Does punishment work?
Jul. 27th, 2006 01:51 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
For adults, that is - I'm not talking about kids in this post.
Andrea Yates, as we should all know, just got her conviction overturned for reasons of insanity. And in some of the posts I'm reading (but not all), there's scads of people lined up to call this a travesty - she killed her kids, and even though she was, as near as I can tell without being her, not at all in her right mind, and she needs to be punished. (Meanwhile, if those kids had been the ones with the problems, everybody would be talking about how put-upon she is and how she deserves our sympathy, but that's another rant for another day.)
In the paraphrased words of one commenter, she'd have to be crazy to kill anybody, and therefore it's a waste of money to not kill her now. I can think of some people I wouldn't mind seeing... Oh, nevermind, this is all tangential.
My real question is - what would punishing her accomplish? Who would benefit from this punishment? I've never yet seen proof that strict punishments lead to a decrease in crime - indeed, the evidence I've seen seems to show that reducing the problems that lead to crime in the first place is what reduces crime. And punishing her wouldn't bring her kids back. Would it make their family (her family) feel better to see her suffer? Would they rest easier in their graves? What is the benefit in punishing her for her crime?
I don't know. I really don't. So I'm asking everybody else - what is the point? If there are (other) effective ways to stop people from committing various crimes (or commit them again), is it better to do that or to punish the people in question? Why?
Andrea Yates, as we should all know, just got her conviction overturned for reasons of insanity. And in some of the posts I'm reading (but not all), there's scads of people lined up to call this a travesty - she killed her kids, and even though she was, as near as I can tell without being her, not at all in her right mind, and she needs to be punished. (Meanwhile, if those kids had been the ones with the problems, everybody would be talking about how put-upon she is and how she deserves our sympathy, but that's another rant for another day.)
In the paraphrased words of one commenter, she'd have to be crazy to kill anybody, and therefore it's a waste of money to not kill her now. I can think of some people I wouldn't mind seeing... Oh, nevermind, this is all tangential.
My real question is - what would punishing her accomplish? Who would benefit from this punishment? I've never yet seen proof that strict punishments lead to a decrease in crime - indeed, the evidence I've seen seems to show that reducing the problems that lead to crime in the first place is what reduces crime. And punishing her wouldn't bring her kids back. Would it make their family (her family) feel better to see her suffer? Would they rest easier in their graves? What is the benefit in punishing her for her crime?
I don't know. I really don't. So I'm asking everybody else - what is the point? If there are (other) effective ways to stop people from committing various crimes (or commit them again), is it better to do that or to punish the people in question? Why?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-07-27 07:42 am (UTC)Well, the five kids who won't grow up now, obviously. But they're not around to register any kind of reaction, so they don't count.
Yes, Yates was obviously psychotic, and she needs treatment not punishment. I just wish it could be a verdict of psychosis with the proviso that she never be released from the hospital. If she gets "cured" within its walls, she can have a fulfilling life studying/helping other patients. It's just that in my view she should not be let near kids again. I'm afraid I have this attitude towards paedophiles too - my view is that once you sexually molest/kill a kid, you should be put somewhere where you'll have no further access to them. Impractical in reality, but that's what I wish the law could be.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-27 01:15 pm (UTC)Obviously you've never actually been in one. You think they have classes? Heck, if one has a little rolling library card and lets you have access to crayons (pens/pencils can be used as weapons, and markers can be toxic) and paper, you're doing better than most. And I have to assume that she's in a public (not private) one, which will probably not even have that. Once you get to a public hospital, for most people, you get better in spite of the treatment, not because of it. Having known far too many people who spent time in psych hospitals (one who spent eight years) and worked for the Department of Corrections, I'd take a prison over a psychiatric hospital any day.
That said, she's been in one since the last trial several years ago, and is by all accounts not much better than when she went in. So I guess you'll get your wish.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-27 09:16 pm (UTC)Well, I have visited a friend in one, and those were experiences that made me determined never, never to confide in a psychologist if they had the power to lock you away like that! But that was a UK instution - I have no idea what US ones are like, and from what they were saying about "possibility of release" I thought she'd be put somewhere where she'd get actual *treatment*.
So she won't get cured in a mental hospital? Well, at least she won't breask her neck from "a fall down the stairs", an "accident" child-abusers/killers tend to have with astonishing regularity in UK prisons.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-27 02:50 pm (UTC)One is that, IMO, she should be sterilized.
Another, and this is my opinion only with no possible means of enforcement, is that she should NOT go back to her husband.
Does Yates herself regard a possible death sentence as punishment?
no subject
Date: 2006-07-27 11:54 am (UTC)In other words, there is an argument that punishment isn't done just to prevent future crimes, but so that there is a rational, impartial channel for societal outrage.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-27 02:57 pm (UTC)I've always been a fan of making it easy for people to do the right thing, if that makes any sense.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-28 09:58 pm (UTC)I do not believe in punishment for anyone for anything.
What I do believe in is both education and protection. What that means is if someone does something wrong, you try to help and educate them so that they can learn why it was wrong and hopefully not do it again. What protection means is that society has a right and obligation to protect itself from dangers. So, if someone cannot keep themselves from killing, molesting, whatever or has done so and it seems likely enough that they may do so again, then we have to keep people they may harm away from them. This means locking them up so that they cannot harm people or otherwise taking steps to ensure that they do not have the ability to hurt people.
However, I don't think this should be done as punishment. I don't think the attitude should be to torture them, which is what I usually see. I think the attitude should be that it is an unfortunate necessity that because they are dangerous, they must be contained. The form of containment chosen should be the one most likely to lead to good results, thus potentially an institution with psychiatric care or an institution with educational resources (especially for crimes to gain money where having the ability to hold a decent job might help prevent such crimes).
I just see no value to anyone in causing pain with the goal being to cause pain. It only feeds people's worst emotions. So, yes, lock her up if she's in danger of hurting others. Yes, definitely get her care. Yes, don't let her raise more children. But don't punish her just to get revenge; it won't help anyone. And that stands no matter whose kids she killed.
All that said, if I had a kid and someone killed it, I might be screaming for blood and torture. But that is why I should not be the one judging the case; I would not be able to hold the objectivity needed.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-29 11:03 am (UTC)1) If society at large sees that people get punished for committing act X, that serves as a disincentive for people to perform act X. A good example of this is Project Exile, first enacted in Richmond, Virginia. If a convicted felon is caught in possession of a firearm, he automatically receives a five-year sentence. The result? A dramatic drop in felons carrying guns. QED.
2) It's not just a question of punishment. It's also a question of protecting society at large. Regardless of whether Andrea Yates is mentally ill or not, the fact of the matter is, she did murder five people, and that means she's dangerous. Locking her up isn't just a question of punishing her. It's also to ensure that she doesn't kill anyone else.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-29 11:10 am (UTC)2. I agree - threats to society shouldn't be running around. But there were a lot of people saying not just that Andrea Yates should be kept away from society, but that she should be actively punished - killed in some brutal manner, forced to see pictures of her kids all the time, told how horrible she is, whatever. That's what I fail to see the purpose off, especially in her case, as she was not, I believe, fully capable then.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-29 11:17 am (UTC)As to the countries that have the strict penal systems... I don't think it's just that the penal systems are strict. Such countries are typically repressive in most other ways as well, if you'll notice. (A good example here is China.)
As to Yates being punished, I would think that would have to do with whether you believe she was in possession of her faculties or not. If you think she was sane, I can easily see why you'd think she should be punished. If you think she was insane and still think she should be punished, well, IMO, that's illogical at best and cruel at worst.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-27 07:42 am (UTC)Well, the five kids who won't grow up now, obviously. But they're not around to register any kind of reaction, so they don't count.
Yes, Yates was obviously psychotic, and she needs treatment not punishment. I just wish it could be a verdict of psychosis with the proviso that she never be released from the hospital. If she gets "cured" within its walls, she can have a fulfilling life studying/helping other patients. It's just that in my view she should not be let near kids again. I'm afraid I have this attitude towards paedophiles too - my view is that once you sexually molest/kill a kid, you should be put somewhere where you'll have no further access to them. Impractical in reality, but that's what I wish the law could be.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-27 01:15 pm (UTC)Obviously you've never actually been in one. You think they have classes? Heck, if one has a little rolling library card and lets you have access to crayons (pens/pencils can be used as weapons, and markers can be toxic) and paper, you're doing better than most. And I have to assume that she's in a public (not private) one, which will probably not even have that. Once you get to a public hospital, for most people, you get better in spite of the treatment, not because of it. Having known far too many people who spent time in psych hospitals (one who spent eight years) and worked for the Department of Corrections, I'd take a prison over a psychiatric hospital any day.
That said, she's been in one since the last trial several years ago, and is by all accounts not much better than when she went in. So I guess you'll get your wish.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-27 09:16 pm (UTC)Well, I have visited a friend in one, and those were experiences that made me determined never, never to confide in a psychologist if they had the power to lock you away like that! But that was a UK instution - I have no idea what US ones are like, and from what they were saying about "possibility of release" I thought she'd be put somewhere where she'd get actual *treatment*.
So she won't get cured in a mental hospital? Well, at least she won't breask her neck from "a fall down the stairs", an "accident" child-abusers/killers tend to have with astonishing regularity in UK prisons.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-27 02:50 pm (UTC)One is that, IMO, she should be sterilized.
Another, and this is my opinion only with no possible means of enforcement, is that she should NOT go back to her husband.
Does Yates herself regard a possible death sentence as punishment?
no subject
Date: 2006-07-27 11:54 am (UTC)In other words, there is an argument that punishment isn't done just to prevent future crimes, but so that there is a rational, impartial channel for societal outrage.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-27 02:57 pm (UTC)I've always been a fan of making it easy for people to do the right thing, if that makes any sense.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-28 09:58 pm (UTC)I do not believe in punishment for anyone for anything.
What I do believe in is both education and protection. What that means is if someone does something wrong, you try to help and educate them so that they can learn why it was wrong and hopefully not do it again. What protection means is that society has a right and obligation to protect itself from dangers. So, if someone cannot keep themselves from killing, molesting, whatever or has done so and it seems likely enough that they may do so again, then we have to keep people they may harm away from them. This means locking them up so that they cannot harm people or otherwise taking steps to ensure that they do not have the ability to hurt people.
However, I don't think this should be done as punishment. I don't think the attitude should be to torture them, which is what I usually see. I think the attitude should be that it is an unfortunate necessity that because they are dangerous, they must be contained. The form of containment chosen should be the one most likely to lead to good results, thus potentially an institution with psychiatric care or an institution with educational resources (especially for crimes to gain money where having the ability to hold a decent job might help prevent such crimes).
I just see no value to anyone in causing pain with the goal being to cause pain. It only feeds people's worst emotions. So, yes, lock her up if she's in danger of hurting others. Yes, definitely get her care. Yes, don't let her raise more children. But don't punish her just to get revenge; it won't help anyone. And that stands no matter whose kids she killed.
All that said, if I had a kid and someone killed it, I might be screaming for blood and torture. But that is why I should not be the one judging the case; I would not be able to hold the objectivity needed.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-29 11:03 am (UTC)1) If society at large sees that people get punished for committing act X, that serves as a disincentive for people to perform act X. A good example of this is Project Exile, first enacted in Richmond, Virginia. If a convicted felon is caught in possession of a firearm, he automatically receives a five-year sentence. The result? A dramatic drop in felons carrying guns. QED.
2) It's not just a question of punishment. It's also a question of protecting society at large. Regardless of whether Andrea Yates is mentally ill or not, the fact of the matter is, she did murder five people, and that means she's dangerous. Locking her up isn't just a question of punishing her. It's also to ensure that she doesn't kill anyone else.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-29 11:10 am (UTC)2. I agree - threats to society shouldn't be running around. But there were a lot of people saying not just that Andrea Yates should be kept away from society, but that she should be actively punished - killed in some brutal manner, forced to see pictures of her kids all the time, told how horrible she is, whatever. That's what I fail to see the purpose off, especially in her case, as she was not, I believe, fully capable then.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-29 11:17 am (UTC)As to the countries that have the strict penal systems... I don't think it's just that the penal systems are strict. Such countries are typically repressive in most other ways as well, if you'll notice. (A good example here is China.)
As to Yates being punished, I would think that would have to do with whether you believe she was in possession of her faculties or not. If you think she was sane, I can easily see why you'd think she should be punished. If you think she was insane and still think she should be punished, well, IMO, that's illogical at best and cruel at worst.