Crimes, Prison And Rehabilitation

[HaloNoble6]

(Split from another thread)

So Dave, are you saying that the penal system should try and rehabilitate criminals? If so, how do you justify this, given an understanding of the proper role of government?

Edited October 10, 2005 by softwareNerd

[colin]

Doesn't the protection of other individuals from the use of force make it prudent for rehabilitation of criminals to take place particularily if they are to be released from custody at some point?

[HaloNoble6]

See, rehabilitation is a slippery slope.

First, the mind can't be forced. It is contra man's identity to be forced. Second, now you're placing the control of the concept "rehabilitated" in government hands, which is an agent of force. So, you have the government trying to force it's own notion of what "rehabilitated" means onto the minds of men.

I say the government is an agent of force, and should stick to forcing punishment (in criminal courts) and forcing retribution (in civil courts). Placing the control of "molding the minds of criminals to be fit for society" in government hands is also not part of the defense of rights. How does rehabilitation consist of a defense of rights? I say the government retaliates against the use or threat of force, not preempts by molding the minds of proven initiators of force.

[DavidOdden]

So Dave, are you saying that the penal system should try and rehabilitate criminals?

No, I'm saying that the person should be excluded from society until it is evident that he is rehabilitated. It's not the government's job to do the rehabilitation.

Doesn't the protection of other individuals from the use of force make it prudent for rehabilitation of criminals to take place particularily if they are to be released from custody at some point?

Then you've come to the right conclusion: permanent exclusion from society ought to be the starting point for societal-protection types of punishments. If it is provable that the person is rehabilitated, an argument can be made for release. The "if they are to be released" part is not at all a given.

[colin]

I think you are defining rehabilitation too narrowly. It is not necessary to force a man's mind in order that he be rehabilitated. He can learn that he is in error or he can learn that he does not want to go to prison again and so be rehabilitated to the extent that he is unlikely to reoffend. The point of rehabilitation is that a man should not be released into society until such time as he is unlikely to reoffend. Whether that happens by way of education or deterence is beside the point.

To clarify. My response was to Felipe. I didn't see David's response before I posted. Sorry.

[HaloNoble6]

I guess I disagree with you guys. I see no role for government in rehabilitation whatsoever. The government's job is to defend the rights of its citizens when under attack or under threat of attack. I don't see rehabilitation is a direct response to either the use of force or the threat of the use of force.

When a criminal breaks the law, the law's job is to outline the punishment for breaking such a law, in the criminal courts, and the civil courts should determine the nature of the value lost that ought to be returned, if at all possible, to the victims of the law-breaker. Rehabilitation has no place in any of this. Unless, of course, you loosely call punishment rehabilitation, but that's rather sketchy, since the point of punishment is not rehabilitation, it's justice.

[DavidOdden]

I guess I disagree with you guys. I see no role for government in rehabilitation whatsoever. The government's job is to defend the rights of its citizens when under attack or under threat of attack. I don't see rehabilitation is a direct response to either the use of force or the threat of the use of force.

The only relevance of rehabilitation to the proper function of government is in connection with the rights-protecting function of government. Specifically, a criminal who has demonstrated a willingness to stomp on other people's rights should be excluded from society until is it proven that they no longer threaten others (i.e. are rehabilitated). That does not imply that the government has any obligation to bring about that state of rehabilitation -- simply that that is the standard that should be applied when considering whether a rights-violator should be allowed to go free. Do you agree to that? 'Cuz if not, then I'm puzzled. If you think that a person who threatens others should be locked away forever with no chance of release, well that's kind of draconian but at least I could understand that position. If you think that a person who threatens others should not be locked away, then lemme try to persuade you that that position is in error. And if you think that the threat automatically disappears after a statutorily-fixed period of time, then I think I can also persuade you that that's wrong, and that a judgement based on observation of facts needs to be made,before letting a murderer or rapist loose on society again.

[jrs]

Specifically, a criminal who has demonstrated a willingness to stomp on other people's rights should be excluded from society until is it proven that they no longer threaten others (i.e. are rehabilitated). That does not imply that the government has any obligation to bring about that state of rehabilitation -- simply that that is the standard that should be applied when considering whether a rights-violator should be allowed to go free.

How do you know whether a criminal has been rehabilitated?

My impression is that parole boards have frequently made mistakes when deciding this.

[DavidOdden]

How do you know whether a criminal has been rehabilitated? My impression is that parole boards have frequently made mistakes when deciding this.

I don't have any concrete suggestions. On the scale of my interests, criminal and deviant psychology is at the far end of disinterest. I don't think we can learn a whole lot about the problem in the current social and legal context, when the system begins with the false assumption that it is the state's responsibility to save souls, when victimless crimes account for the majority of inmates, and when the whole concept of the proper relationship between the individual and society is so twisted. Given that a person is so dangerous to others that his being free constitutes a threat against others, and therefore he must be excluded from society, you need very good evidence that he has reformed. I suppose that one way to assure that is for a post-parole conviction to always result in summary execution. The question of how to tell if a person is reformed is hard to answer, but that difficulty should not get in the way of the state performing its proper function of protecting innocents from violation of their rights.

[HaloNoble6]

The only relevance of rehabilitation to the proper function of government is in connection with the rights-protecting function of government. Specifically, a criminal who has demonstrated a willingness to stomp on other people's rights should be excluded from society until is it proven that they no longer threaten others (i.e. are rehabilitated). That does not imply that the government has any obligation to bring about that state of rehabilitation -- simply that is the standard that should be applied when considering whether a rights-violator should be allowed to go free. Do you agree to that?

No, I don't.

I wish to uphold the principles of Objective Law, and these are: Laws should be clearly outlined pronouncements that specify what is forbidden, why it is forbidden (here connecting them with an objective view of individual rights), what constitutes a violation of these pronouncements, and what penalty will be incurred by someone, based on the principle of proportional punishment (where the criminal is subjected to punishment that is proportional to the harm he inflicted on his victim(s)), were they to violate these pronouncements.

In light of this, once an individual has served his time for his crime, it would be unjust and non-objective to detain him further with release contingent upon psychological review for rehabilitation. To establish a judicial system where citizens don't clearly know what the punishment for a specific crime is, beforehand, is insane. The notion of keeping a criminal until he's rehabilitated--or worse, letting him off early because he's "rehabilitated--hands the government a weapon for keeping people it doesn't like longer than the time associated with the crime they committed--or for letting go of people it does like earlier than the time associated with the crime they committed.

If you think that a person who threatens others should be locked away forever with no chance of release, well that's kind of draconian but at least I could understand that position. If you think that a person who threatens others should not be locked away, then let me try to persuade you that that position is in error. And if you think that the threat automatically disappears after a statutorily-fixed period of time, then I think I can also persuade you that that's wrong, and that a judgment based on observation of facts needs to be made, before letting a murderer or rapist loose on society again.

No, I'm not draconian, nor do I think that objectively validated threats to society should be left free to roam. There is a third alternative that I think you're missing.

If I remember correctly, it wasn't (and shouldn't be) a crime to think about killing people, i.e. thinking "bad" thoughts does not consist of the initiation of force. As such, that a criminal serving time might be thinking about again committing crimes is not a crime and not grounds for keeping him longer for "rehabilitation." Threats of course must be validated by specific actions, such as the acquiring of specific resources that logically could be used for crime. Otherwise, searching and probing a man's head for his inclinations is madness and constitutes the initiation of force on the part of the government.

[DavidOdden]

No, I'm not draconian, nor do I think that objectively validated threats to society should be left free to roam. There is a third alternative that I think you're missing.

If I remember correctly, it wasn't (and shouldn't be) a crime to think about killing people, i.e. thinking "bad" thoughts does not consist of the initiation of force. As such, that a criminal serving time might be thinking about again committing crimes is not a crime and not grounds for keeping him longer for "rehabilitation." Threats of course must be validated by specific actions, such as the acquiring of specific resources that logically could be used for crime. Otherwise, searching and probing a man's head for his inclinations is madness and constitutes the initiation of force on the part of the government.

This is not the point. If a person lunges at you with a knife, even if they do not actually manage to stab you, their actions clearly tell you that they they will stab you if they can. Brandishing a loaded gun and making certain kinds of verbal threats is similarly an objective threat. Threats do not have to be immediate -- blackmail and kidnapping are usually about threatened force days or weeks into the future. Being in possession of a knife or gun is not an intrinsic threat, and thinking about killing someone is not a threat. And finally, threats do not have to be continuous -- if a person who is threatening your life takes a nap for a few hours, that does not mean the threat is suddenly gone.

The basic for locking up criminals for the protection of society is that the criminal is threatening the lives of innocent people. Necessarily we are speaking of a person who has acted in a way that constitutes a threat. Therefore this is not imprisonment for thought crime. Even if they are not right at this minute violating a person's rights, because of their past acts you have the knowledge that you need to conclude that they are going to violate rights again in the future, just as you can conclude that a person who threatens to kill you still poses a threat, even if they are not actively communicating that intent at the moment. The purpose of imprisonment is not rehabilitation -- it is exclusion from society, because the criminal threatens society. It is objective, because it would be governed by concrete objective law with fixed conditions and an objective purpose (protecting rights). Some version of a standard three-strikes law would be appropriate. This satisfies all of the requirments that you wanted for an objective law -- just for the sake of clearing up the fundamental disagreement over the necessity for society to be protected from threats, let's assume that there is no such thing as parole under objective law.

[HaloNoble6]

But then now you seem to not be an advocate of rehabilitation.

I didn't miss the point, I said threats must be objectively validated by pointing to acts, not thoughts, i.e. a bad thought does not constitute a threat.

So now I'm confused, a "rehabilitated" person refers to a person who's mindset has changed from that of a criminal to that of a non-criminal. This is necessarily congnitive. Checking for rehabilitation, whether you wish the state to carry it out or not, means checking the mental content of a person, which can mean calling a bad thought a threat, if you wish to retain a criminal if he isn't "rehabilitated," or just extrapolating the cognitive content from actual actions of the ex-con.

So what precisely are you advocating? I suppose it would help if you stated precisely what "rehabilitation" consists of and how propose to check for it.

Tentatively, I'll say that, at most, a government should keep tabs on the actions of recently-freed criminals to ensure, on the basis of their actions, whether they are a threat to society. I do not, absolutely do not, advocate the idea of guilty until proven innocent, or of keeping past criminals away from society (in essence punishing them) until they prove they are not a threat to society.

[DavidOdden]

But then now you seem to not be an advocate of rehabilitation.

I'm not sure what that means. I certainly think that evil people should stop being evil, and I furthermore hold that immorality is chosen and therefore can be unchosen, so in that sense I "advocate" rehabilitation. I am absolutely positive that it isn't the business of government to rehabilitate evil people. Does that make me an advocate?

So now I'm confused, a "rehabilitated" person refers to a person who's mindset has changed from that of a criminal to that of a non-criminal. This is necessarily congnitive. Checking for rehabilitation, whether you wish the state to carry it out or not, means checking the mental content of a person, which means calling a bad thought a threat, if you wish to retain a criminal if he isn't "rehabilitated."

The threat comes from having a "bad thought" and acting on that thought. If a murderer has wicked thoughts of murdering people again but can prove that he will no longer act on those urges, then he is no longer a threat. That is the only mind-checking burden that has to be shouldered. As I said, I don't really care about rehabilitation: the point is that once you've proven that you are utterly immoral (had three strikes, for example), then society needs to be rid of you. The one bit of leniency that seems to relate to rehabilitation which I've sort of advocated is the possibility of parole (w.r.t. those extreme criminals who are thrown in the can forever, in order to protect society). I'm not saying that I have any concrete ideas how you could be sure that the person was no longer a threat to society, just that if you can be sure that he is no longer a threat, then you could consider releasing him (again, presuming restitution had also been made).

[HaloNoble6]

Apparently I edited my post above just as you were writing back: notice the second quote of my post in your post above now includes an emphasis on the connection between thought and action.

OK, when I say "rehabilitation," I'm thinking of a very narrow application of it, namely to criminals in jail. Yes I'm an advocate of rehabilitation in general, but not of state rehabilitation of criminals, nor of checking criminals, prior to their release, whether they are rehabilitated through their punishement.

It makes sense to me, since punishement in the criminal court is meant to deter crime by making criminals feel pain nearly equivalent to the pain they've inflicted, to take into account a criminal's past, because if past punishement did not deter, something must be changed. If this amounts to what you're saying, then I agree.

[DavidOdden]

It makes sense to me, since punishement in the criminal court is meant to deter crime by making criminals feel pain nearly equivalent to the pain they've inflicted, to take into account a criminal's past, because if past punishement did not deter, something must be changed. If this amounts to what you're saying, then I agree.

It's all clear to me now. I'm not talking about deterrence, I'm talking about protection. To recapitulate, there are three possible responses to crime. 1: retribution. 2: deterrence. 3: protection. Retribution is, I argue, always necessary. Deterrence is highly desireable, but not obligatory (no additional punishment should be mandated in cases like non-negligent manslaughter). Protection only becomes relevant at the other extreme, where you are dealing with a true criminal -- not a weak person who crossed the line, but a serious hardened criminal. A person who is not at all deterred by jail time, and who will not let the possiblity of jail stop him from violating the rights of others. That is the kind of person that we need protection from, who should basically be locked away forever.

I'm suggesting three strikes, assuming appropriate reforms in the legal system (a proper and rational view of what counts as a single "act", and a proper characterization of what acts cause three strikes to kick in). I don't see the reason to wait for 4 (hold the jokes about the competing "4 balls and you walk" law) -- three separate murders is enough proof to conclude that this person is a serious, habitual murderer. 1 is obviously too harsh. There is good evidence that a two-time offender may commit a rights-violation a third time -- he is not strongly enough deterred, but the evidence is not strong enough to go all the way to permanent exclusion from society. So 3 strikes it is. [However, I also think this kind of law should be based on severity of rights violation, so that for murder, 2 strikes may suffice. This is implicitly available anyhow in the fact that you can get life -- or worse -- for a single murder. I think it would, however, be unjust to impose life imprisonment for a single theft].

[HaloNoble6]

So would you have a "X strikes" system for every crime?

[DavidOdden]

So would you have a "X strikes" system for every crime?

No; rather, the general rule would be 3 (that is, X doesn't vary much), but it might be 2 in case of homicide or aggrevated battery. This is basically a detail that has to be worked out in connection with an overall theory of objective law. One detail might be that petty theft, say under $20, might not be subject to a 3-strikes rule; or, it might be 4 strikes for repeated petty theft. These are important details, but the specifics are not essential to the main idea (unless you think that it's impossible in principle to objectively determine that a person poses a threat to society given past acts).

[softwareNerd]

The fact that an offense is a second offense (or third, fourth...) ought to increase the severity of the punishment, because this is objective evidence that the person has not rehabilitated himself.

There are some crimes which, if repeated, show that the person cannot be trusted to go back into society.

On the other hand, take the case of a shop-lifter who continues to shop-lift. I think that each subsequent time the punishment should get more severe. As for the specific way to implement that severity, I'm not sure. Here's a wild idea. I have not thought it through, but it satisfies the need for an objective rule. On each subsequent shop-lifting conviction, they serve time for shop-lifting and they re-serve a certain percentage of their previous time!

[HaloNoble6]

OK, just to sum up, then, if what is meant by the application of the notion of rehabilitation to law is that past criminality, in particular repeated offense, is to be taken into account when handing out sentences, then I agree: a criminal record constitutes proof, through action, that a person is a threat to society, and should be kept away. Note, however, that this is not how rehabilitation is predominantly applied and thought of today.

[softwareNerd]

I don't think it is the government's responsibility to rehabilitate a prisoner. That is the prisoner's responsibility. Also, I doubt one can judge if a person is rehabilitated. At the most, I'd say that good behavior should allow a person's release somewhere before their max. term, and that objective standards should be laid down for "good behavior". I guess, this also helps prison staff control inmates better.

Back on rehabilitation: rather than have prisoners hang around prison mostly idle, it would be good if one had a practical scheme by which the prison facilitated them in their own rehabilitation. If, for instance, an organization wanted to come in to the prison and teach prisoners some trade, and if the costs were covered by that organization... then it would seem sensible to allow it. However, this too means that government will be arbiter to decide what is helpful and what isn't. Chance are, for instance, that many voluntary organizations that want to come interact with the prisoners will want to do things like teach them about God. Then what?