Should society be nicer to criminals?

[Genesis315]

The police are there to defend and apprehend, not punish. They should use the minimal force necessary to accomplish those ends.

If a suspect is duly convicted, public authority should inflict a punishment commensurate with the crime to redress the disorder caused by the offense.

If the punishment is imprisonment, having to deal with violence from other prisoners should not be considered part of said just punishment. Unlike public authority, those prisoners have no right to punish. Any injustices they commit in prison should be treated and punished the same as injustices committed outside of prison.

As for level of comfort in prison, again, the punishment must be commensurate with the crime. Deprivation of certain comforts or even the infliction of pain can be valid forms of punishment when proportionate–but generally the infliction of pain as a punishment lasts exponentially shorter than a prison term which is more of a very drawn our infliction of less acute discomfort (not to mention psychological discomfort involved, etc.).

Somewhat along those lines, here’s an interesting article from the Boston Globe proposing giving convicts the option of choosing corporal punishment or imprisonment.

Let convicts choose: Prison or the lash? - The Boston Globe

 

[Theban]

How common is it in Norwegian jails?

Fairly common, although the only statistics being reported is about inmate on guard violence. Even these are very well hidden, though, so the latest numbers I could find was that there were a total of about 100 incidents of violence against guards in 2014, and a more recent report from 2019 say that there has been a significant increase, but it omits the actual numbers, which is odd.

Still, the common knowledge says that violence is a big problem in Norwegian prisons, and famous criminals are especially targeted.

 

[BartholomewB]

Does Anders Breivik enjoy special protection? I imagine he might need it. Is he allowed to mix with the other prisoners?

 

[Theban]

He is completely isolated except for prison workers, and has been for seven years since his last visit from his mother. A few years ago his lawyer managed to get the court to agree to allow him some social contact with other inmates, which was done for the first time earlier this year, with one person visiting him.

On a side note, I found a number of inmate on inmate violence from 2014; where a study had found that 13% of inmates had been assaulted in the last year after incarceration.

 

[VonDerTann]

I don’t think much of what you write is really all that controversial (except for flogging).

As to that, part of why we jail people is simply to lock people up so they have no opportunity to commit crimes against the public for X years. In addition to the Constitution forbidding “cruel and unusual punishment,” there will surely be some people who, if offered flogging or jail, will accept flogging just so they can get back to committing more crimes sooner.

What I like, by contrast, is public shaming: Make a person walk around with a placard saying what they did. Some judges have given that out as a sentence and I believe it has passed constitutional muster IIRC.

 

[dochawk]

but I’m thinking the cost to taxpayers would be huge unless the rate of incarceration is very low

I suspect they more than make up for the cost in security . . .

. (Technically, America has more people in “prison” but if you count China’s concentration camps, then China comes out ahead, though America might be winning on a per capita basis.)

You also have to count those that aren’t in prison because they received a bullet to the back of the head (for which I understand the family is charged!)

Also, Norway seems to have a lower RE-incarceration rate.

That is a critical piece o the puzzle . . .

I think the problem that I have with this is that there are two aspects to punishment - remedial and retributive

That’s two of the four. There is also incapacitation (while imprisoned, can’t commit more crimes), and deference (both to that individual and to others).

Most states in the US care from one to three of these as the purpose. IIRC, when I was in law school, not a single state cited all four.

And note that the term “reformatory” came from the Quaker approach of locking him up with nothing else to read or do but the provided Bible . . .

 

[StudentMI]

I don’t think much of what you write is really all that controversial (except for flogging).

Here’s another article about a guy who wrote an entire book on the subject.

Flogging Prisoners--Better Than the Lousy System We've Got?

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

And note that the term “reformatory” came from the Quaker approach of locking him up with nothing else to read or do but the provided Bible . . .

Not quite—they were allowed to ply their trade, they could have tools and things to keep busy.
But they were kept away from the other prisoners.

 

[Nepperhan]

The big news lately is of course the mistreatment of George Floyd while he was under arrest, this has got us all asking the big question: how well should society accommodate those who break the law? many have said that criminals should expect to be met with potential rough treatment by police and all injuries or deaths suffered by the criminal are deserved as they should not expect to be treated with kid gloves.

Well, the first obvious thing you miss is that arrestees under our system of government are guilty of exactly nothing. So your inquiry involves how we should treat people who are innocent, or at least not guilty. They are certainly not criminals; not in a legal (or fairly often actual) sense.

I have been arrested more than once. Have you?

 

[Nepperhan]

In the US, a good argument can be made that criminals are already treated much too well: Prisons have TVs; full law libraries so inmates can pursue endless appeals; and gyms; the new model for prisons is “open concept” prisons where inmates spend little time in cells and more time in common areas; prisoners have access to lawyers, medical care, and religious services. An argument can be made that a large part of the crime problem in the US is that many people don’t really fear prisons, as they may have in, say, the 1950s.

I have dealt with prison issues for 40 years and you are mistaken. Your statement that inmates are treated with dignity shows a lack of familiarity with anal inspection which are often mandatory before court appearances. Think about that-- every day for 14 days running after which a person could be found not guilty. There are reasons that prisons are known as the ‘house of pain’. Any sane person fears and avoids going to prison.

Then we have set up a society of constitutional rights. It would be hypocritical to have such rights but not a method of people using them, such as habeas pleas. The annoyance of allowing legal pleas by prisoners is one of the things our society should just allow, if we believe in the Constitution. I think there’s something in that document prohibiting ‘cruel and unusual punishments.’

We have a problem in imprisoning too many people for too long. Judges have too little leeway as to sentences. Think also: What politician recently has run on a platform of being softer on crime? It is clear that some sentences make no sense. Mandatory minimums need to be erased from most offenses.

Lastly, consider the Portuguese experiment, which was highlighted by the Cato Institute. Use of illegal drugs is treated as a medical problem. Consequently the whole illegal drug system in that nation has collapsed. Unfortunately, there is no political will in the US for eliminating the profit in selling illegal drugs.

 

[Pattylt]

Lastly, consider the Portuguese experiment,

I read about that experiment. Is it still ongoing? The man who originated it had amazing results despite all the reservations others had. It’s a fascinating experiment and I’d love to see it expanded to other countries…including ours. It’s a tough sell, though.

 

[Welshrabbit]

I have been arrested more than once.

Story time!

I’ve only been detained by police once after getting in a fight.

Your post about the realities of prison is spot on. Prisons are terrible places. After briefly visiting several jails and prisons in various states across the USA, I can safely say that one of my greatest fears is going to prison.

 

[Pattylt]

If anyone would like information on the Portugal experiment…

Drug policy of Portugal - Wikipedia

 

[VonDerTann]

I’m sorry, but I respectfully think you are wrong, and nothing you write causes me to revisit my post.

First, my comments about what are provided to inmates, at taxpayer expense, is in fact accurate (all these things, like gyms, cable TV, etc.), and in fact you do not challenge them.

Now, some other musings:

–I have no idea what you mean by you have “dealt with prison issues.” Does that mean you are a prosecutor? Judge? Senior corrections officer directing 20 subordinate officers? I too have in fact “dealt with these issues” as an attorney for (editing out what I do), and I have frequently litigated jail conditions in federal district court for many years.

–Really, your entire argument comes down to you not liking anal inspections. If you really know prisons as you say, you would know these searches are necessary given the ways inmates smuggle weapons, drugs, etc., into jails. You’d also know that pre-court searches are generally done at judicial direction, not those of the prisons themselves.

–As to doing away with mandatory sentences, a child rapist in Vermont a few years ago was sentenced by a judge to essentially no jail time, so he could “get help.” The judge was nearly tarred and feathered, righty so: I’d be curious exactly what crimes you’d like no minimum sentences for.

Lastly, you write this:

It would be hypocritical to have such rights but not a method of people using them, such as habeas pleas. The annoyance of allowing legal pleas by prisoners is one of the things our society should just allow, if we believe in the Constitution.

–I have been a lawyer for 20 years and I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[PetraG]

It seems to me the first person guaranteed a ticket straight to Paradise was a fellow who admitted he deserved the death penalty.

I think many people who have experience with our justice system would settle for fair, decent or humane and forget about “nice.”

But hey, find me somewhere in the prophets of old or in any of the New Testament where the Word of God condemns how much decency there is being given to prisoners, and we’ll talk some more. It strikes me more as a “I desire mercy and not sacrifice” message.

Keeping people from committing more crimes is preserving them from a near occasion of sin and preserving the safety of the public. That doesn’t require a lot of distractions, but neither does it call for demeaning and inherently demoralizing conditions, either.

 

[MNathaniel]

Um, this question seems strangely phrased, to me.

1. All people in civil society must be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, so for a starter we can’t just call people “criminals” at the point of an interaction with police.
2. Society should treat everybody ‘well’, and ‘humanely’. Whatever degree of punishment is warranted for a crime, let that be decided in a court of law, after a judge has weighed out the evidence and found an individual guilty of the crime, and then let that punishment (and hopefully, rehabilitative program) be implemented carefully and with full respect for the human dignity of everyone involved. Whatever evil an individual may have committed, society should not stoop to the level of perpetuating evil itself.
3. This is not a zero sum game where we have to decide between “police lives” OR “criminal lives”. We can value all human lives and work towards helping police safely, professionally, humanely protect the communities they serve. The George Floyd incident was a cop kneeling on the neck of a man who couldn’t breath, while the man posed no threat. That’s not a necessary degree of “rough treatment”, to use your phrase. Minimal force necessary is an important principle. I don’t think using George Floyd’s name in the context of the question you’re asking is a wise idea, because his case seems so disconnected from the type of hypothetical case where the police were at risk and needed to use the force deployed.

 

[pnewton]

The judge was nearly tarred and feathered, righty so: I’d be curious exactly what crimes you’d like no minimum sentences for.

Drug possession. Theft. Property crimes. Non-aggravated assaults. Basically, anything for which some alternative punishment can be derived should be sufficient. Furthermore, in this day and age, house arrests should be something that could be arranged even in cases that require confinement. A simple punishment of added time could be used when the confinement was violated with prison being the alternative to chronic violation.

 

[NoelFitz]

Thanks for all contributing to this very important thread.
First of all one should start with seeing why people are incarcerated.
There are several reasons:

• protect society;
• punish criminals;
• reform criminals;
• compensate victims;
• discourage criminal activity.
  Other reasons could be given.
  Then one should seek how to achieve the aims one considers positive.

 

[VonDerTann]

–Does that mean no minimum sentences? Or no sentences at all, i.e., house arrest?

–Property crimes. Like…looting? Theft? Does that include stealing $2.4 million in Rolexes from Rolex’s flagship store in New York, as happened last week? Should we have no sentences for that? House arrest? Just curious what’s a “property crime” or “theft” which should carry no minimum sentence.

–And in light of all these calls to “defund police,” I’d say perhaps your dream isn’t too far off. We’ll see how that works out for the law-abiding.

Perhaps we send some strongly worded letters to the perpetrators, and send social workers to the scene! Maybe that would not tread on rights of the looters…uh…I mean socially-conscious protesters.

 

[pnewton]

That is a good list. I would add two notes though. One, incarceration prevents the ability to compensate victims. Two, the concept of what a defines crime is based in statutory criminal law, which can be changed. For example, going to prison for these purpose for those criminals who used marijuana became moot when using marijuana ceased to be a crime, like other things in the past have ceased do be a crime.

I think you list should be used to re-evaluate all that which is a crime to see what can be removed. I fear sometimes our “crimes” which are defined to protect people against themselves are a little too much like shooting a guy on a ledge to stop him from jumping. Sure, it prevented the suicide, but it doesn’t make much sense.