As a theoretical matter deterrence rests of the concept of the rational actor who will, at some level anyway, weigh the benefits of a crime with the detriments of anticipated punishment. Any such analysis will be rough, at best, and so it is reasonable to err on the side of moderately excessive punishment so as to discourage crime.
The problem is that, factually, deterrence doesn't work for most crimes. The rational actor theory generally does not apply to criminal activity; it does seem to work for some regulatory or economic crimes like securities fraud but crimes like assault, robbery, murder are not affected.
So where does that leave us? If deterrence doesn't work should we abandon punishing, say, murder? Some have suggested abolishing prison on that very basis.
I do not agree.
Denunciation and rehabilitation have value.
If crimes are not seen to have any. consequences society as a whole will be angered. Demands for "justice" cannot be seen to go unmet. Similarly, while we cannot deter crime it is possible, during a term of sentencing, for a convict to be taught, for example, a new skill so as to avoid future crime. Prison farms, for example, reduced re-offending rates until they were abolished last year.
Denunciation and rehabilitation are not mutually inconsistent. Someone sentenced to two years incarceration, for example, can be given anger management and drug addiction counseling. The two year sentence shows society's anger at the crime. The counseling serves to rehabilitate.
All this will cost money. Warehousing prisoners (which serves denunciation but nothing else) is cheaper than proper attempts to rehabilitate. But if we are serious about reducing crime it is money that needs to be spent.
3 comments:
Many people who are socio-economically disadvantaged feel trapped and subsequently turn to "criminal" activity. This hopelessness is the engine of crime. The economic disparity causes many of society's "less desirables" to resort to activities they may never be aware of let alone ever consider. Our societal ills have not materialized overnight and will take generations to reverse, but only under the proper conditions, and yes, the financial influx will be great either way; prisons and programs or opportunity and dignity.
Many people who are socio-economically disadvantaged feel trapped and subsequently turn to "criminal" activity. This hopelessness is the engine of crime. The economic disparity of contemporary society creates the environment whereas many of society's "less desirables" decide to resort to activities they may never be aware of, let alone ever consider. Our societal ills have not materialized overnight and the subsequent issue will take generations to reverse. However, this reversal can only occur under the proper conditions, and yes, the financial influx will be great either way; prisons and programs or opportunity and dignity.
What happened to the protection of society? Or is that not something that is considered anymore?
Post a Comment