Major Reform for Criminal Justice System

[Paschendale]

One growing trend in the US is a restorative version of criminal justice. Instead of focusing on punitive measures and punishing people, the goal is instead to help correct whatever problems have brought the person down that path into crime, so that they can return to society as a productive member. This mentality actually squares fairly closely with the OP, in that a person must become capable of rejoining society. The difference is that the system realizes that no criminal is created in a vacuum, and that people learn more with carrots than with sticks.

Our present criminal justice system is heavily stick oriented. Understanding that many criminals come from difficult backgrounds, drug addiction, minimal education, abusive family structures (a surprising number of violent criminals were molested as children), and working to treat them, rather than punish them... These methods are shown to reduce repeat offenses and help past offenders back into society as productive members. The goal is not to be soft or coddling of violent criminals, but to teach them how to be a law abiding citizen.

What do you think of this, Goshin?

 

[Demon of Light]

I strongly support much of what you proposed Goshing, but I think your idea also has one weakness in that it still emphasizes the punishment-reward system of behavior modification. That system is not sufficiently effective. One thing I read about the differences between child-rearing in Japan and the United States demonstrates, in my opinion, why Japan's crime rate is really as low as it is today. Here in the U.S. child-rearing typically emphasizes punishment-reward meaning that good kids get perks and bad kids get spanks. On the other hand, child-rearing in Japan puts a lot more focus on understanding and empathy. Raising the social consciousness of individuals can do a lot to ameliorate criminal tendencies.

This no-mercy approach concerning repeat offenses and parole is also an issue as I feel it is likely to push the interests of "justice" to the detriment of civil liberties.

Also, one thing I think maybe you have not considered is that such reform would require a high level of centralization for the criminal justice system. Your proposal would require taking many elements of law enforcement out of the hands of the states and putting them in the hands of the federal government. While centralization has its benefits it also has many faults that could outweigh said benefits.

The only downside is that it's going to be expensive. The extra security for inmates, the extra monitoring for parolees... it's all going to add up quickly. But I would say in the end it is still better than having our crime rate and our incarceration rate, and if it is successful in reducing recidivism rates and crime rates in general, it may save us more money in the long run.

Actually, pursuing a policy of legalization and reducing incarceration of lesser offenders would do a great deal to reduce the required expenditures for such reform. Also, if this reform orientation means focusing them more on performing productive tasks then that can also help ease the costs.

 

[Goshin]

One growing trend in the US is a restorative version of criminal justice. Instead of focusing on punitive measures and punishing people, the goal is instead to help correct whatever problems have brought the person down that path into crime, so that they can return to society as a productive member. This mentality actually squares fairly closely with the OP, in that a person must become capable of rejoining society. The difference is that the system realizes that no criminal is created in a vacuum, and that people learn more with carrots than with sticks.

Our present criminal justice system is heavily stick oriented. Understanding that many criminals come from difficult backgrounds, drug addiction, minimal education, abusive family structures (a surprising number of violent criminals were molested as children), and working to treat them, rather than punish them... These methods are shown to reduce repeat offenses and help past offenders back into society as productive members. The goal is not to be soft or coddling of violent criminals, but to teach them how to be a law abiding citizen.

What do you think of this, Goshin?

As I've mentioned, I'm an ex-cop, not a behavioral therapist or any other kind of psychologist. If I were tasked with setting up such a system, I'd probably hire Captain Courtesy to help me design the actual "Behavioral reform mechanisms".

I've known lots of criminals. Most of them came from ****ty families, weren't too bright, poorly educated and lived in ****ty neighborhoods. It isn't hard to look at them and think "Dammit, with a different background this could have been a worthwhile person."

Then other times you look at the things that they DO to innocent people and you want to kill them yourself... slowly.

We'll never be rid, entirely, of poverty or ignorance. Not in any of our lifetimes anyway. But maybe we can salvage at least some of these people... combined with not letting them commit violent felonies again and again like we do now, I think it would be worth a shot.

 

[Goshin]

This no-mercy approach concerning repeat offenses and parole is also an issue as I feel it is likely to push the interests of "justice" to the detriment of civil liberties.

.

Not so much "justice", as simply protecting society from dangerous elements. IN our current system, far FAR too many felons get out of doing serious time again and again, and hurt more people OVER and over, before finally getting a long term in prison where they won't be a danger to society at large.

I've seen this happen all too often. People I care about have been on the recieving end of it.

That's why I say you put these people in an institution the FIRST time they commit a serious felony, and they do not get out until their reform is a proven fact. If that takes forever, then it takes forever.

It's hard on THEM, but society does not deserve to have unreformed violent criminals unleashed on innocents simply because they've served a set period of incarceration. It's part of the whole program.... those who are capable of changing, with help, WILL get a second chance; those who aren't, don't get out where they can keep on offending until they rape and murder someone's 12yo daughter.

Zero tolerance for recidivism is, IMO, also the way to be fair to society. I can allow that some dumb young schmuck may get the idea that robbing the Lil Cricket at gunpoint would be cool, because he's an ignorant wretch... if he's capable of understand his wrong and changing his ways over time, then I'm willing to give him a chance to prove himself. But IF after he goes through 5 or 10 or more years of incaraceration in a reform institute, and manages to fulfill all the standards and appears to be ready to rejoin society.... if he robs another Lil Cricket, after going through all that, then the stupid dumbass not only deserves to be locked away forever, it would be unfair to society to do otherwise.

I believe in second chances. I don't believe in thirds.

 

[Demon of Light]

Zero tolerance for recidivism is, IMO, also the way to be fair to society. I can allow that some dumb young schmuck may get the idea that robbing the Lil Cricket at gunpoint would be cool, because he's an ignorant wretch... if he's capable of understand his wrong and changing his ways over time, then I'm willing to give him a chance to prove himself. But IF after he goes through 5 or 10 or more years of incaraceration in a reform institute, and manages to fulfill all the standards and appears to be ready to rejoin society.... if he robs another Lil Cricket, after going through all that, then the stupid dumbass not only deserves to be locked away forever, it would be unfair to society to do otherwise.

I believe in second chances. I don't believe in thirds.

While, I would certainly agree with reincarceration I do not agree with the idea that a person who robs some place twice being locked away forever. Also, you mentioned many crimes and those could all result in the same result. Meaning someone who committed voluntary manslaughter and then commits attempted rape goes to prison forever. I do not think that really fits your intention.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

While, I would certainly agree with reincarceration I do not agree with the idea that a person who robs some place twice being locked away forever. Also, you mentioned many crimes and those could all result in the same result. Meaning someone who committed voluntary manslaughter and then commits attempted rape goes to prison forever. I do not think that really fits your intention.

That would certainly fit my intentions. Someone who commits voluntary manslaughter and rejoins society only to try to rape someone? Yes, by all means, lock them away forever. Put a bullet in the back of their head. Launch them into the Sun. Just don't let them back into society for another crack at ruining someone else's life.

 

[Goshin]

While, I would certainly agree with reincarceration I do not agree with the idea that a person who robs some place twice being locked away forever. Also, you mentioned many crimes and those could all result in the same result. Meaning someone who committed voluntary manslaughter and then commits attempted rape goes to prison forever. I do not think that really fits your intention.

Think about that a minute. You're proposing that someone who has

1. Killed a person under circumstances that a court held unjustifiable...
2. ... who then fulfilled a term of incarceration in a reform institute, and who managed to fulfill the required standards and give the appearance of reform, and achieve release and his freedom...
3. .... who then turns around and TRIES TO RAPE someone, should be released into society a THIRD time??

Why?

Why do we owe him yet another chance to ruin a THIRD persons life?

He has already killed someone under unjustified circumstances. That means a person is DEAD at his hands, a father has lost his son or daughter, a whole family and set of friends will grieve and suffer for years...

...AND...

He has attempted to rape someone, and all the emotional trauma that brings, perhaps requiring years of therapy before that victim is able to fully function again!

Why in the hell would we give him the chance to do something like this a THIRD time?

Society does not deserve to have someone like this walking around free. Innocent people shouldn't have to bear the risk of letting him go again, he's already demonstrated that he will ruin lives and take lives.

Bad enough that he fooled us once, why let him fool us twice? "Fool me once, shame on you... fool me twice, shame on me."


Even when reform is the orientation of the incarceration, the ultimate object is still the SAFETY OF SOCIETY. In fact, that is entirely my object. Being fair to the convicted criminal and giving them a chance to demonstrate reform is more of a side-issue really; protecting society from the release of un-reformed criminals is my actual aim. Giving them even a second chance is a compromise position for me; my instinctive response is to say lock them up forever the first time they commit a serious violent felony.

With demonstrated reform, we can give someone a second chance... if they blow it, we don't owe them a third. Our first duty is not to the repeat offender, but to society as a whole.

 

[Demon of Light]

Think about that a minute. You're proposing that someone who has

1. Killed a person under circumstances that a court held unjustifiable...
2. ... who then fulfilled a term of incarceration in a reform institute, and who managed to fulfill the required standards and give the appearance of reform, and achieve release and his freedom...
3. .... who then turns around and TRIES TO RAPE someone, should be released into society a THIRD time??

It is not about releasing them. However, you are talking about someone taking a life and then someone attempting to have sex with someone against that person's will. That the offender goes free for taking a life, but is imprisoned for life over an attempt at coerced sex is just problematic. Also, rape can be in many different circumstances, including date rape. The point is that one is a much more serious crime than the other, yet you want someone put away for life due to the lesser crime. If the situation were reversed you would have a point because that indicates escalation, but with what I am saying it amounts to someone being given a much more severe punishment for a lesser crime.

With demonstrated reform, we can give someone a second chance... if they blow it, we don't owe them a third. Our first duty is not to the repeat offender, but to society as a whole.

Our first duty would be to the civil liberties of all. Someone getting five years for killing a person, but then getting 30 years, or however long that person has to live, due to trying to have sex with someone who did not want to have sex is disproportionate.

 

[Goshin]

It is not about releasing them. However, you are talking about someone taking a life and then someone attempting to have sex with someone against that person's will. That the offender goes free for taking a life, but is imprisoned for life over an attempt at coerced sex is just problematic. Also, rape can be in many different circumstances, including date rape. The point is that one is a much more serious crime than the other, yet you want someone put away for life due to the lesser crime. If the situation were reversed you would have a point because that indicates escalation, but with what I am saying it amounts to someone being given a much more severe punishment for a lesser crime.



Our first duty would be to the civil liberties of all. Someone getting five years for killing a person, but then getting 30 years, or however long that person has to live, due to trying to have sex with someone who did not want to have sex is disproportionate.

First, I'm not overly concerned about civil rights of someone who has committed two serious violent felonies. As far as I'm concerned, the first time they are convicted of a serious violent felony, they've given up their right to walk free among honest citizens. I'm willing to give them a chance to earn that right back through a reform process.

If, having done so, they do something like attempted rape, then they are demonstrating that they are an ongoing threat to society. They have demonstrated that they are able to go through a program of reform with strict standards, game the system and get out... then offend again. There is no reason soceity has to tolerate this, and there is no reason to endanger the innocent by giving this person a third chance.

You see, he isn't being put away for life for attempted rape; he's being put away for life, for proving himself to be a serial-felon with no regard for his fellow citizens' lives and persons, despite a real and serious attempt to rehabilitate him.

I'm perfectly okay with putting him away for life, if he is convicted of attempted rape. You understand the object here is to protect society from the criminal, and particularly from the career criminal or recidivist. Adhering to some standard of being "fair" to the repeat-felon is not really any great concern to me. He broke the social contract in a very grave and severe fashion; he was very lucky to get a second chance at all, by my standards; if he blows that chance by committing another serious felony crime of violence/coercion against an innocent citizen, then so be it. Put him away where he will no longer be a threat to you, me, your daughter, my son, your wife, my elderly mother, your sister, or my friends.

To me, the whole object of this exercise is a more rational approach to criminal justice whose whole aim is to enhance the safety of society from repeat offenders.

I don't understand why you're viewing attempted rape as a substantially "lesser" crime, btw. Rape is one of the most heinous things one human can do to another, short of torturing them to death, imo.