I think for a lot of us the answer to this question
is obvious. Of course it should. The proposal is actually quite sane, so long as one doesn't indulge in ridiculous extrapolations. The main points to me are:
a) Reduce the costs of the prison system so that more resources can be shifted towards rehabilitation without creating the greatest insult a civilization can hand itself, i.e. to spend more on prisons than on schools; and
b) Reduce the time spent in prisons and gang factories by impressionable young offenders whose fundamental crime was to come of age under difficult circumstances, such that they can apply the early lessons of incarceration to improving their lives rather than just lose all hope.
But that's just me. I'm interested to know what the saner objections are.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
I think the idea foa huge 200 foot deep hole in the Great Basin somewhere is better. It should have a relatively flat bottom, and have the walls verge inward so its nearly impossible to climb out. the worst criminals should be dumped in there with rudimentary materials to make shelters and some sort of drainage system so rain doesn't fill it up. Drop a few buckets of raw meat and rice gruel in there every couple of days, along with huge carboys of water, and just let that be that.
I failed to see any consideration of the efficacy. Granted prisons are inefficient, a replacement or alternative ought to be shown to be more effective with respect to recidivism.
I like Harry's notion, except that would be reserved only for repeat rapists, child molesters, and the most egregious of murderers. And what's this meat luxury? Keep 'em Vegan. That'll larn 'em.
Unqualified Speculation B addresses the issue of recidivism. My thinking is that young convicts may be given a chance to turn to a better path if they can choose intense pain, semi-temporary injury, and public shame in exchange for their freedom. The flogging is meant as a transformative experience, not because these guys haven't already been flogged by life (and parents and rival gangs and so on), but because through it the con can earn a chance at reformation. Obviously it should be coupled with a clear path to take, perhaps in the form of trade schools funded by some of the prison savings. You are of course correct that there is no data upon which to make an objective judgment. When sailors and soldiers were regularly flogged, there was no data collected on the efficacy as normalized against environment.
No. Icky countries do that, so we should not. That's my argument. :)
That's a fair argument. Something to do with being civilized, I think. Can go along with opposition to the DP.
And not to knock being civilized, but we needn't be particularly, and I'm tired of the attempts at trying to be more than we are. We didn't knock off bin Laden and dump him in the ocean because we're as civilized as we can be. We're just too civilized to tie him to the ground and have him torn apart by wild dogs and then throw the remains to the pigs. Pity that.
@Don: "public shame"
The punishment assumes that apprentice criminals feel shame. I suspect it is almost never true.
There are a lot of reasons our crook wouldn't and darned few that he or she would. We lead by example so the news is full of unrepentant politicians and other bad eggs. We lead by religion but most common crooks rarely go to church. And so on.
I think we should flog them only if they are overripe young women, and then humanely using my open hand on their firm round buttocks, because it gratifies the... errr... requirements of our justice system.
But I'm not opposed to the DP, if it is administered only to the clearly guilty, like to that hideous monster Casey Anthony, and in a humane way, such as how we put down Fido.
LOLthrockey
You know the theory that spanking/belting/wooden spooning your kid only teaches them that violence is an acceptable every-day form of resolution? That. I don't think as a culture we should embrace torturing people. (Or killing them either, I am anti-death penalty.) I don't think we want to officialize (is so a word) violence as a good thing that solves problems, except in John Wayne movies and also Bruce Willis. Maybe if you got Bruce Willis to do the flogging I'd be okay with it.
I know a lot of good parents who occasionally spank their kids though, because they see things differently, and I don't think they're bad parents or bad people. It's just not the way I roll. I wouldn't do it to my kid, and as a voter, I wouldn't do it to my fellow citizens.
Yeah, see, I never spanked, and I was never spanked, and I think this is part of my family's propensity for non-violence. Which is a way of saying Teacake is right and I was forgetting that in a rush to fix the system. Everything from fixing cars to redesigning computer components has taught me that when you fix one thing you typically break another. And so ultimately this wouldn't be a step forward.
In other words, states cannot fix what families fail to do. A childhood that leads to crime is going to take at least a childhood's length of time to repair, probably more.
But damn. That costs so much money that could be spent in better schools that help out exactly where needed, or space exploration, or something. Hey wait! So does continually shifting around the wars of the oil empire! (You think pulling out of Afghanistan means peace? Ha ha ha ha ha ha!)
Your challenge, next reader, is to make me flip-flop yet again.
Digging a huge hole in the Nevada desert wouldn't cost that much. By the way, Gekko, I credit my brother with that idea. It would definitely be for the most egregious violent criminals, and maybe politicians on the make. I can imagine, though, that someone would eventually find a way to escape by piling up the numerous skeletons that would no doubt build up after a while. Hmmm....
I like Throckey's idea as well. I would probably sacrifice my time to help administer such justice. If I HAD to, that is. You know, for the good of society.
When this was in the news regarding the American kid who was caught vandalizing public property in Thailand and was going to be caned as his punishment, it was brought up that prisoners in Thailand, when offered lashings in exchange for years in prison, often choose the extra years. Just an insight into how bad caning is.
That though doesn't argue against it being an option.
I remember that case, or maybe a different one in Singapore. Lots of Americans were delighted that the kid would get a whupping.
Of course, lots of places you get both and no say in the matter. This includes American prisons. The whupping (or worse) is just given off the record, by combinations of guards and favored inmates.
I dunno. When my g-g-gdfr signed on as a cabin boy and went round the Horn, I imagine the lash was a common enough implement.
I smacked my girls once in a while and they turned out fantabulous. So there!
So not only do you want to flog young men until they cry, you want to make videos of the flogging available too. Isn't the US penal system barbaric enough for you? Or is this some elaborate hoax to get bleeding hearts like me to fall for your troll?
Close. I enjoy your selectivity in what you choose to read and respond to.
Yeah, Don, I think that case was in Singapore. The kid who got caught spray painting parked cars. My point was that given the choice, people chose a year in prison over a single lash. (The article you cited mentioned giving that choice.) I say this makes a good start on the case for cruel and unusual punishment, so, possibly NOT an option. If our culture slowly changes its ideas of "cruel" and "unusual," then it may be reconsidered. I go on record as hoping we don't get there, that's all. Even if my thinking is all illogical and un-Internet-like.
I like Teacake's reasoning, though I was spanked and did spank. I did it less frequently with each child as I had more time to review and revise my thinking on the matter. Funny thing is, my oldest son, while watching a video of himself at about age 7 (gawd, what a horrible year that was) a couple of years ago said, "Man! I really was a brat, wasn't I?" He's pretty much the reason I began having a change of heart about spanking because one had to be creative in dealing with him if one didn't want to spend one's life spanking. I discovered that I liked myself better when I could discipline without having to resort to force.
Post a Comment