posted
In doing some research for an Ethics Bowl case (think debate for philosophy nerds), I've run into the question of what the goal is of the United State's justice system. My case involves the ethical dilemmas that so-called "problem-solving courts" face. These are courts which try to solve the situations or problems that lead to prostitution or habitual drug offence, for instance. Rather than sentencing a drug offender to thirty days in jail, a problem-solving court may require the drug offender to go into detox and get psychiatric help.
There are a lot of ethical issues raised by these courts, the most important being, I think, what we want our justice system to be achieving. Is our goal to punish the criminal for his wrongdoing, to deter other citizens from committing the same offences, or to rehabilitate the criminal? What do you guys think?
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are four traditional uses of criminal punishment:
1.) Retribution. It's much less loaded than it sounds today - basically the idea that certain types of moral wrongdoing require a debt to be paid (look up the derivation of "penalty").
2.) Deterrence. Raising the cost of committing certain acts to discourage people from committing them. There are two types: Specific deterrence, which is the extent to which a punishment discourges the person receiving it from committing a future crime, and general deterrence, which is the extent to which punishing person A discourages other people from committing future crimes.
3.) Incapacitation. Making it more difficult or impossible for a person to commit a future crime. That is, someone who's locked up in prison can't rob any more houses.
4.) Rehabilitation. Variously put as "curing" or "fixing" the things which cause a person to commit crimes. The obvious example is drug rehab. If someone commits crimes to afford drugs, getting them off drugs could stop future crimes.
Basically, all criminal justice systems have some aspect of each. It is official federal law that the purpose of imprisonment is not rehabilitation, but the probation options are sometimes rehabilitative, so it applies to them as well.
That's just an overview; it should help with putting your thoughts into the existing framework of analysis.
One very interesting topic for you is the need for meta-punishments in problem solving courts. That is, how do you make the defendant complete the necessary problem solving steps.
For example, in Virginia, a judge can take a first conviction for drug possession under advisement for a year. If, in that time, the person completes rehab, community service, and stays out of trouble, the charge is totally dismissed (except for making them ineligible for diversion if caught again).
If someone tests positive while on this program, the punishment is that the original conviction is made active and the person is sentenced accordingly.
More common is probation, either with the condition of good behavior or lots of other conditions, too. When these conditions are violated, what's the proper amount of punishment?
These are tricky questions. Too little punishment, and many people will abandon the program. Too much, and you start hurting the rehabilitative effect.
I hope this helps you frame some of the issues. Let us know what you come up with.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
With Dag's numbering system, I think the current goal of the US Justice System is mostly number 3. Personally, I'd like to see more of 2 and 4 with a smattering of 3 thrown in for the jerks that just don't get it.
Rehab is always an interesting question to me becuase I feel very strongly that drugs are not the junkie's problem. Drugs are the solution to the problem of wanting to check out. To not have to deal with whatever the underlying cause actually is.
Everyone faces challenges in life. We all have something we can point to in our pasts as an excuse for going to the shrink, getting a bunch of pills, and staying high all the time. Really stop and look at the people you know some time. It's an amazing number of people who choose to check out and not accept their lives and move on.
I'm curious if rehab gets in to the person's decision making process. Does it teach them that they have to choose to overcome their difficulties in order to accomplish anything they want? That life will constantly bring them hardships of varying degrees? That there is no easy out? For most people, unless they change their underlying view of how the world works, getting unaddicted to drugs will be completely uselss.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: There are four traditional uses of criminal punishment:
Basically, all criminal justice systems have some aspect of each. It is official federal law that the purpose of imprisonment is not rehabilitation, but the probation options are sometimes rehabilitative, so it applies to them as well.
Its certainly nice to know that the Federal government is Specifically NOT out to rehabilitate criminals.... Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's not what I said. Prison is not to rehabilitate. Other aspects of federal criminal punishment are.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
