I've written about creative punishments before, and Florida is implementing what appears to be a useful program requiring DUI convicts to install breath-alcohol recognition devices in their cars that prevent them from driving while intoxicated.
The penalty will be imposed on drivers convicted of multiple DUIs, as well as first-time offenders with a blood-alcohol level of 0.20 percent or more or with a child in the vehicle at the time of the offense. ...Offenders will pick up the tab for the device: $75 for installation and $67.50 for monthly monitoring and calibration of the machine.
Apparently many states have similar programs -- which is great -- but I'm not too keen on federal involvement in what appears to be a purely local matter.
All 50 states are required by a 2000 federal law to have similar programs in place or risk losing some of their highway construction money.
I particularly like the fact that the offender has to foot the bill himself. I don't know how effective the programs are, but since the state isn't paying for it I'm not too concerned.
I think a similar principle could be used to craft punishments for other crimes. For instance, people convicted of violent sexual assault could be castrated. If that's too grusome to mandate, perhaps allow lighter prison sentences for offenders willing to accept alternative punishments that are cheaper for society, and more effective in preventing recidivism.
Some may argue that such an approach to justice could create a slipperly slope leading towards Saddam-style torture, but I don't think that would be a large concern as long as the right to a public trial-by-jury is preserved.
I'm not too keen on federal involvement in what appears to be a purely local matter.
The right of the federals to impose themselves into local issues was resolved long ago. States rights went out of fashion at Appomattox.
Doesn't mean I have to like it, or think it ideal.
Even after Appomatox the concept of State Rights didn't really die until the new deal.
And I am honestly horrified that anyone could suggest either mandatory or voluntary mutilation as a punishment for any crime. I'm not the least bit worried that that would lead down the slippery slope to anywhere... I'm not sure there is any farther down to go.
The right to trial by jury does not permit us to do away with humanity in punishment.
Besides, I don't think it would work, violent sexual assault is usually considered more about the violence than sexual pleasure. And it is perfect possible to sexually assault someone with a non-living object anyway.
What's inherently bad about physical punishment? You may not like it, that's fine, I'm willing to go with the majority. I'm just thinking that if the goal of law enforcement is to deter criminals, we'd be a lot more effective at it if we could actually punish people in a more realistic manner.
Most people I've known who've gone to jail really don't seem to care much about going back. Plus, it's expensive.
There is a line between 'simple' physical punishment and mutilation. Beatings, even those which break the skin, do not in general do unrecoverable physical damage, at least beyond minor scarring, as long as certain targets on the body and certain tools are avoided. Whether this is a useful punishment might be subject to debate, and I might even agree in certain situations. In contrast, severe permanent damage (such as mutilation or cripling) is beyond what any moral society should be willing to do to its members, with or without their permission.
If you cannot accept that morality on its own, here is an argument in support: Castration does nothing to prevent an otherwise free person from violently sexually assaulting someone. Even ignoring stores that specifically marketing sex toys, a trip to a grocery store, hardware store, sports store, or bar could generate a usable "tool". Second, while it may satisfy a thirst for vengence, it does nothing to undo the damage or help protect the victim or others from future assault. It may scare others who think they might get caught, but it is doubtful (based on evidence from death penalty debates) whether this has any real effect on reducing crime. Deterance really can only have an effect on reasonable people; attempting to deter people who would otherwise commit an unreasonable act is logically questionable.
Somewhat ironically, given my citing of anti-death penalty arguments; the death penalty is one form of punishment involving permanent damage for which the above argument doesn't apply -- death makes it impossible for the offender to offend again. While I think the death penalty should be reserved for situtations in which it is intrinsically defensive and not just vengeful; I do not have a problem with its use in theory.
Also I don't think the primary goal of law enforcement is deterence, nor is it even strictly preventing crime, since by that goal it would invariably fail. The primary goal is to catch criminals, and to avoid or prevent their committing additional crimes. Prevention of crime depends upon personal morals and the resistance of the victim or other bystanders, there is no way it could be anything more or less than that. Police may serve to deter crime by placing themselves in a position to interfere (street patrol), but their ability in that regard is strictly limited; and by the time it comes to District Attorneys and Criminal courts it is too late to deter. The crime has already occured.