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 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.