On Cruel and Continuing Punishment
Blubs of Verbs, Commentary Comments (4)
You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man’s initiative and independence. -Abraham Lincoln
Back, not so long ago, there was a time when a man did a crime, he did his time, and went on with life. What he did, depending on the severity, was a mistake which he paid for, and so, the state and the people having made it clear he was wrong, then gave allowed him back into society.
That is no longer the case.
Prision now, makes careeer criminals. It is rare, rare, the person who goes to prison now, does not return to prision. Thin about how fast the world is moving now, then, let’s lock you away from the knowledge of the last say 5 year( a burglery charge) . It’s a life time of technology and progress, politics and people. TV and corporate america. Worse, prison is so brutal now, one litterally has to learn to survive by becoming a criminal.
We have 1 million people in prison, the highest of every developed nation, and yet, we continue to punish the guilty and let others wonder about. There are crimes that rise to a level of brutality that there is no reprieve, but it stands to reason if one is let out of prision, how much punishment is level to administer? We have lists for people, (sex offenders) and yet none for kidnappers or Murders. I understand the list; those who are clinically bound to do it again. But now some communicates are actually walling them away from the rest of everyone else. Don’t get me wrong, sex offenders (in my mind) pretty much need to be taken out back and shot, but there are 99 ways on the sex offender list, and zero ways off. Get too rowdy at spring break and Minor sees you, and you get on the list, which isn’t why the list was invented. It’s just abuse now. What about those guys from Duke, charged with a sex offense? Their lives are pretty much ruined and it’s been proven they didn’t do their crime.
Cruel and unsual used to stand for the immediate punishement, now it stands for a life time of punishment by society. Unable to vote in some states, every application is automatica denial, complete and continuous harassment. There are those who are accidental criminals, yet, true high level career criminals live better than those who made a mistake and seek to move on. No one helps them move on, and the state should. I am speaking of course beyond sex offenses, murder and so on. Burglary can get you sent up pretty quick, one can do hard time for tripping your way into “special circumstances.” that changes a sentence from 1 to 5 years.
No, I don’t want the Con man doing telecommunications for AT&T while in prison, and that’s prison labor, just above slave labor. But if you were stupid and accidently hurt someone at a bar, or lord forbid someone died, one faces a life time of being shunned and menial jobs upon reentering society. I argue that it’s far better to help someone reintegrate into society, than have him use what he learned in 5 years of prison when he gets out.
Fixing justice has to be on both sides of the judicial coin also. I advocate giving judges the ability to make certain swing decisions, or at least lower the mandatory sentences. The Supreme court agrees, mandatory sentences are becoming a problem, as is adding sentences for crimes that the offender wasn’t charged with. Mandatory sentences were put in by congress because they were trying to be fair in giving out sentences. but there is a dirty secret. The mandatory sentence was on the far high sides, because congress was upset the sentences were weak. It stands to reason, anytime we move to the high-side of punishment we run into constitutional and moral problems. Giving someone with 5 ounces of crack 10 the same sentence, as someone with 10 Kilo’s of Coke, seems pretty outrageous to normal people. It should seem pretty outrageous to you.
There is ample evidence that making the crime law tougher does not acutally stop crimie, or criminals. Career criminals will always be around, I think it’s time we just stop punishing those who made a mistake. Weeding them out isn’t hard, the trial and circumstances of their crime did that. The three strikes law is lopsided but isn’t unconstitutional, just morally wrong. Caught 3 time stealing a car (without a gun or violence,) that’s 25 to life , kill 3 people, 25 years to life. Which one really is a danger to you and me?
I’m not a criminal advocate and No one said justice was fair, but it shouldn’t get you coming and going and then 10 years after. I believe in a simple theory: Do your crime, do your (reasonable) time. But I think you should be able to (if you want to ) move on with life and hopefully pick up the pieces without it hanging over you forever and ever and ever. That’s what it used to be, and what it should be again. There is more evidence of rehabilitation working in places in like california where criminals are working in registered companies that employees past criminals doing -real- jobs and gaining real wages.
At the moment, rare is the option for rehabilitation and that is the true cruelty.
OceansOfThought @ April 16, 2008
This should come as no surprise, but I’ve got a few opinions on slight variations of this topic.
First of all, you talk about how things “used to be” when men were treated fairly by the judicial system, and I think that is a false image ingrained in many minds by the perpetuations of our media. We’re led to believe that an ideal scenario actually happened at some point (call it the “leave it to beaver” syndrome if you will). Husbands weren’t all sober and kind to their wives, neighbors weren’t always friendly and helpful, government wasn’t always led by honorable men, and criminals weren’t always treated fairly.
Throughout history “criminals” have been fed to lions, imprisoned for stealing bread, killed because of their brother’s involvement in organized crime (or opposing it), women have been (and are) stoned for adultery while their male counterparts roam free, people were hung for being different, burned for speaking out, shackled for having ideas, exiled for writing, the list goes on and on.
Anyhow, that’s not my real point. Rehabilitative measures are a band-aid (at best) for the problem of “increasing” criminal offenses. The real solutions need to be addressed much earlier; why do people commit crimes? Some because they’re psychotic/sociopathic (in which case rehabilitation is useless), but not most offenses happen because of poverty, the only way out of this is education. People need to be taught how to act, how to take care of themselves, how to respect themselves and others, to have pride in doing well, etc.
This is increasingly difficult in ever-expanding subcultures that don’t place an inherent value on education or intellect. This is never a popular solution because it takes time, time, money, and time. Everyone wants a solution now, but we need to look to the situation in 20 years when the criminals’ children have followed their fathers’ examples. We need to teach these children to fish while they still want to learn.
All very good points. One thing i like to stress is that my part about “the good days for criminals” extened to when cruel and unusual punishment actual was enforced. Feeding people to lions was not of that era. Infact , the era of “a good prison” was 1900 to world war II in America, specifically. That’s when you basically did your crime, did your time and were out. Proabition, Hitler and the depression made us (as a nation) rather stalwart, angry and unforgiving.
As for it being a band-aid. Yes. It is…, education is the way to go but i’m specifically speaking about what happens to educated people who enter the crimial justice system. For example. Say a red light is run and you get pulled over. You can be arrested. The ticket says so. We, as a people, are aghast at the stupid waste of time to arrest someone under those circumstances, yet if you are, you now face 12 hours of processing, and multiple days of court fees and appearances. And that’s if you plead guilty! It’s not really hard for people to fall into the cracks.
But on Criminals. “i stole from a store.” I believe, you stole, and you go to jail. Why can’t you vote when you get out? Why are you automatically disqualifed from a job? Sure you could do it again, but what if the circumstances mattered? I think they should matter. After all, you were not Ted Bundy.
You speak as though all crimes are treated equally. The voting thing only really applies to felons, and someone that just “stole from a store” generally doens’t quite fit into this category. Also, most states don’t remove the voting rights indefinately, they are either automatically reinstated or can be petitioned, depending on where you live. Another thing, moving violations (ie. traffic tickets) are not felonies unless you kill someone (vehicular homicide) or if you become violent upon arrest. I don’t particularly like to defend the man, but in this case I think it’s important to know the rules you’re protesting.
Normally, or 9 times out of 10 the things I post on don’t have anything to do with me but i can definitively say that i’ve been taken to jail on a moving violation. It’s an option the police CAN exorcise and in my situation it was. My original posting was on a Jon Stewarts wife, who got caught up for a moving violation, then was taken in on a suspended liscense (because the state had not yet cashed her check) and had to be bailed out after hours of processing. In reading about that, i wondered how long and how much money a small oversite by the state would have cost us in fees, court time and effort, just so the state can go “whoops”. That was where i got the “tickets” example from.
I don’t think all crimes are to be treated equally, infact that’s the point of my post, that crimes are definately not to be treated equally. And yes, i know different amalgum of states have different laws for different criminals and felonies. In California i can be sent for 25 years to life for stealing 10 packs of Cig on 3 occassions, or i can murder someone. The punishment itself isn’t bad +3 crimes means habitual-, just the relating to other crimes is slightly (ok obviously jacked). Because of Mandataory sentencing laws, a judge has to give me (in the cig example 25 years when really , 5 or 10 is more apporitate). In that case, i might as well shoot someone, i’m getting the time anyway.
[used self as an example only in the stealing and killing people thing. don’t know one panic.]
I’ll try to be clearer in the future.