Eugene Volokh posts an op-ed he wrote arguing against the now-retracted Victims' Rights Amendment and it's generally good, but I think he dances around what I see to be the real issue: the government shouldn't base prosecutions on what's good for crime victims.
Many people (not Prof. Volokh, I'm sure) see the justice system as a civilized way for victims to get revenge. Many others think the purpose of the justice system is to reform criminals and make them into contributing members of society. Both are wrong.
The former view is possibly popular because the perceived need for "closure". That's psychobabble. The government has no business basing punishments on anyone's mental health.
The latter view is popular because there's a certain segment of society that thinks no one is responsible for their actions. When people commit crimes it's society's fault for not educating them sufficiently. I reject this notion, not because there aren't some environmental and genetic factors that contribute to criminality, but because despite those factors we all have a responsibility to exert our free will and prevent ourselves from hurting others.
A third view is that the purpose of the justice system is to make society safer. This is partially true, but not exactly. The purpose of the laws that the justice system enforces may be to make society safer, but the purpose of the justice system itself is purely to enforce the laws. The police officer and the judge should not concern themselves with the effect their enforcement has on society.
The legislature is in charge of crafting laws that fulfill the goals of their electorate, and the voters will probably want their representatives to pass laws that make them safer. The justice system should let the lawmakers do their jobs. Part of the problem is that the lawmakers make so many laws that they can't all be enforced. This situation leaves the justice system with too much discretion as to which criminals they prosecute, and in effect allows the police and prosecutors to act as de facto legislators by ignoring some laws and being strict on others.
The real focus of the justice system should be, as Prof. Volokh says, "figuring out the truth". The victims' rights lobby thinks that trials should be therapeutic for crime victims, but in reality the victim of a crime has no role to play other than, at most, a witness.
If a defendant is convicted he should be sentenced purely for the purpose of punishment. If the punishment brings anyone "closure" or satisfaction as an incidental side-effect, fine. If the punishment makes society safer, that's excellent (and an important indication that the punishment is effective). If the punishment leads to the criminal's reformation and redemption, also excellent. But none of those are the point, and I don't trust the courts to define all those terms. Punishment is easy, all the rest is social engineering.
I have no problem with civilized revenge. I would not support a law allowing crime victims or their next of kin to exact revenge on the perp, but my objection would be practical in nature, not moral. If I don't have a moral right to kill the S.O.B. who killed my next of kin, where did I get the right to authorize a democratic state to do that for me?
That said, I share your view that the criminal trial should be about the perp's guilt or innocence, and should not function as an opportunity for the victim to have his/her day in court. That's what civil trials are for.
FYI, that last comment took a year to post. Is it possible that your new server is even slower than the old one?
X: I see your point about revenge, but I don't think personal revenge is good either. Even personally-meted punishment shouldn't be based on emotional satisfaction.
Regarding comment time, ugh. I think my blog is too large to convert to a SQL database, so I'm stuck with the BDB system, which is slow. If that's the real problem. I don't know.
My blog was pretty big when I made the conversion. If all else fails, you can always make an export file, break it into parts, and then re-import it piece by piece into a MySQL-based blog. If you try anything that elaborate, might want to consider switching to WordPress as well.
X: Did it get faster when you switched to SQL?
Yes, and more reliable to boot.
Are you guys going to be at the brunch/lunch on Sunday?
I will.
I'm planning to be, yeah. Thanks for reminding me!
Michael, I'm a bit late to respond, but I feel obligated to add my dissenting opinion. First, let me say that I agree with you about revenge and that our lawmakers pass too many unenforcable laws. However, I believe your dismissal of the idea of rehabilitation is founded on a flawed characterization of the argument in favor of such a view.
Firstly, I believe you unfairly tie the notion of fault to this argument. I believe the idea of rehabilitation can be argued without the notion of blaming society for everything. As a matter of fact, I'd label your characterization a straw man.
One perfectly valid position on rehabilitation as a function of justice would be that people are worth rehabilitating. If the electorate believes that criminals, especially those who commited less serious crimes, can give back more positive output to society, they might decide that "throwing away" criminals results in a net loss to everyone. As a corrolary to this (closer to the supporting idea of "making society safer") it is arguable that failing to rehabilitate criminals results in more repeat offenders, and offenders who go on to commit even more serious crimes. If
one of the goals of the electorate is to make society safer, perhaps blind, heavy-handed punishment goes against that goal by reinforcing sociopathic behavior.
Anyway, I wholeheartedly agree that our society goes too far with victim's rights. However, I as a voter do not feel well served by a justice system that is a robotic, unthinking punisher.
I have opposed victim-impact statements before sentencing. A murderer shouldn't get a long sentence because the victim left behind a wife and children. Or because the victim was the most favorite teacher in town. Because, then, if the victim happens to be a homeless person, mentally ill, or a hermit, the act of murder could be judged to be of lesser importance to society, thus meriting a shorter sentence. Society should decide in the process of enacting the criminal statute what the damage is to society by various crimes, then upon conviction sentence accordingly.
JT: Yeah, I generally agree.
Dast: I'm uncomfortable with the idea of "rehabilitation" because I don't like the idea of government trying to change someone's thoughts. Society should definitely work to prevent harmful actions, and by punishing someone we can encourage them to change their actions. Fine and good.
But "rehabilitation" is all about changing someone's mental processes, and I don't think that's the government's business. I don't trust them in that role. No one should be forced to change their thoughts or put into a system with that goal.
If criminals want to change their own thoughts as a result of punishment, that's fine. If they want to keep committing crimes, that's what "three strikes" laws are for.
Another Blogspot-to-Wordpress convert, here. I had hundreds of posts converted, too.
Way speedy.
The main reason I don't want to convert to Wordpress is that I've already put a lot of work into my templates and the thought of doing them over makes me cringe.