Chip Taylor has written a few posts about the expense of imprisoning criminals, and I'd like to ask a question:
Would justice be hindered if non-violent, non-injurious crimes were not punished with incarceration?
Perhaps interpretation of the 8th Amendment has eliminated so many other potential punishments that we're forced to use imprisonment for everything, but this need not remain the case. For example, public floggings have a long history of use in every part of the world, and could be performed under proper medical supervision such that no permanent injury would be inflicted. Non-violent offenders could also be subject to terms of indentured servitude, and could thus contribute to society during their punishment.
Even aside from my opinion that many non-violent crimes shouldn't be "crimes" at all, completely restructuring our punishment paradigm could save us a great deal of money, and perhaps further the execution of justice, as well.
While I'm opposed to public floggings or even private floggings (unless of course it's consensual), we have started community service forms of punishment that could and should be expanded. Surely there's more that can be done than cleaning up litter on the side of the road. How about painting over graffiti on the overpasses? Clean up the beach. Clean the storm drains that lead to the beach.
I think those are good ideas, but I don't think that "community service" alone acts as a very strong disincentive for criminals willing to commit burglery, for example.
Nothing gets through to someone as well as pure physical pain, for better or for worse. I don't advocate torture or maiming, but public humilation combined with one-time corporal punishment could serve to make a would-be thief think twice.
Dan M. Kahan, now of Yale Law, has written a few articles on so called "shaming punishments" (you know, wearing a Sandwich Board that says "I'm a drunk driver" and the like).
Also read Robert Silverberg's terrific short story "To See the Invisible Man"
If you ever happen to be in Rothenburg ob der Tauber in southern Germany, you should visit the Medieval Crime Museum located in that wonderful city. (The city is worth a visit, if only for the Kathe Wohlfahrt Christmas store, but take a few hundred Euros with you, if you do visit!)
That museum details many of the punishments used in medieval times, of which shaming was a significant part.
Today, however, I don't think shaming would be quite as effective since it really requires that the person being shamed be known to those to whom he or she is displaying the shame. In today's society, most people are anonymous, save to a few friends or neighbors and as such, one could stand in public with such a placard without really experiencing the shame. When those you care about can see the shame, then the punishment has some value.
I've seen museums and exhibits like what you're describing, Allen, although I have a feeling the Germans had a particular flair with medieval punishments.
I don't know if a proposal to revamp the judicial system will benefit from being compared to "medieval punishments" however :)
As far as shame goes, you're right when it comes to placards and such. Our culture is so exhibitionist that merely wearing a sign isn't very demeaning. Floggings, stocks, branding, and that sort of thing would still be effective though, in my opinion.
Considering that jail time already includes violent anal rape by other inmates, public pain punishments might not be particularly effective. In fact, they might be preferable. I know I'd rather have a scheduled, public beating, than get randomly, secretly, and privately raped by Bubba and his friends a few dozen times during my jail term.
Of course, there's another angle entirely: The War on Drugs. I won't go into why it's absurd, but decriminalizing marijuana *by itself* would greatly alleviate our crowded prisons. (Remember how we had the War on Drugs, and now you can't get drugs any more?)
Yeah, our jails suck. It's starting to become more of a public issue, however, and I recently read about a bill in Congress to provide money to investigate the horrible and wide-spread epidemic of prison rape.
And yes, many non-violent crimes shouldn't be "crimes" at all.
I don't think we need to think up alternatives to incarceration; I think we need to turn back to the Auburn system -- prison labor. Because prisoners are forced to work themselves silly, they make up for the cost of their own imprisonment. This is how American prisons worked for most of the 19th Century, until the Progressive Era put an end to most prison labor.
BTW - This would also largely solve the problem of prison violence and rape, because prisoners would be kept busy (and exhausted) with manual labor.
Of course, there's also a need for more medium and minimum security prisons, which ought to be less expensive.
Give prisoners the alternative of 4Xing their time by spending it in less expensive, less tolerable conditions (solitary confinement or chain gang come to mind). This way a person who can tolerate it can spend 1 year in solitary instead of 4 years with cable TV.
To make it fair, you let them opt out on a 24 hour notice. (Keeps the people who chose solitary from going completely insane.)
I am at this time doing a postion paper for my philosophy class...chosen by me... to illustrate the absurdity of resending repeated offenders back to to the prison systems that do not seem to be working well, and continously eats up our tax dollars. Public floggings, I feel, would be more effective and less a burden on our countries' already disasterous financial state. My thesis is to introduce public floggings, as a deterrence against repeated offenders. Just wanted to share this with you and would love any thoughts, whether in agreement, or disagreement from you.
Thank you
Mary huskey
MH: I'm in favor, as you can imagine. I think it's important to prevent permanent injury, but otherwise I think it's a great idea. If you put your paper on the web, post a link to it.
i just wanted to say get stuffed DOG!!!