In the past prisoner’s were kept in very poor conditions such as castle dungeons and fed on leftovers. With time humanity has advanced so that conditions of prisons have vastly improved. With that has increased the expense of maintaining these prisons.
Criminal are put in prisons for many reasons, the primary one being that society should be protected from criminals and that imprisonment is a deterrent for crime. There is also the hope that the criminal would reform. However, let us see if these aims are being met. First of all the expense is something that the public bears and because of it public debt rises. The living condition of prisons has improved to the extent that at least in the poorer countries of the world prisoners get better food for free than a large segment of the population at large. There have been cases of persons who commit petty crimes just so that they can get free lodgings in prison. Recently there was the case of an old man who begged to be kept in prison after his sentence was over because he said he had no other place to go to.
On the one hand society is protected when a criminal is imprisoned but on the other hand it suffers because of the economic burden. The public first pays for investigation and public prosecution and next it pays for the prison and living expenses of the prisoner. Few prisons reform the criminal rather more petty criminals become hardened because of their newfound company and return to society as such posing greater dangers. Humans tend to maintain historic continuity in their institutions, however it may be wise to consider a break from them too.
It is worth questioning if human society can greatly minimize the system of imprisonment if not do away completely with it. Other forms of punishment are possible that can be a deterrent as well as reformative while not causing any expense to the public. For examples rapist and sexual offenders can be rendered impotent and non-erective by medical techniques and they can even be castrated to nullify their sexual drive. Financial offenders can be punished financially and in cases of major offenders like Bernie Madoff they can be stripped of all their assets so as to be rendered paupers and then left free. Once discovered, they are no longer a threat to society at large. Violent criminals causing death or serious physical impairment may be executed through humane medical procedures that cause no pain and thus be removed from society. Minor offenders such as those who physically hurt other people or get into physical fights can be sent away to mining camps or isolated islands for prescribed periods where they work for their living and suffer similar companions. Minor financial or other offenders can be dealt with fine or public service sentences.
There is also a need to review if certain things can be removed from the crime list. One is a drug related offence. Until a few centuries ago possession and trade in narcotics was not a crime and there were no drug crimes except national ones like the opium wars. Ever since drugs have become illegal drug related crime has emerged. Mexico and Columbia can be rid of drug wars overnight if drugs are made legal. Portugal has led the way by doing it already. There is an old post on this in this blog. A portion of the law enforcement expenses is then spent on rehabilitation centers and public education about the dangers of addiction. The public of many countries supports the legalisations of drugs such as cannabis however the authorities remain obstinate. Not all the reasons for this obstinacy are honorable. Politicians and law enforcement agencies derive kick- backs from drug dealers in many places around the world.
It really is time for society to reconsider the prison option in majority of cases where such sentences are routinely awarded around the world. The money saved can be spent much more honorably on reducing public debt and also in creating shelters for the homeless. This blogger intends to write a separate post on such shelters in the near future.
Criminal are put in prisons for many reasons, the primary one being that society should be protected from criminals and that imprisonment is a deterrent for crime. There is also the hope that the criminal would reform. However, let us see if these aims are being met. First of all the expense is something that the public bears and because of it public debt rises. The living condition of prisons has improved to the extent that at least in the poorer countries of the world prisoners get better food for free than a large segment of the population at large. There have been cases of persons who commit petty crimes just so that they can get free lodgings in prison. Recently there was the case of an old man who begged to be kept in prison after his sentence was over because he said he had no other place to go to.
On the one hand society is protected when a criminal is imprisoned but on the other hand it suffers because of the economic burden. The public first pays for investigation and public prosecution and next it pays for the prison and living expenses of the prisoner. Few prisons reform the criminal rather more petty criminals become hardened because of their newfound company and return to society as such posing greater dangers. Humans tend to maintain historic continuity in their institutions, however it may be wise to consider a break from them too.
It is worth questioning if human society can greatly minimize the system of imprisonment if not do away completely with it. Other forms of punishment are possible that can be a deterrent as well as reformative while not causing any expense to the public. For examples rapist and sexual offenders can be rendered impotent and non-erective by medical techniques and they can even be castrated to nullify their sexual drive. Financial offenders can be punished financially and in cases of major offenders like Bernie Madoff they can be stripped of all their assets so as to be rendered paupers and then left free. Once discovered, they are no longer a threat to society at large. Violent criminals causing death or serious physical impairment may be executed through humane medical procedures that cause no pain and thus be removed from society. Minor offenders such as those who physically hurt other people or get into physical fights can be sent away to mining camps or isolated islands for prescribed periods where they work for their living and suffer similar companions. Minor financial or other offenders can be dealt with fine or public service sentences.
There is also a need to review if certain things can be removed from the crime list. One is a drug related offence. Until a few centuries ago possession and trade in narcotics was not a crime and there were no drug crimes except national ones like the opium wars. Ever since drugs have become illegal drug related crime has emerged. Mexico and Columbia can be rid of drug wars overnight if drugs are made legal. Portugal has led the way by doing it already. There is an old post on this in this blog. A portion of the law enforcement expenses is then spent on rehabilitation centers and public education about the dangers of addiction. The public of many countries supports the legalisations of drugs such as cannabis however the authorities remain obstinate. Not all the reasons for this obstinacy are honorable. Politicians and law enforcement agencies derive kick- backs from drug dealers in many places around the world.
It really is time for society to reconsider the prison option in majority of cases where such sentences are routinely awarded around the world. The money saved can be spent much more honorably on reducing public debt and also in creating shelters for the homeless. This blogger intends to write a separate post on such shelters in the near future.
9 comments:
I think you've given a very good summary, Ashok. I don't have any major objections to any of it. So why don't these reforms happen? I think you've touched on many of those as well. But I think there are also perfectly honourable political reasons why major changes cannot be made within democracies, related to the structure of those democracies. In the UK, it is possible that a few policemen receive kickbacks from drug-dealers, but I cannot imagine why politicians should. Maybe it's different in Mexico, Colombia and Afghanistan, where narcotic drugs are a major crop on which farmers depend.
As for those who commit petty crimes to get back into prison, this is an age-old problem.
As in the case of the Falklands, it's a case of prioritisation - and votes.
You are quite right Vincent. it is always a problem to introduce any radical change in democracies. However, it is good to toss the idea around if one thinks it is a good one because then some gradual change atleast becomes feasible.
Yes the kick backs are not so blatant in UK or USA I think but do not put it beyond the politicians even in these countries to get it in a round about way
e.g. a drug lord giving a kickback to a businessman first who makes a campaign contribution later.
You know even in case of bank bailouts this happens. The banks give loans to corporations who in turn fund political campaigns.
There were even some reorts, perhaps, it was long time ago and I am not very certain or sure of the details, that President Kennedy was quite buddy buddy with some mafia from Chicago who were possibaly into drug trafic as well.
With drugs part the main reason why they are so attractive for crime is because it is illegal. The moment they become legal the prices will crash and crime will move out of it.
Criminal are put in prisons for many reasons, the primary one being that society should be protected from criminals and that imprisonment is a deterrent for crime.
Although I hate to nitpick, sir, “the primary one [reason]” you cite is actually two primary reasons. In America I think retribution is the primary reason people are put in to prisons long term, sad, but true.
There is also the hope that the criminal would reform.
I don’t think most Americans care about that because they believe the criminal does not deserve reform. We are vengeful, hateful, emotional group. No offense to us intended.
The public first pays for investigation and public prosecution and next it pays for the prison and living expenses of the prisoner.
And interest on the debt that is higher because of this (something you touched on, but I wanted to clarify).
For examples rapist and sexual offenders can be rendered impotent and non-erective by medical techniques and they can even be castrated to nullify their sexual drive.
This sounds barbaric, but I would choose it over incarceration. I am not sure it would work. Many psychologists, if not most, believe that most sex crimes are done to satisfy a morbid need for power, and not for the sexual pleasure only. A castrated criminal may do other things, still sexual in nature, to lash out and discharge his bitterness. It is a good idea worth considering, but I think it may ultimately fail. Additionally, there is the problem that many “sex offenders” are now being exonerated because of DNA testing and other forensic science. They are released from prison. You cannot release someone from castration.
Violent criminals causing death or serious physical impairment may be executed through humane medical procedures that cause no pain and thus be removed from society.
Two problems, first, again in America, the process of execution cost more than the process of life imprisonment. Secondly, you cannot undo this either.
These objections are simply logistical problems with parts of the plan. The plan itself makes a lot of sense.
Until a few centuries ago possession and trade in narcotics was not a crime and there were no drug crimes except national ones like the opium wars.
Drug abuse is a very serious problem world-wide. I am not sure it making it legal would cause a surge. Each nation should at least pilot the idea, and see what happens. I have never used drugs (other than alcohol, that is), but I know that it would feel good and some would take me to a blissful place. If we are not careful, we are all going to end up living in the The Matrix, only there will be no left to keep it running. I would like to pilot the idea, though, perhaps in one American city that is not needed, like Houston.
This was an excellent post. The concept that something needs to be done and can be done is basically ignored. The problem is not something anyone is seriously considering, and so it continues on.
I think one problem of decriminalising drugs is that it would worry parents and grandparents, and they would not vote for the party that proposed it.
I speak as a parent and grandparent. It would worry me, a little.
John your most excellent and reasoned, beautifully written in satirical style, response brought a smile to my face . It deserves a detailed comment form me having started the discussion, that I shall get to soon after I free myself from some other mundane chores.
"In America I think retribution is the primary reason people are put in to prisons long term, sad, but true. "
Yes I agree this is sad and yes it was two reasons
"A castrated criminal may do other things, still sexual in nature, to lash out and discharge his bitterness. It is a good idea worth considering, but I think it may ultimately fail."
yes I agree that this topic needs more study and research. it seems there are medical methods that can more or less kill the sexual drive part of it through stopping the roduction of hormones that produce them but as I said I do not have full knowledge of this. it need more study.
"Two problems, first, again in America, the process of execution cost more than the process of life imprisonment. Secondly, you cannot undo this either. "
I think with a redisgn of the process it should not cost. In the ultimate analysis just two not expensive injections are required, the first an aanesthetic one and the second a cardiac arrest causing one, As regards undoing I realise mistakes are made in the legal process but the fact that mistakes are made in any human activity should not deter a worthy cause, otherwise nothing could be done. If I was wrongly in the dock I would prefer being put away peacfully to being wrongly incarcerated and then being freed after the initial pain. This arises also from my belkief that the soul survives and moves on to other lives.
"I would like to pilot the idea, though, perhaps in one American city that is not needed, like Houston. "
I love your love of Texas :)
Thanks for your thoughtful response John
Vincent,
This is in response to your comments on the role of votes in democracies and how that rules changes.
However, to my mind things do not move as per votes in present day democracies in places where it matters most because goverments move first for the needs of the political party and only later for the needs of the people. An example is the fat corporate and bank compensations where the people would vote one way but the goverment moves another way. it is really sad that goverments (UK)including Obama have done nothing meanigful on this front inspite of having spoken a lot about it in the aftermath of the banking crisis of 2008.
Recently the loss making UBS chief wanted to get away with millions in bonus, a loot of public money given legal sancity by political parties who derive contributions from the 1% that benifits from the system.
Somewhere in the old testament it was written, either in the proverbs or eccelesiastes " what good is wisdom for it leads to sorrow"
It is good that the common man can not see through the dark workings and mechanisms that run our world. It is because of these the common man suffers economic crisis from time to time and in times of econmic progress he suffers from stress, long and boring commuting and working hours , broken families and a burning desire for retribution (of the type John mentioned) at the wrong door,
yet the books of old also said, " the one's who love the lord shall escape this misery"
and there are many who live in joy and peace in this murky world even as a lotus grows in dirty swamps.
Post a Comment