - good in theory but in practice often leading to people being sentenced to life imprisonment for stealing a single slice of pizza), Strict Liability (a law by which someone is guilty of a crime regardless of if they willingly or even intended to commit a crime - if a 17 year old sleeps with an adult by lying about age and showing a fake ID, the adult still gets charged with statutory rape), and Zero Tolerance (a law and school policy by which everyone who commits a specific crime receives a specific punishment regardless of circumstances, duress and insanity be dammed - this leads to crack dealers spending more time in prison than child molesters).

A big problem is that too many criminal laws are passed not by rational adults analyzing what is best for society as a whole, but rather by over-emotional politicians making knee-jerk decisions and temper-tantrums. That’s the only way you can explain things like 12 year olds being sentenced to life imprisonment without parole (something the Supreme Court actually had to address and pass laws against).

But an even bigger problem is how cruel society can be towards criminals. Women getting raped at college is an outrage, but young prisoners getting raped by their cellmates while guards look the other way is treated at best as a natural part of the punishment and at worst as something they deserve. Television shows and movies make jokes about it all the time, and often these jokes amount to little more than “Haha! His cellmate is sodomizing him against his will! It’s funny because he’s a prisoner so he had it coming!”.

That’s why prisons can get away with a lot of horrible abuse: turning a blind eye when prisoners get raped by their cellmates (ignoring complaints and continuing to put them in the same cell together), abandoning prisoners to drown in sewage during a Hurricane, making them live in tents where they are exposed to the elements, putting them in solitary confinement for decades on end, putting them on feeding tubes when they protest for basic human rights, refuse to pay for medication that prevents them from dying an excruciating death, and charging them fees they can’t afford when they try to sue for human rights.

Prisoners aren’t animals and they aren’t demons from Hell; most are regular people who made a mistake or never had good role models to teach them right from wrong. If you vote to make life harder for prisoners “because they deserve it”, then don’t complain when there’s a tax raise to pay for the massive prison system in the US.
 
Wow, thank you to all and in particular to BornInMarch. Your post was amazing. Good work. I’ll remember this for a long time, I hope.
 
They should focus less on retribution and more on rehabilitation.
I don’t necessarily disagree with anything else you wrote, but this assertion deserves comment. The church has identified four objectives of punishment: rehabilitation, protection, deterrence, and retribution. Of those, the one she identifies as primary is retribution, so while it may well be true that we have focused so heavily on retribution that the other objectives have not received the attention they deserve, neither should we try to balance the scales by trimming the retributive aspect below what is just. Nor did you suggest that; I’m simply pointing out that retributive justice must be satisfied in every case, whether or not it leads to rehabilitation…which doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do everything we can within that limitation to rehabilitate as many as possible.

Ender
 
Ender, thanks to you too, good post. Would it be possible for you to give a reference to a document like the Catechism?
 
I don’t necessarily disagree with anything else you wrote, but this assertion deserves comment. The church has identified four objectives of punishment: rehabilitation, protection, deterrence, and retribution. Of those, the one she identifies as primary is retribution, so while it may well be true that we have focused so heavily on retribution that the other objectives have not received the attention they deserve, neither should we try to balance the scales by trimming the retributive aspect below what is just. Nor did you suggest that; I’m simply pointing out that retributive justice must be satisfied in every case, whether or not it leads to rehabilitation…which doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do everything we can within that limitation to rehabilitate as many as possible.

Ender
I think we run into a bit of a case of Catholic terminology versus popular usage. Less so than a word like ‘disordered’ but similar. Retribution in popular parlance is basically eye for an eye. It’s revenge. However,
Retribution is not vengeance, a discharging of frustration or anguish against the criminal by means of punishment. Properly speaking, retribution is a restoration of the order of justice that was disturbed by the criminal’s behavior.
catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-the-church-change-its-teaching-on-the-death-penalty
 
Personally, I’m in favor of physical punishment for youth offenders (i.e., the cane or the whip) and mandatory restitution in property offenses.
I hope you kidding in your advocacy of physical punishment for children who commit crimes. Do an image search for caning and see what comes up. The results are really awful.
 
Ender, thanks to you too, good post. Would it be possible for you to give a reference to a document like the Catechism?
Sure:CCC 2266 The State’s effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.
As StudentMI pointed out: “…retribution is a restoration of the order of justice that was disturbed by the criminal’s behavior.” This is the primary objective of all punishment; it is a matter of justice which *must *be satisfied.

Ender
 
Punishment supposes for us that the divine integrity of the Eucharist is infallible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top