- 08 Sep 2017 21:27
#14841975
I recently watched 'Shut Up and Dance' from Charlie Brooker's fantastic but disturbing Black Mirror series. The whole thinking about the traditionally accepted paradigm for arguments on justice. In short, we often hear leftists support socially 'liberal' schemes such as rehabilitation for serious crimes like murder, rape and child molestation with the justification/reasoning that either 1. deterrent is ineffective or 2. we should have sympathy for where our social and biological circumstances take us. I want to layout why 1. is incorrect and that while there may be truth to 2., it's a non-sequitur to assume rehabilitation is the conclusions of this reasoning.
1. Deterrent is Ineffective
Deterrent is certainly not completely ineffective - in cases involving sociopathy, for example, the person may not be restricted by empathy meaning that the threat of legal restitution may be the only thing preventing them from acting on malicious intent. By the way, not all sociopaths are necessarily sadistic, however they may be rationally incentivised to act in a manner both unlawful and unethical, e. if there was money involved. Then there are cases e.g. involving crimes of passion. Often when we become too emotional, we don't think about consequences however threat of restitution may still have a small chance of influencing the affected person's consciousness.
Even if deterrent is ineffective, what is even worse is allowing extremely dangerous offenders back on the street! This goes without saying: a rapist is more likely to rape again even if he is 'rehabilitated' than if he was simply executed. Some offenders may be truly rehabilitated but nobody ever knows for sure. Anyway since the leftist way of thinking may be more predominantly focused on the ethics of killing someone - even a seriously messed up offender, I'll move onto 2.
2. We Should Have Sympathy for Where our Social and Biological Circumstances Take Us
First of all, nobody really knows if determinism is true over free will or to what extent: compatibilism could also be true. However it doesn't really matter because even if somebody freely chooses to do wrong, it's possible to empathise with them regardless on the grounds that they have turned out this way. I still believe capital punishment is the correct response: if you truly feel guilty then spending your whole life in remorse is a much worse punishment. If not then you will not be rehabilitated anyway.
Besides, letting out, let's say, a child molester is unacceptable regardless of determinism vs. free will arguments: that person can never be trusted in society again. This is not to say that a paedophile (as opposed to child molester) who had never acted on their paraphilia would be immediately executed rather than given help. This would be a detrimental idea because paedophiles need to be unafraid of asking for help in a society we desperately need to help paedophiles to control their urges. Sam Harris in a lecture made a point that if you had been pointing a gun at the son of Saddam Hussein then what regardless of the social/biological factors that brought this man to the decisions he made, what lover of life would not pull that trigger?
Other Arguments
There's an argument that if the offenders are not free or responsible, neither are the jailors. This argument is more 'right wing' (there is in fact a problem with such a binary view of left-right politics as we can see even in my own 'leftist' justification for capital punishment) but still relevant to the discussion. In short, it misses the point. It's about the consequences involved and not who's right or wrong. We need a quick, ethical solution that will also protect the vulnerable and this is a quick death by two or three bullets just to make sure. There is one more compelling argument, however.
Sometimes innocent people are convicted. Maybe that's true but what's worse? Spending your life in prison for a crime you did not commit or being killed much earlier? Ok, so you can always appeal if you have the opportunity to prove (after enduring possible prison beatings and rape that is ... yes very 'humane'). However there is a middle-ground alternative, namely a lengthier trial process throughout which the prisoner (yet to be tried) is separated from other convicts.
Conclusion
In short, when we look at the binary political spectrum in all it's glory we see a lot of glaring contradictions - blood thirsty right wingers who haven't really considered things in terms of effectiveness or the fact that there system might not be so punitive after all. In contrast, we have a lot of naivety on the left from people who really do take the moral high ground and assume that their system is more pragmatic when that really may not be the case entirely. It's a shame most people are always so quick to fall into one of two categories without really taking the time to consider the factors which they may very well need to know. Our society is truly doomed if people can't get a grasp of this and fast.
1. Deterrent is Ineffective
Deterrent is certainly not completely ineffective - in cases involving sociopathy, for example, the person may not be restricted by empathy meaning that the threat of legal restitution may be the only thing preventing them from acting on malicious intent. By the way, not all sociopaths are necessarily sadistic, however they may be rationally incentivised to act in a manner both unlawful and unethical, e. if there was money involved. Then there are cases e.g. involving crimes of passion. Often when we become too emotional, we don't think about consequences however threat of restitution may still have a small chance of influencing the affected person's consciousness.
Even if deterrent is ineffective, what is even worse is allowing extremely dangerous offenders back on the street! This goes without saying: a rapist is more likely to rape again even if he is 'rehabilitated' than if he was simply executed. Some offenders may be truly rehabilitated but nobody ever knows for sure. Anyway since the leftist way of thinking may be more predominantly focused on the ethics of killing someone - even a seriously messed up offender, I'll move onto 2.
2. We Should Have Sympathy for Where our Social and Biological Circumstances Take Us
First of all, nobody really knows if determinism is true over free will or to what extent: compatibilism could also be true. However it doesn't really matter because even if somebody freely chooses to do wrong, it's possible to empathise with them regardless on the grounds that they have turned out this way. I still believe capital punishment is the correct response: if you truly feel guilty then spending your whole life in remorse is a much worse punishment. If not then you will not be rehabilitated anyway.
Besides, letting out, let's say, a child molester is unacceptable regardless of determinism vs. free will arguments: that person can never be trusted in society again. This is not to say that a paedophile (as opposed to child molester) who had never acted on their paraphilia would be immediately executed rather than given help. This would be a detrimental idea because paedophiles need to be unafraid of asking for help in a society we desperately need to help paedophiles to control their urges. Sam Harris in a lecture made a point that if you had been pointing a gun at the son of Saddam Hussein then what regardless of the social/biological factors that brought this man to the decisions he made, what lover of life would not pull that trigger?
Other Arguments
There's an argument that if the offenders are not free or responsible, neither are the jailors. This argument is more 'right wing' (there is in fact a problem with such a binary view of left-right politics as we can see even in my own 'leftist' justification for capital punishment) but still relevant to the discussion. In short, it misses the point. It's about the consequences involved and not who's right or wrong. We need a quick, ethical solution that will also protect the vulnerable and this is a quick death by two or three bullets just to make sure. There is one more compelling argument, however.
Sometimes innocent people are convicted. Maybe that's true but what's worse? Spending your life in prison for a crime you did not commit or being killed much earlier? Ok, so you can always appeal if you have the opportunity to prove (after enduring possible prison beatings and rape that is ... yes very 'humane'). However there is a middle-ground alternative, namely a lengthier trial process throughout which the prisoner (yet to be tried) is separated from other convicts.
Conclusion
In short, when we look at the binary political spectrum in all it's glory we see a lot of glaring contradictions - blood thirsty right wingers who haven't really considered things in terms of effectiveness or the fact that there system might not be so punitive after all. In contrast, we have a lot of naivety on the left from people who really do take the moral high ground and assume that their system is more pragmatic when that really may not be the case entirely. It's a shame most people are always so quick to fall into one of two categories without really taking the time to consider the factors which they may very well need to know. Our society is truly doomed if people can't get a grasp of this and fast.