That’s kind of how restorative and transformative justice works, but without the death. But I’m not sure what the community would do in this case, or could do, other than kill him, since he doesn’t even seem capable of regret. If anyone knows of any books on hardcore restorative justice I’m interested.
1 Like
I don’t understand. How would you prevent dangerous offenders from reoffending without either segregating them from the community at large, or killing them?
I’m totally against the latter, and I don’t see any other alternative than imprisonment that will prevent them from reoffending until/unless they can be rehabilitated.
Which is not to say that the prison system, as it exists is in the US (rape, torture, murder, solitary confinement etc.), is any way satisfactory. But some sort of prison system seems necessary.
2 Likes
It’s closure.
He is a “diseased” person. If you have a sick cow or a dog and there is no way they are going to get better, you put them down. If your dog is killing chickens and you run a chicken farm, you put him down. If your arm is infected and festering and developing gang green, you cut it off.
Humans are special in that we think of them as some higher form of animal, and some even view them as unique in having some sort of soul. But really humans aren’t much different than animals we grace with death so often.
There may not be any more justice in killing him than there is in just locking him up. Some people think he would “suffer” more in solitary for 50+ years - but inducing more suffering doesn’t seem like justice either. And I also don’t buy the “let him reflect on what he did for 50 years”. I have never done anything that bad, but I am very good at ignoring my faults and responsibilities some times. To think everyone in prison is stewing over their misdeeds is wishful thinking (though I am sure some of them do, to a degree).
So, again, while I dislike the death penalty because it’s actual use is so misused and lopsided, in certain cases where the crime is so great, and the guilt unquestionable, I really don’t have a problem with it ethically. End it and let’s all try to heal.
1 Like
Good…
That would explain one of his few statements, that he felt he had to do this and didn’t regret taking innocent lives.
1 Like
Side note - do they have barbers in jail? Someone give that guy a decent cut.
1 Like
Seriously, what is it with mass murderers and bowl cuts?
1 Like
So we kill him for emotional fulfillment?
Because it brings us satisfaction?
Isn’t that what makes the most heinous murderers so heinous? Because they kill for emotional satisfaction?
7 Likes
I certainly don’t disagree on US vs. Scandinavian prisons in general; but in this case it might be instructive to keep something like the Anders Breivik case in mind: It looks like Norwegian solitary confinement is markedly less grim than American solitary confinement; but aside from modestly better conditions; they appear to have adopted, for want of better, more or less exactly the same strategy we use for non-capital but highly dangerous cases.
When it comes to treatment of people who are good candidates for rehabilitation; US prisons certainly don’t impress; but when that doesn’t look to be an option, the differences get a lot less dramatic.
Care to elaborate on that?
I wouldn’t see any of those situations as “victories,” either. Unfortunate necessities, perhaps.
I’ve had a sick cat that I had to put down, and part of me is still very angry at myself for not doing more to save his life rather than making the decision to have him put down. Old Yeller is rightfully seen as a tear-jerker, although it’s abundantly clear that that ending was necessary. And I would try every possible medical treatment to save my right arm before cutting it off (and that appears to be a common sentiment, from the popularity of the phrase, “I’d sooner cut off my right arm” to describe things you’d never do).
Given fifty years, surrounded by nothing but reminders of the consequences of what you did, I think that reflection on whether or not it was the right choice would be pretty much inevitable.
3 Likes
Breivik’s world:
- Three cells - one for sleeping, one for studying, one for exercising - plus daily access to exercise yard
- Can play video games, watch TV and read newspapers
- Has a computer (without internet access)
- Can prepare his own food and do his own washing
- Has phone conversations with a “female friend”
- Contact with prison staff, lawyers, a priest, health professionals
- Has declined to play chess with volunteers
- Built a gingerbread house as part of a prison competition
[Edit: Previous article was about ICE centres for holding suspected illegal immigrants. Replaced with quotes from more appropriate article)
https://hub.jhu.edu/magazine/2015/spring/is-solitary-confinement-ethical/
Gabriel Eber has no shortage of macabre tales of life inside the East Mississippi Correctional Facility, a notoriously violent and chaotic men’s prison on the outskirts of Meridian. Assaults (staff on inmate, inmate on inmate) are frequent. According to accounts, cells are infested with rats that crawl over prisoners; some inmates tie leashes to the rodents and sell them to the mentally ill as pets. Men are kept in small, unsanitary isolation cells with scant human attention for months and years. Self-mutilation and suicide attempts are not uncommon.
But words alone, Eber says, can’t bring home the facility’s gruesome conditions. “I can show you a video of what I’m talking about, and I have some pictures,” says Eber, dressed in a loose-fitting dark suit as he sits in his cramped Washington office at the American Civil Liberties Union. He clicks open a file to show footage shot by the private corporation that now manages the prison. Two corrections officers stand outside a cell in one of the EMCF’s isolation units. (One such unit is known to inmates as the “dead zone” or “dead man’s zone.”) The officers are here for an unknown reason, perhaps to respond to a medical emergency, but if so, Eber says, they are already too late. One hears garbled shouts from other unit inmates, intermixed with a rhythmic, buzzing cacophony of machinery. The man inside, Eber says, suffers from asthma, which has likely worsened due to pepper spray in the air. Corrections officers routinely spray through a cell door’s tray slot if the inmate refuses to close it. Inmates often leave the slots open as a cry for help to receive medical attention, food, or a shower, and such defiant acts are common. Some inmates flood their cells by cramming whatever they can into a toilet, or use damaged electrical sockets to set fire to their mattresses. Some cut themselves.
I don’t know about you, but I would describe those differences less as “modest” and more as “dramatic.”
9 Likes
For the victims it might be emotional fulfillment, for society it is just something that needs to be done.
Yes, I wasn’t suggesting they were victories. “Unfortunate necessities” is a great description.
Yeah, but he seems to think what he did was awesome.
Similarly, I am sure people who have killed others in war - some of them have remorse and it haunts them, some of them just ignore it and don’t think about it - it was part of their job, and some of them were like “fuck yeah, we blew the shit out of those mofos.” And modern war is much, much cleaner than in the past, where desecration of civilians was status quo too.
Oh, state level solitary is generally considered to be both more cruel, less well managed, and much more indiscriminately applied that fed level. No argument there.
I was thinking more along the lines of a comparison with something like ADX Florence, which is where many of the really serious federal cases end up; and is deeply grim(can we design all the fixtures the inmate requires into a single chunk of concrete? Let’s find out!); but generally said(even by people who think it isn’t a good idea) to be markedly less violent and chaotic than state level solitary/SHU/etc. setups which are often retrofits and improvisations, even more dysfunctional than the prison systems they are built into.
As much as I can’t stand Breivik and his ilk, I’ll still lean towards the Nordic model, since it has a proven track record of reducing recidivism rates and treats people who’ve committed crimes like people.
16 Likes
Except that would be horrible…for them. For the community. That would be pushing off the responsibility to come to a humane and fair judgement on the actual victims. No matter what they chose as a group it wouldn’t satisfy everyone, either in the group or in the rest of the country. And that would rest on their shoulders for life.
7 Likes
On the government’s terms when they say so.
I’ve already expressed my distaste for it in general. But the concept goes beyond regular governments. If we had no government structure like we do now, how do you think someone like that would be dealt with in the past?
Why is that even a useful question? We don’t live in the past and never will.
I think this case getting a lot of publicity is going to help people who want to argue for the death penalty (“What about Dylann Roof?!?”). If we can agree that it is reasonable to kill Roof, then we are saying there are criteria for the state to kill someone, and then it’s all about arguing whether those criteria have been met, and that’s how we end up with states give seriously mentally ill people enough medication to make them lucid for their executions.
The law exists and should be applied fairly, but I feel like the more we try to make the death penalty about fair application of the law and about reasoned judgement the worse it is.
As @Mister44 just hinted, people have been killing each other as a way of dealing with crimes for a long time. I can’t sit in my place in history and say that this wasn’t necessary. I think the reason we build societal institutions is so that we can do better than that. We obviously can do better, because lots of countries are doing better and have less crime and more functional penal systems.
Tons of studies show it costs more than life imprisonment. It doesn’t make anyone safer. To argue for it is to argue it is worth paying a substantial extra cost so that we can see people die.
8 Likes
No, because the reason we really execute criminals is about vengeance.
8 Likes
