Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SatanicNotMessianic t1_j85w5w7 wrote

Reply to comment by eamus_catuli in Family of Oakland baker seeks 'restorative justice' for her death following robbery by IAmNotARobot124

If you could reduce the recidivism of rapists through counseling more than through jail, would you support counseling over jail?

3

eamus_catuli t1_j860xuq wrote

If a magic wand existed by which you could tap people on the head and cause them to never rape again, sure, I would prefer that to jail.

But therapy doesn't work that way. It takes time (sometimes an entire lifetime), it doesn't always result in desired objectives, and it requires genuine effort and a desire for change on the part of the person being counseled.

So if you're asking me whether I think jailed rapists should receive counseling? Yes, I agree with that. If you're asking me whether we should substitute jailing for counseling, hell no.

What would you say to a woman who is raped by a person who was recently given a sentence of counseling instead of prison? "Sorry, I guess the counseling didn't go as planned!"

Again, you can't use long-term solutions to address imminent safety requirements.

49

SatanicNotMessianic t1_j8688yj wrote

I am saying that scientifically reformative forms of justice result in reduced recidivism.

There’s basically three different motivations in criminal justice. The first is isolation - removing a dangerous member of society from an environment where they can do harm. That doesn’t mean the incarceration needs to be brutal, or even uncomfortable. You can encase them in carbonite or lock them in a room at the Ritz, because the goal of preventing additional harm is effected.

The second is restoration and reformation. Again, this runs the gamut from counseling to Clockwork Orange. This approach both prevents additional harm and restores an individual as a functioning member of society.

The third is punishment. Punishment itself has a few different motivations. The first is reformation, as in the above, but it does it’s job less efficiently than other, less ham-fisted methods. The second is disincentivizing other people from commuting a crime, either through fear of punishment or (in an economic sense) decreasing the net benefit of committing a crime such that a rational actor will decide not to do it. That one is a mixed bag in terms of effectiveness. The evidence does not support the proposal that harsher penalties reduce crime. The third is just balancing the karmic books - the idea that society must avenge itself violently against someone who caused crime, just because “they deserve it.” I’m pretty sure that last one lacks support from either a pragmatic or an ethical standpoint, but it does seem to be a major motivating factor in the American justice system.

0

silasgreenfront t1_j86cwut wrote

>I am saying that scientifically reformative forms of justice result in reduced recidivism.

Do you have any sources on the success of reformative justice in the reduction of sex crimes, specifically? I'd been under the impression that crimes of that sort were more resistant to reformation efforts but my knowledge of the research is limited and dated.

18

SatanicNotMessianic t1_j86gjmh wrote

We can dig through the efficacy of treatment programs, but just to get a feel for the kind of question we are trying to answer, how would you feel if we were to hand a book of moral philosophy to a rapist and were able to with perfect foresight tell that they would never rape again?

Would your first impression be that they got away with something, or that they were successfully reformed and do not require further punishment? I’m coming from a theory of justice angle here just for kicking things off.

1

silasgreenfront t1_j86lk7p wrote

I'd feel immense relief. Mostly for any potential future victims and, to a lesser but very real degree, for the rapist himself. I'm not religious at all but I grew up in a deeply Christian household and that concept of redemption still influences me a great deal.

7

SatanicNotMessianic t1_j86mhkg wrote

I think we are very much on the same page, and I really appreciate you taking the time to talk with me about it.

2

empfindsamkeit t1_j86ekl2 wrote

It feels to me like you'd in effect be making it the rule that everyone gets at least 1 free rape or murder as long as you successfully refrain from doing it again. You just claim afterwards that you're "reformed" and don't repeat it - voila, you've been cured by counseling. I think there are a significant number of people who would treat it that way, keeping it in their back pocket.

And I say "at least 1" because I imagine people would be making excuses for the ones who "slipped" and re-offended. "He didn't rape anyone for 20 years, he was trying so hard and just had a minor lapse! He just needs to be topped up with a little more counseling".

26

SatanicNotMessianic t1_j86ew94 wrote

Please expand on what you believe the approach to someone who has committed a rape should be, and why.

−7

becksrunrunrun t1_j86i0hv wrote

Rape is terrorizing, the victim is traumatized for the rest of their life. It's not like getting your car window broken, it scars your soul. My mom worked in the ER where a BABY came in that had been raped.

So what should happen to someone who does that? Why are we even asking the question? Society must be protected from people who prey on others for their own sexual gratification. The risk to society is too high to prioritize a child rapist, or any rapist over the rest of society simply because they've promised to be on their best behavior.

21

SatanicNotMessianic t1_j86ita4 wrote

I’m saying that if one of the purposes of system of justice is to reduce the impact of unjust behaviors (or crime) on society, then should we take the path with the highest payoff? Just theoretically, if we were to hand a stack of books by Rawls and Sandel and Parfitt to a rapist, and we were able to know with perfect knowledge that the person became a pure altruist and would never harm again, would they have “gotten away with it” (assuming no punishment occurred)?

−3

black641 t1_j87hj1k wrote

Obviously we should take the path with the highest payoff, and I agree that not every criminal is worthy of “punishment” or is beyond saving. But we must ALSO contend with the very real fact that some people not only CAN’T change their antisocial behavior, but actively resist treatment. There is no functional form of treatment capable of making anybody a perfect altruist, and some people just need to be separated from society. While psychologists have begun to begin considering new methods of treating adult “sociopaths,” they also admit that it is incredibly difficult because their habits are deeply engrained, and that they fight against attempts to “fix” them.

I’m not saying these people need spend their lives naked and chained to a wall, but what makes people nervous about some of the rhetoric around restorative justice is that, many times, it’s proponents side step answering the question of what to do with people who can’t or don’t want to be fixed?

5

SatanicNotMessianic t1_j87vn6y wrote

I do think that people who cannot be fixed (although I do think that’s a bit of a loaded word) should be removed from a context where they can do harm, and I’m including other people in correctional facilities in that.

That being said, I don’t think that prisons should be places of torture. American prisons are pretty bad, in large part because making them into places of suffering and violence feels right to people because the people subjected to those conditions deserve it due to their actions.

If teaching someone job skills while having them study ethics with Chidi in the evenings helps make someone less likely to reoffend, then I think that’s clearly the path we should take, because punishment for punishment’s sake isn’t ethical.

−7

Unrealistic_actress t1_j88qaxw wrote

I've been reading through some of these thoughts and you raise some interesting questions. I feel if we gave out say books on moral philosophy that based on this thought experiment could reform someone completely, then we should require it in schools. Or even required therapy. Or both. Why even wait for a crime happen? (Not sure if you've answered this in another reply.)

Sexual crimes are a touchy subject for me because it hits close to home. So forgive me if I disappear from this discussion.

3

empfindsamkeit t1_j86gn1g wrote

About the same as it is now. Punishment, deterrent, and a timeout period that prevents reoffense. And yes, prison does serve as a major deterrent for most people. It's merely that among the people it does not deter, it's not a question of scale - i.e. making it harsher does not succeed in deterring the undeterred.

In the future it may be possible to offer some alternative form of punishment like an implant that delivers some sort of medication to reduce aggression/sex drive, or at least something that allows police to not only track them but visually check in on them periodically, or perhaps have an audio receiver that a victim can yell for help from.

What we have now is an imperfect solution in an imperfect world. But going easier on them is probably going to hurt more than it helps. It can be hard enough to catch and convict criminals the first time (particularly for rape). Giving them 1 or more freebies just makes it so much harder.

11

chi_type t1_j86i2kq wrote

Most rapists already get at least one freebie. Rape is very rarely successfully prosecuted and receiving jail time is even rarer. 25 out of 1000 rapists will be incarcerated.

Perhaps a different approach would get the justice system to do ANYTHING about it.

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system

9

empfindsamkeit t1_j86iabo wrote

Then we're talking about freebies upon freebies. Even if it's particularly heinous and you're caught dead to rights, we're going to let you off with a warning and some counseling.

3

chi_type t1_j86you3 wrote

You should look into what restorative justice actually involves. It's not probation or a suspended sentence. It's nothing like what you're describing. First of all - victim involvement and discretion is a key part of the process.

−1

empfindsamkeit t1_j87ae37 wrote

Ah, well the good news then is that victims can already do that in many cases either by not reporting the crime, not pressing charges, or declining to testify, and they could hold that over the perpetrator's head to get them to meet and talk things out. And if they need government force to get the perpetrator to sit down with them then I dunno why you'd think they were being sincere in their contrition in that case. But I'd wager the vast, vast majority of victims want nothing to do with it and so it's all moot.

1

chi_type t1_j893tj1 wrote

Okay I see you still didn't look into what it actually involves. Never mind I guess

0

empfindsamkeit t1_j89sefq wrote

Or you could summarize. I don't just read about any random topic someone puts in front of me without being at least somewhat sold on it first. It doesn't seem like anyone else knows what it actually involves either because everyone is just linking random websites and telling you to "look into it". No thanks.

1

SatanicNotMessianic t1_j86i3xr wrote

If your position is that the raison d’etre of addressing an exhibited criminal activity is to prevent re-offense, then we’re in full agreement. If your major concern is that re-offense may still occur because of our imperfect knowledge, that’s where we can research which approaches are statistically more likely to result in reducing recidivism, and I can agree with that.

For any class of offenses, we should take the approach that most probably reduces both the rate of reoffence by the individual and reduces the incidence of that offense socially. I would agree to that.

0

eamus_catuli t1_j86qw8u wrote

I was going to reply to you upthread in the specific comment thread we were having, but instead will reply here.

I agree with much of what you've been saying throughout this comment thread. I think that we're probably about 75% in agreement about the goals of and preferred approaches to criminal justice.

Two areas where I suspect we differ slightly:

  1. I do see some utility in retribution besides simple restoration of "karmic" or "cosmic" balance.

Whereas I agree with you that on a personal scale, I don't find much utility in punishing so as to "balance scales" or what have you, I also understand that you and I are in a distinct minority. Particularly among the Abrahamic religions (which comprise an overwhelming majority of both the global and U.S. populations), retribution is integral to the concept of criminal justice in those belief systems. Therefore, not only is it inevitable that a criminal justice system - a political creation - will reflect the beliefs of a majority of a given population's members, it should do so. For failure to do so leads to the pervasive sense that the justice system doesn't work which leads to both a) more criminality; and b) all manner of vigilantism and lawlessness.

In other words, it's important that we change people's beliefs about criminal justice first, THEN we change criminal justice.

  1. An area which, IMHO, you are overlooking is the fourth goal of criminal justice. You referred to three upthread (a great comment, BTW), but in my criminal justice studies I was always taught four - with the fourth being general deterrence: the notion that it's important for a society to signal at-large that crime will be punished, and specific crimes will be punished in a specific way.

So while you've been talking a lot about recidivism, or preventing specific criminals from re-offending, there is a view that the justice system should seek to avoid offending in the first place by sending such clear signals.

I'll concede that the justice system shouldn't be the primary method through which we seek to prevent crime from happening in the first place. We should focus on root causes of crime: economic inequalities and deprivations, substance abuse, child abuse, mental health problems, etc., even beyond - into the newer scientific frontiers of understanding the human brain and genetic predispositions to various biological traits that might correlate with criminality.

However, that doesn't mean that we should exclude from the criminal justice system the objective of preventing crime in the first place. It can and should be part of a multi-faceted approach that includes the aforementioned societal changes. Because while the empirical evidence shows that severity of punishment does not reduce criminality, the prospect that criminality will be apprehended and punished does appear effective at reducing it.

In other words, giving people "Get out of jail free" cards, by which we completely forego privation of liberty in lieu of therapeutic methods could, and likely would result in increased criminality. It simply wouldn't be seen as a real punishment.

7

empfindsamkeit t1_j86jucv wrote

I think your approach rests on the assumption that rapes happen almost by accident. That they don't really know better. Everyone is inherently good or wants to be good, and some just stray from the path. If they were confronted with their victim's pain and you explained why it was wrong, they'll have an epiphany and refrain from doing it again. I think by and large they already know how wrong it is and they just don't care. Some perfunctory counseling isn't going to change their disposition, any more than "a better education system" is going to teach conspiracy theorists "critical thinking" skills that disabuse them of their beliefs. Something inside them is just fundamentally broken and it's probably beyond our abilities to fix right now.

Now, if you want to argue for some kind of early intervention system I think that'd be a great idea. Trying to predict and treat these kinds of behaviors in schoolkids before they crystallize could be worthwhile.

4

_Psilo_ t1_j86wscz wrote

I don't know if assumptions on psychology or philosophy are particularly important here. What that other poster mentioned, and I agree with them, is studies that show stats on recidivism and whether they support that approach or not.

2

SuperSaiyanCockKnokr t1_j874ina wrote

The approach that most probably reduces recidivism and reoffence rate is elimination. It’s the most hardline and brutal approach, but also the most effective. It likely wouldn’t be accepted or legalized in most modern legal systems, but I also doubt that American society in general is prepared to enact change based on the best available research, at least not in the current generations.

1

SatanicNotMessianic t1_j8753pt wrote

What do you think the overall cultural effect of that would be? Has capital punishment been broadly applied historically, and what was the environment like at the time?

2

SuperSaiyanCockKnokr t1_j878rra wrote

Capital punishment and what we call murder today have, in certain contexts, been norms in many past societies and cultures. There’s so much complexity in how these traditions and systems developed that hypotheticals, though intriguing, often produce results that don’t really make sense in the real world. The cultural effect of the sudden introduction of hardline capital punishment here in the US would obviously be incredibly disruptive, riots in the streets and perhaps more. I can’t personally envision a society reliant on elimination that doesn’t eventually look like North Korea. But there’s always the possibility that future research indicates permanent removal or destruction (either via death or transformation to the point that a person is so far-removed from their original self that the destruction of said person has essentially occurred) is the best option in certain cases, if not many. I like restorative justice as a concept and it’s encouraging to see places try out new systems, but I’m not sure there will ever be a time when long-term incarceration won’t be a part of it.

2