A couple of quick questions.
I know that initiating force would be a crime in an Objectivist society but are there other crimes that do not involve the initiation of force?
Where do O’ists stand on punishment? Does the rehabilitation aspect of a penal system win out or the punitive aspect? Is the death penalty accepted or prohibited?
A couple of quick questions.
- I know that initiating force would be a crime in an Objectivist society but are there other crimes that do not involve the initiation of force?
Fraud.
- Where do O’ists stand on punishment? Does the rehabilitation aspect of a penal system win out or the punitive aspect? Is the death penalty accepted or prohibited?
You have to ask what is best for accomplishing a given purpose. Since most criminals cannot be locked up for life, nor can they be executed, then making sure they won’t turn back to crime when they’re released would best protect individual rights. How do you keep criminals from committing crimes, though, is a complex issue.
It’s been well established that the best deterrent for crime is the certainty that the criminal will wind up in jail, or executed, if he goes ahead with his crime. That’s one factor that led to Giuliani’s success cutting down NYC’s crime rate. But since such certainty is impossible to achieve (no police force will ever solve all cases, nor apprehend all perpetrators, nor will any justice system win a conviction every time), you have to dos something to persuade convicted criminals not to relapse.
Is there such a way? A variety of ways? if so, they should be employed even if they work only for a portion of the convict population.
As for the death penalty, it is an acceptable form of retribution. Someone who murders does not deserve continued life (murder does not include killing in self defense, or in defense of a third party, nor accidental killings).
There is one rational objection to capital punishment. As no justice system is or can be free or all errors, there exists a possibility of sentencing an innocent man to death. That would be an intolerable injustice, because executions cannot be reversed, nor is restitution possible for the victim.
So any justice system incorporating a death penalty would have to develop procedures to ensure only those guilty of murder do get executed. How? Well, that’s a complex question not easily answered. I’d begin by saying any death snetence should be reviewed by an independent body. Discuss.
So any justice system incorporating a death penalty would have to develop procedures to ensure only those guilty of murder do get executed. How? Well, that’s a complex question not easily answered. I’d begin by saying any death snetence should be reviewed by an independent body. Discuss.
Life imprisonment is one possibility. It is (partially) reversible. If a person is convicted wrongly then he can eventually be released and compensated (with money) for time lost. It is an expensive alternative to the death penalty since prisoners must be kept alive and health on the possibility that they may be released, if a miscarriage of justice occurred. Also there is the security question, since many of those imprisoned will be or become very bad actors.
Another possibility with a somewhat lower cost is exile. Penal colonies can be established far from our shores, preferably on an island which is relatively inexpensive to patrol. The French did this in Guiana. Why they gave it up, I am not sure.
For those guilty of lesser crimes, they can be compelled to compensate their victims for value taken plus damages for loss and inconvenience. This is possible for relatively small monetary losses. What do we do with the ENRON type cases where tens of thousands of working folk were bilked of their pensions? The perpetrators did not have enough money left to compensate the victims. Ken Lay and his buddies did more damage without violence than a common mugger could do with a blackjack. The only alternative besides fines and restitution is loss of liberty.
ruveyn
- I know that initiating force would be a crime in an Objectivist society but are there other crimes that do not involve the initiation of force?
Ultimately no. Fraud is subsumed under the IOF generalization, since as Rand points out, it amounts to keeping the goods by force rather than by right (i.e. there was no actual sale). However, as a temporary mental resting place on the path towards understanding the nature of crime under Objectivism, I think it’s okay to think of it as “force or fraud”.
- Where do O’ists stand on punishment? Does the rehabilitation aspect of a penal system win out or the punitive aspect? Is the death penalty accepted or prohibited?
Punishment would exist, as an aspect of justice. The purpose of punishment is not to reeducate criminals, although if some altruistic group wanted to bring spiritual uplifting into the lives of criminals while they were in prison (the criminals, not the altruists), that’s their business. The death penalty is possible, but only if guilt is absolutely certain. An example would be Jack Ruby’s murder of Lee Harvey Oswald – it cannot rationally be denied that Ruby did it. It is not certain that Bruno Hauptmann did it.