"He deserves to suffer" vs. forgiveness for weakness

[Rhea]

RE: Roanoke Shooter - but any situation with a perpetrator and a victim

I'm disturbed by the reactions some people are having to this murder in Roanoke. I get the emotion, and I have full forgiveness for people doing this thing that disturbs me. I don't dislike the people thinking it. Or even think less of them. My emotion is strictly on the idea - that a man who commits a crime "deserves" pain and punishment in return.

Not my cuppa tea. I don't think anyone "deserves" suffering. That's exactly the mindset that made this man do what he did. Exactly. He thought they did something bad and "deserved" what he was doing. And that's true of so many criminals Not all, of course, some do it for pleasure and those I think should be neutralized, still not "punished."


Not sure if I'm going to say something to the people saying these things. On one hand I would hope it would help people feel less pain sooner if they can step back from their pain into the comfort of "just" grief. On the other, perhaps they are not in a position to find that comforting.

But the "he should live [from his self-inflicted wound] so he can be made to suffer" or even the "he should die before he can confess so that he spends eternity in hell" are both deeply painful to me in EXACTLY the same way the murders themselves are.

The morality of not hurting others requires the morality of this being universal. IMHO.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think it has to do with the notion that there is or should be some kind of balance to the universe. If a person does something bad, the just response is that something bad happens to him in return. It also ties in with the converse view that if you do good, good things will happen to you as a result.

I don't know if that's a particularly bad stance to take. It helps reinforce the idea that there are consequences for actions.

 

[Togo]

Paraphrased and misquoted from a skit by Bird and Fortune

...thinking that keeping someone in prison costs more than keeping them in the Ritz Hotel*, what the guards and bars and things. So if we want to save money, we could simply close the prison down and keep all the prisoners in the Ritz. Saves money all round really.

Yes... umm but what about the bars and guards and things? Wouldn't you still need those?

I don't see why.

Well, what would stop the prisoners from... well, wandering off?

Do people usually wander off from the Ritz? When they have a room paid for?

Yes... yes, I think I see your point, but the thing is that.. I think some people would say that the punishment aspect of the whole prison experience is being somewhat lost there. And I think people feel that the punishment aspect is really quite important, I think people would rather have the punishment aspect than the Justice aspect, if it comes to it.

Well, if they're going to complain when we treat prisoners badly, and complain when we treat them well, I'm not sure what HM Prisons** is really supposed to do.

Well I can see that, certainly, but, well, if you commit crimes and get sentenced to live at the Ritz Hotel... is that what prison is for?

I wouldn't know, I've never met anyone who can tell me what prison is supposed to be for.


* a particularly lush and famous luxury hotel, near Buckingham Palace
** Her Majesty's Prisons Service - i.e. the prison system run by the government. Private prisons are almost unknown in the UK.

 

[Togo]

Ah, ok, I misremembered the entire skit

Here's the original:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCnDS3h1-qI

 

[Brian63]

Rhea,

This is a bit of a tough issue that I find myself somewhat undecided on, and see merit in both positions (of inflicting or not inflicting punishment). Part of the purpose of implementing a carrot-and-stick approach is to make a deterrent for *other people* to not commit those same crimes. If a person knows that they risk spending a long time in jail for robbing and murdering a stranger, that may in part deter them from committing such a crime. To make that deterrent effective at all, it has to be implemented on other people who have already committed that specific crime.

So I see the purpose of putting people in jail is not so much a punishment to that person for what they already did, but rather to serve as a deterrent for other people who may otherwise behave the same way (or even that same person to prevent them from committing the same crime again).

I cannot see either approach (at the present time) as being conclusively right or wrong, moral or immoral. Instead, it is moreso a matter of gradation. The degree of punishment can be excessive, but I do not think punishment in itself is wrong (if it serves as a future deterrent for others).

Brian

 

[Kharakov]

The morality of not hurting others requires the morality of this being universal. IMHO.

Those who are willing to threaten violence or imprisonment in order to hold onto their ill gotten gains aren't exactly going to not use the threat of violence and imprisonment to gold onto their ill gotten gains.

 

[fast]

How about, "earned" instead--or is the pain and punishment the issue?

 

[Rhea]

Rhea,

This is a bit of a tough issue that I find myself somewhat undecided on, and see merit in both positions (of inflicting or not inflicting punishment). Part of the purpose of implementing a carrot-and-stick approach is to make a deterrent for *other people* to not commit those same crimes. If a person knows that they risk spending a long time in jail for robbing and murdering a stranger, that may in part deter them from committing such a crime. To make that deterrent effective at all, it has to be implemented on other people who have already committed that specific crime.

So I see the purpose of putting people in jail is not so much a punishment to that person for what they already did, but rather to serve as a deterrent for other people who may otherwise behave the same way (or even that same person to prevent them from committing the same crime again).

I cannot see either approach (at the present time) as being conclusively right or wrong, moral or immoral. Instead, it is moreso a matter of gradation. The degree of punishment can be excessive, but I do not think punishment in itself is wrong (if it serves as a future deterrent for others).

Brian

I see your point and I think there is a place for deterrence without needing "punishment.". The deterrent is being unable to participate in society. This is not a punishment; it's not done in order to make them feel the pain of separation. It is done to make society safe from them. The incarceration of a jail term does not have to be to inflict harm/discomfort/pain or even regret. It can be done, "if you cannot follow rules, you will have to be restrained." And that is very different from, "I want you in jail and raped up the ass without lube and fed gruel and made to shit in a bucket because you deserve to hurt for what you did."

I agree that dangerous people need to be removed. And I regret the necessity of it, but I agree that it is indeed necessary to protect society. And that removal does not ever have to be combined with the message that "making them feel the hurt" has any part of that.

Does that make sense?

 

[Brian63]

I definitely see that perspective on it, I am just undecided on how much it is valid or invalid in this complex issue. I definitely do not think prisoners should be overtly punished while in prision through methods like being raped, fed gruel, made to shit in a bucket, etc. I just do not think that they should be accommodated with pleasantries either (I would guess you have a similar viewpoint). It is just a question of where in the middle of those 2 extremes should we take our position. No clear cut answers there.

Brian

 

[Rhea]

Yes, that becomes the discussion: what is torture, what is not. To dip a toe into that, there are some broad categories that I feel make a good package and yet I know others disagree.

I'd propose these as being things that should be provided to avoid becoming a torturer as bad as the person you are incarcerating. Most of these are important in a practical sense for any prisoner that has less than a life sentence. If they are ever to rejoin society, we should not want them to rejoin with hateful feelings toward that society. That would be stupid as well as immoral. The goal of productive and moral intersect, IMHO, in making sure that we do nothing to validate the flawed feeling that when someone wrongs you it is appropriate to make them feel the pain you are feeling.

- Safety. Whatever it takes to make sure the prison population is safe from itself. And if that means smaller prisons so that criminal activitiy is minimized, then it should be done. Letting crimes happen to inmates is the same as committing those crimes on the inmates.
- Nutritious food. Adequate and with enough variation that you are not using that as a means of punishment itself. Something like school lunches. Yes, including desserts several times a week.
- Mental stimulation. Anything less than trying to help them improve their minds and spirits is a detriment to ourselves. Every elementary school teacher knows that if you can mentally stimulate an atmosphere, you can override the habits of bad behavior. "Don't tell them what not to do, tell them what _to_ do." So yes to school classes, yes to trades, crafts and skills. It's worth it to reduce recidivism upon release as well as order while incarcerated, as soon as one can get over the objection that it's fun or beneficial and therefore to be withheld in order to punish.
- Physical stimulation. Exercise, sports, work. All/any of these are as important as mental stimulation.
- Avoid solitary confinement as punishment. If it is needed for safety, it should never include deprivation of any of the above.


Many people say these ideas add up to a "country club."
I would counter, any community that lacks these things on the outside deserves public assistance to enact them. Because incarcerated or not, lack of these things for any of our citizens harms our own community and we should be running to eliminate them for our own sake.

 

[Togo]

Many people say these ideas add up to a "country club."

So let's have a country club.

Look, prisons for long-term incarceration are run by prisoners. They always have been. If something breaks, a prisoner fixes, it. If something needs cleaning, a prisoner cleans it. You want cooked food, prisoners cook it. Noone is going to spring for funds to rennovate prisons while schools still have peeling paintwork. You can't have guards doing prison services and guarding the prisoners at the same time, and guards are too expensive to do much beyond guarding.

So what we do at present is encourage the prisoners to make each other's lives unpleasant. It's nuts. We have thousands of people, day in, day out, being trained to regard other people as victims and to build socieities where people make each other's lives hell. What happens when they get out?

So heck with it. You won't manage anything as nice as a country club, but you can try. You want prisoners to organise soccer matches and have a league? Let them. You want to have them training eachother in carpentry and metalwork? Why not? If prisoners can make sun loungers, a swimming pool, and a bar, and arrange to use them peacefully between themselves, let them have them. It's cheaper than stopping them, it's a much much better example of how to live life then covertly encouraging penal rape, and they learn some useful skills into the bargain. Yes you get members of the public asking why maximum security prisons have ice cream vans visiting, yes springing for chlorine for a swimming pool may look strange for people who are there because they comitted crimes, but I'd rather they learned how to build and manage a public leisure facility than learn that they are helpless in the face of people with guns who want them to suffer, because that's the example they'll using as the basis for their life on release.

So let them build a country club, if they can manage it. Let them understand all the skills that go into building, running and making decisions about such a place. Let them have the experience of dealing with people like themselves. Let them understand that other people ultimately want them to be happy and productive, and let them learn how to do that.

 

[Brian63]

Making prison life more appealing would just make it more inviting though for people to commit crimes in the first place, all else being equal. So it seems we do have an incentive to not only have prison serve as a place where criminals are kept secluded from the rest of society, but to also make their lifestyle there not very pleasant or appealing as well. It is just a matter of degree, not if/or. Where we as individuals have different preferences, I do not see anyone as being right or wrong, just having different values and goals. So I do not know how to settle these kinds of disagreements either, but am open to suggestions and good discussion on the matter like this.

Brian

 

[Rhea]

I expect the percent of people who would prefer a decent prison life to a free life is so small that it is worth taking a look at whatever is so wrong with them that this seems like a better option and providing it.

I know there are indeed some people for whom free life is so difficult that prison seems preferable. If we ask ourselves what kinds of contributions those people make, we might conclude that their volunteering for prison is a good thing.

AND we might conclude that a semi-monastic-style life is a not-bad addition to public-housing solutions. We have public housing and food assistance with medicaid. If some of the people in that system would _prefer_ a more "locked down" version if it gives them some feeling of security/order/meaning that the other systems lack, maybe it's a good thing to offer. If they feel that life would be safer with mandatory lights-out, supervised outdoor time and a guaranteed subsistence job what is wrong with making that part of the social support network? The Monks and the Nuns seemed to have reasons to choose that...

(edited to note: This is all opinion and open to discussion. Not something I'm arguing is fact.)

 

[fromderinside]

Social systems should be constructed to facilitate social commerce while taking into account individual tendencies. Society needs to be protected at some level against the harm one who tends to behave counter to accepted social norms. Since no society is anywhere near that I guess it comes down to where and what are social norms and how does one encourage consistent behavior by people around those norms.

What I've read so far seems to cleave along humanistic lines where trying to justify anger management by moral guides isn't really adequate on any combination of punish, tolerate, condition spheres. Either one isn't satisfied or one isn't encouraged enough to be agreeable and consistent for everyone here. Talk of torture seems a bit too broad for the discussion.

Confused? Youbetcha. My thoughts range from the impossibility of immediate reinforcement as a inhibitor to the silliness of punishment as a moral principle. Solutions must come from changes in society relative to how people treat people rather than in changes in the scofflaw and punishment systems.

There will be scoff law types in any society. Tolerate or remove, when to sanction and how to sanction, can all be changed by changing the parameters whereby who is going to be a scofflaw is determined. I'm convinced that if needs are met anger is reduced, if authorities take peaceful positions and demonstrate peaceful behavior access to harmful tools and behaviors are minimized.

Now, in our age proper collars can be made to control those who just have to step outside norms so far that they cause social harm (kill, rape, beat, deny access, restrain others). Something other than permanently changing brains is my kind of a solution and something other than imprisonment is my kind of remedy.

 

[Bomb#20]

You want to have them training eachother in carpentry and metalwork? Why not?

Do you have in mind any method to prevent them from making weapons?

 

[fromderinside]

You want to have them training eachother in carpentry and metalwork? Why not?

Do you have in mind any method to prevent them from making weapons?

My view is that sort of thing can be influenced by ethical and social modeled practices by authority groups.

 

[Brian63]

I expect the percent of people who would prefer a decent prison life to a free life is so small that it is worth taking a look at whatever is so wrong with them that this seems like a better option and providing it.

I know there are indeed some people for whom free life is so difficult that prison seems preferable. If we ask ourselves what kinds of contributions those people make, we might conclude that their volunteering for prison is a good thing.

Admittedly I do not have any stats or numbers, but just hold a different view on the relative size of such a group, and think it is larger than anticipated. Comparing for people who are homeless or otherwise economically in a poor position, the alternative between remaining in that disadvantaged state versus a sustaining prison, the latter may very well be more appealing for a large size of people.

AND we might conclude that a semi-monastic-style life is a not-bad addition to public-housing solutions. We have public housing and food assistance with medicaid. If some of the people in that system would _prefer_ a more "locked down" version if it gives them some feeling of security/order/meaning that the other systems lack, maybe it's a good thing to offer.

Well, it is not just something that is being offered, as if it was a gift or charity. It is a punishment for people who commit particular crimes. Convicts are put there, not just people with poor finances and home conditions.

If they feel that life would be safer with mandatory lights-out, supervised outdoor time and a guaranteed subsistence job what is wrong with making that part of the social support network? The Monks and the Nuns seemed to have reasons to choose that...

The important point is that it is not part of a "social support network." It is a prison for people who commit certain terrible crimes. That is why I do not think it should be appealing at all in any way. It would effectively be rewarding people who commit those acts. I am not sure if I am just misreading your point in some way here.

Brian

 

[Rhea]

Admittedly I do not have any stats or numbers, but just hold a different view on the relative size of such a group, and think it is larger than anticipated. Comparing for people who are homeless or otherwise economically in a poor position, the alternative between remaining in that disadvantaged state versus a sustaining prison, the latter may very well be more appealing for a large size of people.

AND we might conclude that a semi-monastic-style life is a not-bad addition to public-housing solutions. We have public housing and food assistance with medicaid. If some of the people in that system would _prefer_ a more "locked down" version if it gives them some feeling of security/order/meaning that the other systems lack, maybe it's a good thing to offer.

Well, it is not just something that is being offered, as if it was a gift or charity. It is a punishment for people who commit particular crimes. Convicts are put there, not just people with poor finances and home conditions.

If they feel that life would be safer with mandatory lights-out, supervised outdoor time and a guaranteed subsistence job what is wrong with making that part of the social support network? The Monks and the Nuns seemed to have reasons to choose that...

The important point is that it is not part of a "social support network." It is a prison for people who commit certain terrible crimes. That is why I do not think it should be appealing at all in any way. It would effectively be rewarding people who commit those acts. I am not sure if I am just misreading your point in some way here.

Brian

I think I agree with you - I was separating the ones who commit crimes because they are criminals from those who you were suggesting would commits crimes just to get into the prison country club because it's better than street life. If there's a sizable population that enters prison because it is preferable to street life, then it speaks to a need to just build a place for them to enter voluntarily if they wish. Unless I misunderstood you?

 

[Brian63]

If there's a sizable population that enters prison because it is preferable to street life, then it speaks to a need to just build a place for them to enter voluntarily if they wish. Unless I misunderstood you?

I was not making that specific point, but overall agree with it still. That seems like the most optimal (or least worst) solution, as far as I can tell.

Brian

 

[bilby]

If there's a sizable population that enters prison because it is preferable to street life, then it speaks to a need to just build a place for them to enter voluntarily if they wish. Unless I misunderstood you?

I was not making that specific point, but overall agree with it still. That seems like the most optimal (or least worst) solution, as far as I can tell.

Brian

It has always struck me as odd that America is so keen to deny sufficient assistance to the poor as to allow them to live comfortably without resorting to crime; and that they then spend vastly more public money than that assistance would have needed, to incarcerate them in jails once they do break the law.

It's a LOT cheaper to just give everyone who wants one a flat-screen TV, than it is to imprison those who, in the absence of such an item, will go out and steal one. The taxpayers are actually better off if their funds go to buying TVs for the poor - not only does that cost less of their tax money, but it also means they don't have their windows broken and their TV go missing.