Everyone's probably heard that old saying about "Do the crime, do the time", right? If you could go back in time to ancient Rome, there were probably people saying it back then, in Latin or whatever they spoke back then. And why not, right? The saying makes a lot of sense. If you commit a criminal offense, be prepared to accept the punishment if you get caught. I bought into it for a long time, approximately into my early 20s; and while I still stick by it to some degree, I figured out that it oversimplifies a complex equation. Doing some independent learning and interacting with people from other walks of life helped me realize that it's it's not the simple cause-and-effect relationship I had believed it was. Not everyone agrees, though - especially the "law and order" types - some of whom have a lot of misplaced faith in the system. So I thought I'd dedicate this post to dispelling a few misconceptions.
The criminal justice process for a suspected criminal, from start to finish, has a lot of fragile points where things can go off the rails. Maybe the police arrest the wrong person. Maybe the jury doesn't know what it's doing. Maybe the assigned public defender was overworked. Maybe there was another problem that research shows doesn't work. The point is that the process was created by people, is maintained by people, and relies on people to function. Imperfect people, who get bored, stressed, petty, overconfident, nervous, forgetful, and so on.
Those are just the possible points of failure when steering an individual through the process, from investigation and arrest to trial to sentencing (if they're convicted) to incarceration. Once you widen your gaze to look at the justice system as a whole, you start seeing a lot of other ways in which the "do the crime..." slogan gets muddled. Let's start with this one: asking whether the crime in question should even be a crime. Like consuming drugs. Assuming someone doesn't do something reckless or harmful while under the influence, why should taking any drug be a crime? (Notice I said taking, not manufacturing or distribution; those are separate issues.) A person who takes a mind-altering substance under safe conditions in the privacy of his or her own home should not face any repercussions.
There's also the issue of whether the punishment is proportional in relation to the crime. Using drug-related crime again may be me being too lazy to think of a better example, but it is what it is. The federal penalty for any amount of marijuana is up to a year in prison and a $1,000 fine - for the first offense. The penalties go up for repeat offenses. Again, I ask "why?" For the simple act of possession? I understand that deterrence plays a part, as in making the punishment hurt enough so a person's not tempted to commit a crime again, and I agree to some extent. But we should be making sure first, that we're not punishing people for a victimless crime, and second, that the punishment doesn't go too far in the name of deterrence. The death penalty is a good example of excessive punishment as intended deterrence. Its effectiveness as deterrence is still being debated, but I think I would still oppose it even if it was effective, simply because of its finality. What happens if you execute an innocent person? That has happened alarmingly often, and even if the person being executed is not innocent, all of the current methods of execution are horrific and easily (in my opinion) qualify as "cruel and unusual punishment," which is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. I'm not saying this out of sympathy or pity for a confirmed murderer, by the way. When someone who willingly and remorselessly took another person's life leaves this world, I don't feel too badly about it. I'm more worried about what it says about our society that we allow gruesome and excruciatingly painful punishments on someone, even one whose guilt is indisputable and would likely kill again - even someone as vile as Jeffery Dahmer, for example. Potassium chloride - the "lethal" component of a lethal injection - has been compared to being burned from the inside out, and it's sad that some states would rather switch to an untested mix of drugs than put a halt to executions. What does that do to the person who has to carry out the execution? And what does that say about a government that sanctions it?
Another important thing to remember is that, depending on the crime, a punishment should be meted out with the possibility of reintegrating the criminal into society. Obviously, some classes of criminals should be jailed indefinitely, or at least until they don't present a threat any longer. Violent criminals come to mind. But the rest should be treated in a way that doesn't transform them into hardened, lifelong criminals themselves. Teach them skills, give them access to educational opportunities, let them keep one foot in civilization through things like video games, books, and other recreational aids. That sounds like one of those "country club" prisons that catch so much flack, but it's really not. It's for the benefit of several parties: the inmates, the guards, and society in general.
There's a lot more I could probably say on the subject of the criminal justice system, but I think I'll wrap it up here. The bottom line is that the "eye for an eye, plus an extra measure" mentality is outdated, counterproductive, and needlessly cruel. Unfortunately, as long as we have extreme "law and order" advocates occupying some of the highest posts in the country, nothing is likely to change.
No comments:
Post a Comment