The Penal Principle

[Charean]

The Penal Principle
by Doctor Thomas L. Magliozzi (Ph.D. in Penology)

There I was. Just musing, as I am wont to do. And I mused this:

The way that we "punish" criminals has never made any sense to me. We build expensive facilities in which to incarcerate them. Various sources estimate that a prisoner costs us $30,000 to $50,000 a year. (Yes, it costs US. You and me.)

Now let me get this straight. These criminals are people who have said, "I don't want to subscribe to the rules that this society has set up. I want to operate by my own rules. I don't like your rules. I happen to think it's OK for me to rob, plunder, rape, murder and whatever else. Catch me if you can." So, we catch them. Then what? Then we pay $30k to $50 K to put them away for a short time in the hope that they'll be dissuaded from doing this again. They aren't dissuaded. They already told us that they don't like our rules, and locking them up for 5, 10 or 50 years doesn't make them like the rules any better. Recidivism rates are very high.

And we pay several times. The $50,000 it takes to keep them away from society for a year is just the beginning. The fact that they've done whatever they've done has lots of other costs. Insurance for one. All of us pay for insurance to help defray the cost of crime when it strikes us. And not just our own insurance. Every product or service we spend money for has in it an additional cost because of the insurance that the provider had to buy. And money doesn't go just to the insurance companies. All those plain clothes people skulking around K Mart have to get paid. So you buy a pair of shorts and you paid some percentage for the "crime tax"--insurance, guards, shoplifting losses etc. Then they get caught and they want us to pay again? Why should we pay anything? Just what are we paying for anyway? A year or two (or 20?) of freedom from that particular criminal? When there are so many to take his place that we don't even know he's gone?

Here's my idea. Since these sociopaths have come right out and stated that they don't like the society that the rest of us have devised (and there ARE more of us than there are of them--at least, so far), why do we allow them to live in it? Why not give them their own society to live in. They deserve each other, don't they. Some would say that the prisons are that society. But WE build the prisons for them. WE run them. WE supply the food, the TV's the weight room, the heat and light and laundry. Why us? Why are WE obliged to care for criminals? "Society" has basically said "Here are the rules that we all agree to follow if we're going to live together." The criminals say, "We don't like the rules." Isn't the obvious response, "Fine. Go somewhere else, and make your own society."

Now I'm not saying that prison is a day at the beach, but it's surely way too good. Why not this:

Why not choose an impenetrable location. One that can be easily guarded. Preferably one that has NO amenities. A jungle, perhaps. The rationale is simple. If you don't want to live here, live there. But there's no food! No TV! No nuthin'! I can't even get in touch with the ACLU!

Well isn't THAT just too bad. You did say you didn't want to live here, didn't you?

This has all the attributes of a great idea:

1. It solves the problem.
2. It's simple.
3. It's much less expensive than the current solution
4. And it's not new.

You've probably already recognized this idea. It's Devil's Island. It was the idea behind Australia--but Australia was far too good a place to "give away" to the scum of the earth. So was Devil's Island, for that matter. I personally like Siberia. Or Montana. Someplace that nobody wants. We give it to them and they fend for themselves.

Think about the advantages.

1. All the criminals of the world will be together. If they figure out how to eat, they eat. If they decide to steal from someone else, great. If they decide to kill someone to take his food, excellent. What could be better.

2. The only costs are those of transporting the prisoners to the "island" and protecting against escape. And it's so simple to guard. We ring the island with battleships. There is no contact with "the inhabitants" and so no way for unscrupulous guards to make deals, sell dope or to get hurt, for that matter. Anything in the water surrounding the island gets blown to bits. Period. Is it harsh? Didn't THEY tell US that they didn't agree with our rules? And weren't we nice enough to provide them with a venue for making their own?

3. Think of the social experiment. (Also not new; The Admirable Crichton, Lord of the Flies, Gilligan's Island!). This'll keep the sociologists busy for centuries. (Of course, if they go there to write a Ph.D. Thesis, they can never leave. Nobody leaves!)

4. The ACLU will be busy for centuries, too. Our answer to them will always be the same; "Rave on!."

The tree huggers of the world will, of course, think of a "compromise." For example, this may be OK for hardened criminals, but shoplifting? Come on. How about a less harsh arrangement for minor crimes. Sure. I'll go for that. But, all second offenders go to "the island." [Actually, "the rock" has a really nice ring to it, no?]

The reason that prisons aren't a deterrent is that they're too easy. Crime is destroying the country, if not the world. Surely, it does not take a rocket scientist to realize this? In a few years, there could be NO crime.

Think about that. No crime. You could walk down any street any time of day or night. You could leave your doors unlocked. You could pick up hitchhikers again. Your kids could walk to the corner store without getting caught in a crossfire. Smith and Wesson would be out of business.

Then we'd have the time to work on the real problems of the world; hunger, disease and devising a plan to get rid of the jerks in Hollywood who make Rambo movies.

Just a thought.

Thought provoking, and emminently fair, except for the innocent people who occasionally get snagged into the system. (Honest Officer I was really just giving her a ride home when the A/C blew her dress up around her ears and then I swerved to miss a child in the road her face was thrown into my lap so I parked in this dark alley)

Im pretty sure, that there are some good reasons not to be mean to repeat violent criminals, but Im not sure what they are.

[ 10-29-2002, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Ronn_Bman]

***looks back at thread title***

Oops, sorry wrong subject! [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Well, my thoughts regarding penile issues... oh wait... erm... sorry, my mistake. [img]graemlins/laugh2.gif[/img]

Oh, BTW, they made a movie about this, two in fact: Escape from New York and Escape from Los Angeles (a.k.a. Kurt Russell's career is dead so we're giving him a rehashed swill part to play), both entailing the misadventures of Snake Pliskin. Actually, the first one was pretty good.

Howabout just banishment, since that's what you're talking about. Only then we dump 'em on others, like Castro did when he emptied Cuba's prisons into the port of Miami.

[DragonMage]

And who can forget No Escape with Ray Liotta?

This is an old conversation that my family has been having for years. I would be all for such an arrangement. Make the punishment fit the criminal for once. Since we can't go back to public executions, this would do the trick to get them out of society without such a high price. And would go a long way toward dissuading youngsters from getting started on the road to criminal behavior.

Originally posted by DragonMage: And who can forget No Escape with Ray Liotta? This is an old conversation that my family has been having for years. I would be all for such an arrangement. Make the punishment fit the criminal for once. Since we can't go back to public executions, Why not? [img]smile.gif[/img] ok, ok, it was a joke. no hate mail please this would do the trick to get them out of society without such a high price. And would go a long way toward dissuading youngsters from getting started on the road to criminal behavior.

Im still thinking that there is some kind of ACLU/Bill of rights interpretation about "cruel and unusual" punishment. I mean it is considered cruel right now if they don't get both plain AND chunky peanut butter.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by DragonMage: And who can forget No Escape with Ray Liotta? This is an old conversation that my family has been having for years. I would be all for such an arrangement. Make the punishment fit the criminal for once. Since we can't go back to public executions, Why not? [img]smile.gif[/img] ok, ok, it was a joke. no hate mail please this would do the trick to get them out of society without such a high price. And would go a long way toward dissuading youngsters from getting started on the road to criminal behavior.

Im still thinking that there is some kind of ACLU/Bill of rights interpretation about "cruel and unusual" punishment. I mean it is considered cruel right now if they don't get both plain AND chunky peanut butter.[/QUOTE]It's called the 8th Amendment, and efforts to use it to defeant the death penalty in many states has resulted in a line of caselaw that makes it largely ineffectual today. Death - not cruel and unusual. Certain kinds of death are - like the public hanging. But, IIRC, if a hanging is done right, you snap the neck - viola, pretty instant, no?

Me, I'm for the public execution thing if you're going to do it. Let people see - vengeance on the wrongdoer is morally wrong, but the effect it has on discouraging others is redeeming. But, all that aside, some day I'll post a thread on why you cannot justify the death penalty. Or maybe it'll be an argument as to why any civilized society absolutely must have a death penalty. Oooops, am I letting slip the secret that my views are more Devil's Advocate than any thing else?

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: It's called the 8th Amendment, and efforts to use it to defeant the death penalty in many states has resulted in a line of caselaw that makes it largely ineffectual today. Death - not cruel and unusual. Certain kinds of death are - like the public hanging. But, IIRC, if a hanging is done right, you snap the neck - viola, pretty instant, no? LoL I do know it is the 8th [img]smile.gif[/img] I am after all the guy whoposted the Bill of Rights on here [img]smile.gif[/img] I have heard that you are correct about hanging if done properly is as near instantaneous as can be arranged. I think it is more cruel to draw the thing out for years and then have to spend hours of preparation for the execution. And I have to ask, since you have much better grounding in Law than I ever will... WHy on gods good earth is it a rule that the person has to be healthy to be executed? Read somewhere that someone who had the flu or something couldnt be executed and why do they sterilize the needes for lethal injection? Me, I'm for the public execution thing if you're going to do it. Let people see - vengeance on the wrongdoer is morally wrong, but the effect it has on discouraging others is redeeming. But, all that aside, some day I'll post a thread on why you cannot justify the death penalty. Or maybe it'll be an argument as to why any civilized society absolutely must have a death penalty. Oooops, am I letting slip the secret that my views are more Devil's Advocate than any thing else?

I actualy think you have a good point, (devils advocate or not) a Fully public execution does several things. 1. It removes a miscreant from thegene pool. 2. It allows people to observe just what death is all about, and reminds them of its gruesome aspects. and 3. It also serves to remind other would be miscreants just how fun it is to have to face your mortality for your actions. (by the way, better be careful, someone might decide that by being devils advocate on occasion that your views and facts are invalidated somehow)

[Timber Loftis]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MagiK:
[QB][QUOTE] I have heard that you are correct about hanging if done properly is as near instantaneous as can be arranged. I think it is more cruel to draw the thing out for years and then have to spend hours of preparation for the execution. And I have to ask, since you have much better grounding in Law than I ever will... WHy on gods good earth is it a rule that the person has to be healthy to be executed? Read somewhere that someone who had the flu or something couldnt be executed and why do they sterilize the needes for lethal injection?

For the same reason they put Braile on drive-up ATMs. [img]graemlins/laugh2.gif[/img] Sorry... couldn't resist... I don't know, MagiK. Because lawmakers are stupid sometimes? Because the ACLU, et al., have successfully argued that a sick prisoner must be cared for until he's well? Dunno. Do they sterilize the needles? Don't all needles come sterilized and disposable these days because it's cheaper and screw the enviro?

[pritchke]

This was already done before. It is called Australia! This is were the British used to load all their unwanted criminals. Now it is a well respected country.
Hmm! Maybe that is your point!