
We Need Cruel and Unusual Punishment - whack
https://outlookzen.wordpress.com/2016/06/18/we-need-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/
======
dalke
It starts with the false premise that a psychologist can say that someone "is
of no further danger to society."

If that were true, then the solution is easy - psychological evaluations for
everyone and rehabilitation until they are no threat!

It then posits that a new criminal system would choose "a prison system,
similar to what we currently have in the States." Which is a horrid system;
what sort of people, working with a fresh slate, would decide _that_?

> "Sounds too good to be true? It shouldn’t be."

Or, why not choose the Norwegian approach? Low crime rates, jail programs to
help rehabilitate, and their prisons don't "cripple the convict's future."

It's almost as if there were other alternatives between choosing the US prison
system or caning.

> But what does that really mean? Instead of carelessly tossing around that
> term, as though it’s supposed to end all debate, let’s critically analyze it
> for a second.

All that analysis, and not one link to the US Supreme Court cases on that
topic or other legal definitions?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment)
says "There are generally tests that can serve as a guide to what cruel and
unusual punishment is according to various legal textbooks in accordance with
the law. These are: 1) the frequency at which the punishment occurs in
society, 2) overall acceptance in society, 3) severe (the punishment fits the
crime), and 4) if the punishment is arbitrary."

Caning in the US does not fit #2.

> Our current system of mass incarceration is horribly broken.

Agreed.

> But in order to truly punish and deter criminal behavior, and do so in a
> manner that imposes minimal long-term costs on both society and convicts,
> it’s time we started considering other forms of punishment.

Or, you know, a strong social net, more social equality, a reform of the
prison system to treat prisoners as people and not a modern form of slavery,
and other things which _aren 't_ simply a shift in how we punish people.

~~~
whack
You've nitpicked a large number of details but failed to address the central
point. If you have a convicted mass-murderer, and a wonderful rehab program
that has succeeded in rehabilitating the murderer, what do you propose should
happen next?

If you say the prisoner should be released on some sort of parole, you've just
broken the hearts of the families of every one of the murderer's victims, and
also sent a chilling non-deterrent message to anyone else considering a life
of crime.

If you say that the prisoner should continue to serve a substantially long
prison term, and eventually be released decades later with the prime years of
his life taken away from him, you've just wastefully crippled his long-term
prospects and potential.

Taking all the punishment that is spread out over a long term prison sentence,
and compressing it into a short period of time, is the only sane approach that
avoids both of the above problems. If you disagree, we'd love to hear you
describe how you'd handle the above scenario.

~~~
dalke
I think it's proper to nitpick by pointing out when scenarios are highly
artificial and therefore should not be use to make policy decisions. Why not
use actual examples, rather than make one up?

Look to Norway. They have a mass-murderer, Breivik. They have a wonderful
rehab program. If they are convinced that it doesn't work, then the state will
place him in custody for longer than the 21 year maximum sentence, in order to
protect the population.

If they believe he is rehabilitated, and his sentence is over, then he will be
released. But don't confuse punitive punishment for preventive detention!

Now, you argue that we should not break the hearts of the families of the
victims.

We surely cannot use that as our primary guide, for that means that killing an
unloved homeless man would carry less punishment than killing the beloved
mother of 8. Is that what you want?

How much weight should heartbreak place on the decision? If the family hated
their abusive father, and had no remorse over his death, should the murderer
get _less_ of a sentence?

I don't agree with the importance of "prime years of his life taken away from
him". Do you think Breivik should have been caned then set free? Or that if
Norway had caning for mass-murder that Breivik wouldn't have done what it did?

Given that Breivik can play X-Box and is a full student in the bachelor degree
program in political science at the University of Oslo, can you really say
that his prime years are "taken away"?

What do you think are Breivik's "long-term prospects and potential", should he
have been caned instead of being placed in prison?

Feel free to explain the likely long-term prospects and potential of any other
mass-murderer you are thinking of, had they been caned instead of imprisoned.

Does your argument change if the mass-murderer is past the prime years of
life? Specifically, Andrew Philip Kehoe, at 55 years of age, who killed his
wife and 43 other people (including 38 children). Now, he committed suicide,
so it's clear that no amount of punishment - caning or otherwise - would have
affected him.

But if he had been sentenced, is your argument that it would have been okay to
put him in jail for the rest of his life, because the prime years of his life
were over?

And you'll notice that nothing - caning, prison, preventive detention, etc. -
can deter a mass-murderer who plans to commit suicide, so it's not like the
threat of punishment (even corporal punishment) can be convincingly
dissuasive.

So, rather than construct artificial scenarios about a young mass-murderer who
kill people from loving families, why not point to real-world examples
instead, and argue how institutionalized caning would have improved things?

And why not use as your baseline a country like Norway, with a human prison
system, instead of one which is inhumane, like the US?

~~~
whack
_" They have a mass-murderer, Breivik. They have a wonderful rehab program...
If they believe he is rehabilitated, and his sentence is over, then he will be
released."_

I'm glad you bring up this example. There are 2 conditions here for his being
released:

1) They have to believe that he is rehabilitated.

2) He has served his minimum sentence, which in his case, is 10 years.

There is no reason to believe that 1) cannot happen at an earlier point in
time, compared to 2). Ie, he might be considered to be rehabilitated after
spending just 4 years in prison. According to the Norwegian justice system
which you're holding up as a role model, he would then be forced to spend
another 6 years in prison, even though he's already been rehabilitated by
then.

If you don't believe in punitive punishment, then why do we need 2) at all?
Why should Breivik be given any minimum sentence at all? Why shouldn't he be
released as soon as officials believe him to be rehabilitated, no matter how
quickly that may occur? Are you really going to endorse such a reform which
will allow murderers to be released, as soon as they are rehabilitated, no
matter how soon that may occur?

If you answered yes to that question, I refer you to the outrage over the
following: [http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/06/us/sexual-assault-brock-
turner...](http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/06/us/sexual-assault-brock-turner-
stanford/)

If you answered no to that question, then you too believe in punitive
punishment, even though you may not like to admit it.

The only question remaining, is what form that punitive punishment should
take. You seem to believe that the best form of punitive punishment is locking
someone up in prison for many years/decades. I believe that the best form of
punitive punishment is taking all of the unpleasantness that the prison
sentence is designed to inflict, and compressing it over a shorter time
period, so that the prisoner can move on with his life as soon as possible.

~~~
dalke
> "If you don't believe in punitive punishment"

Please define "punitive". According to [http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/punitive](http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/punitive) there are two meanings:

Definition #1: "intended to punish someone or something". I'm for that. But
c'mon, a fine for $1 is a punishment. An order to stay away from someone else
is a punishment. Is that what you mean by punitive punishment?

Definition #2: "extremely or unfairly severe or high". I'm against that. I
don't believe in cruel and unusual punishment. Like caning. I don't believe in
inhumane punishment. Like most prisons in the US.

Just because I am against "extremely or unfairly severe or high" punishment
doesn't mean I am _for_ no punishment. I can still be for moderate or measured
punishment. Which I am.

> "The only question remaining what form that punitive punishment should take"

I do not agree with "extremely or unfairly severe or high punishment", no.

As the essay points out, some people are much more affected by certain forms
of punishment than others. The "extremely or unfairly" may be hard to
determine. This is why Breivik is allowed to plea for a change of his
conditions.

This is indeed a question. It's a well studied question, with a long history
and associated court cases from multiple jurisdictions.

But as I complained, the essay ignores the existing concept of "cruel an
unusual punishment", and makes things up out of whole cloth - literally, by
positing a new culture which just happens to reproduce the US prison system
and also happens to consider caning as something other than "cruel and
unusual."

~~~
dalke
P.S. Caning doesn't solve everything, even in Singapore.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Singapor...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Singapore)

> Capital punishment is legal in Singapore. The city-state had the second
> highest per-capita execution rate in the world between 1994 and 1998

Including
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_Drugs_Act_(Singapore...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_Drugs_Act_\(Singapore\))
:

> The statute's penal provisions are draconian by most nations' standards,
> providing for long terms of imprisonment, caning, and capital punishment.

If caning is so effective, why is there _also_ capital punishment? Surely that
will take away decades of the "prime" years of someone's life. Like Van Tuong
Nguyen, killed at age 25 for drug trafficking.

