What are Rand's views on crime & punishment?

Political Philosophy
1

Does anyone know of anything that Rand wrote on the subject of crime and punishment? A friend told me the only thing he knew was that she had mentioned that the death penalty was a marginal issue, but wasn’t sure if she had written anything else.

Also, how could the death penalty be a marginal issue? Shouldn’t we put a lot of thought into whether we can take someone’s life as opposed to just locking them up for the rest of it (since we have justified imprisonment, but maybe not the use of death)?

2

The death penalty is a marginal issue because criminals are an incredibly tiny proportion of the population and still fewer of those would merit the death penalty.

My views on this issue are a little odd, because I don’t think the point of having a penalty for a criminal act is necessarily to punish the offender, but to prevent them from doing it again. I will explain more if you want to know, but the reason is that punishing people that have gone so far 'round the twist that they will engage in violence doesn’t do any good. It just increases their determination not to get caught.

Who is “we”?

3

Does anyone know of anything that Rand wrote on the subject of crime and punishment?

The topic was discussed here, and see post 6. My recollection was that the article in question wasn’t written by Rand, but it was approved by her, and the essence was opposition. But I can’t remember the actual statement that I read once.

4

I think one of the things that should be a part of law is to make criminals pay for the costs of court, lawyers etc. If they don’t have it, lock’em up and let them work it off. I think prisons should be profitable. It doesn’t make sense that it costs money to lock these people away.

As for preventing people from commiting a crime again, the death penalty is the perfect solution :thumbsup: .

But seriously, most heavy crime cannot be stopped with even the gravest punishment. The criminals don’t care. They don’t do it now even though there is death penalty. Besides, once you are sure to be condemned to death penalty, you can do pretty much everything you want to. They can’t raise the price, can they?

You cannot stop every crime, but you can make it so that it is irrational to commit a crime. That there are lunatics out there is a fact you can do very little against.

I am against the death penalty. I think you should let these people work their debt off with lots of interest. Maybe they learn their lesson, but at least it didn’t cost the state anything. It perfectly mixes punishment with profitability.

5

You cannot stop every crime, but you can make it so that it is irrational to commit a crime.

That would be accomplished instantly, just by making the only crimes be violation of a person’s rights.

6

Here is a link to a post I made in a previous post on this topic;

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p…indpost&p=43019

7

I think that for most criminals, locking them in prison for a suitable length of time is sufficent.

However, some criminals whom commit horrendous crimes such as rape and/or murder, possibly many times and clearly cannot be rehabilitied should definetely be put to death so to protect others from one is is little more than an animal in a sense.

As Jennifer points out, for some people punishing them over and over just means they try harder not to get caught, it does not stop them from commiting crimes.

8

My views on this issue are a little odd, because I don’t think the point of having a penalty for a criminal act is necessarily to punish the offender, but to prevent them from doing it again.

Is that a utilitarian theory of punishment? I think my views fall more in line with ideals of justice rather than deterrance, but I don’t think deterrance should be completely left out of the mix, either. The protection of rights should not only include retribution for wrongs done, but prevention of the violation in the first place.

Who is “we”?

Those in charge of determining our system of punishment. Since We, the people of the USA, have a decent chance of shaping actual policy, “we” could in fact be all of us.

As for preventing people from commiting a crime again, the death penalty is the perfect solution :slight_smile: .

The same result could be obtained by locking them up for life without parole, right?

I am against the death penalty. I think you should let these people work their debt off with lots of interest. Maybe they learn their lesson, but at least it didn’t cost the state anything. It perfectly mixes punishment with profitability.

One interesting thing to note is that the death penalty actually costs more than locking someone up for life, due to many, many appeals and other things like highering better experts and what not since someone’s life is on the line. I do not understand entirely why the assets of these people are not seized since their crimes cost us so much to punish. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the criminal’s family would be left with little, and they weren’t the ones that committed the crime.

9

Is this a thread about what Rand wrote about crime and punishment, or is it a thread on the death penalty? There are already threads on the death penalty such as this one, so perhaps that subject should be discussed in those threads.

10

The same result could be obtained by locking them up for life without parole, right?

No, life without parole still gives them the option of committing crimes in prison, and there is the chance of escape.

One interesting thing to note is that the death penalty actually costs more than locking someone up for life, due to many, many appeals and other things like highering better experts and what not since someone’s life is on the line.

I don’t have the tech to back it up right now, but I have heard that statistic is untrue. Supposedly prisoners sentenced to life in prison file just as many appeals, and they have a lifetime of housing/food/medical expenses too.

11

Is that a utilitarian theory of punishment? I think my views fall more in line with ideals of justice rather than deterrance, but I don’t think deterrance should be completely left out of the mix, either. The protection of rights should not only include retribution for wrongs done, but prevention of the violation in the first place.

“Utilitarian?” How does that term even apply here? Utilitarianism is essentially social hedonism . . . do whatever makes the largest number of people feel good. Quite possibly this would just tick everybody off, especially the types that think justice = revenge. Do you mean, maybe, practical? Even the term “pragmatic” doesn’t apply here, because I’m not claiming “this is what works, so we should do it,” I’m saying, “here’s an abstraction derived from evidence, and you have to decide what to do based on the abstraction that corresponds to the evidence.”

Justice is served by the trial and conviction of a criminal and by the abrogation of that criminal’s misused rights. Deterrence is a ridiculous issue to even bring up; as I pointed out earlier it doesn’t do any good anyway. Even a three year old child knows that punishment doesn’t spontaneously descend from on high when he commits some incorrect action, it’s brought about by his parents. Unless that child is a miserably craven coward and he believes his parents are all-powerful he will continue to act that way until you successfully convince him that what he’s doing is wrong. People aren’t animals to be trained by repeated association.

The same applies to criminals. Petty thieves, con artists, etc. don’t use violence against their victims and can eventually be rehabilitated if they choose to accept it. Violent criminals are so detached from reality that there’s little or no possibility of changing their minds, so you will never have a functional deterrant. You can lock them up until advancing age makes them less capable of carrying out their crimes (for minor things such as armed robbery where no one was injured) or kill them. The only reason not to hang a murderer for first offense is because there is a possibility that justice miscarried, and you want to be as careful as possible in those situations.

12

Does anyone know of anything that Rand wrote on the subject of crime and punishment?

Here are some reference leads. Richard Lawrence’s site, the Objectivism Reference Center, is a good place to look for answers. Section 5.2.3 gives appropriate quotes on the topic of punishment. Regarding the death penalty, she never wrote on the topic but the approved and published an article by Branden in The Objectivist Newsletter 2:1 (January 1963), p. 3 (the longer text is here). No definitive general conclusion is reached, except that the standard of proof should be “so rationally stringent as to forbid the possibility of convicting an innocent man”. Presuming such a proof existed, nothing in Rand’s writings or any writings sanctioned by her constitutes absolute opposition to the death penalty.

13

“Utilitarian?” How does that term even apply here? Utilitarianism is essentially social hedonism . . . do whatever makes the largest number of people feel good. Quite possibly this would just tick everybody off, especially the types that think justice = revenge. Do you mean, maybe, practical? Even the term “pragmatic” doesn’t apply here, because I’m not claiming “this is what works, so we should do it,” I’m saying, “here’s an abstraction derived from evidence, and you have to decide what to do based on the abstraction that corresponds to the evidence.”

I misread what you had originally written. I thought that when you wrote about keeping criminals from doing a crime, you were talking about punishing them to deter others, not to keep the same one from doing it again. Who are you claiming are violent criminals? Murderers, rapists, terrorists? Who else? Do you advocate that any person who is a violent criminal should thus be put to death, since there is no hope of rehabilitation? Also, I don’t think it is statistically true that no criminal who commits a violent crime can be rehabilitated, though I am sure that the number is quite low. For instance, a man who kills another man he just walked in on sleeping with his wife would probably realize the wrong he comitted instantly, and once he served his prison time (if he has the chance for parole), he would more than likely never do such a thing again.

Social hedonism is one version of utilitarianism, but the most general case would be to do the most good – however you formulate it – for the most people. Some utilitarians say that what is good is pleasure, and are thus hedonistic. But you can hold as your standard of good to be human life, and thus to do the most for people’s lives would also be utilitarian (note: I am not claiming here that the Objectivist ethics is in any way utilitarian, since the standard of good is MY life, not simply human life).

If your purpose of punishing a criminal is retributive – giving him what he deserves for his act – then you are appealing to a notion of justice. If the purpose of punishing a criminal is to try to keep others who are considering comitting a crime from doing it, then you are appealing to a notion of deterrance. Deterring individuals from doing a crime promotes good for both the potential victims and criminals, and thus it can be said that your system is utilitarian.

Deterrence is a ridiculous issue to even bring up; as I pointed out earlier it doesn’t do any good anyway.

Thiefs often make the decision not to rob a place armed with guns, since the punishment associated with bringing a gun to the crime is much higher (in some jurisdictions, it used to be punishable by death, in fact). For many criminals, no cost-benefit analysis is ever made, and these will probably not be deterred by much. But some criminals do think about their crime a lot before comitting it, and a stiffer penalty may deter them. It is not ridiculous to talk about it.

14

I agree that “If it were possible to by fully and irrevocably certain, beyond any possibility of error, that a man were guilty, then capital punishment for murder would be appropriate and just.”

But on the other hand, “men are not infallible; juries make mistakes; that is the problem.”

Therefore, we resolve the dilemma by insisting on “criteria of proof so rationally stringent as to forbid the possibility of convicting an innocent man.”

This will prevent a jury of fallible men from ever imposing the death penalty on an innocent party. For it would be impossible for 12 jurors to agree unanimously to evade rationally stringent criteria of proof.

15

This will prevent a jury of fallible men from ever imposing the death penalty on an innocent party. For it would be impossible for 12 jurors to agree unanimously to evade rationally stringent criteria of proof.

That seem a bit too strong. It would be unlikely that all 12 jurors could set aside the law and turn in a finding counter to the demands of such a stringent law, but it happens. There is little that can be done about people deciding to ignore the law.