Why do we need Prison? #2 Alternatives
Thank you
The following ideas developed after I wrote my previous article about prison. I want to thank everybody involved in the discussion in the comment section. It was awesome! I never got such long comments from so many different people and it gave me a lot of motivation and inspiration.
The goal of this article
I am not trying get rid of all punishment for criminals. I am trying to get rid of an inefficient way to punish people and the belief that prison is a good way to resocialize criminals. Also the article is meant to get rid of prison as the main form of punishment, temporary lock up might still be needed even with alternatives in place. The alternatives I propose might seem harsh to some, please keep in mind that prison is a very hard punishment as well. If you have any criticism about what I say, please let me know in the comments. I will not act like a child, whose sand castle just got ruined, I promise. This is meant to be an open discussion.
(source)
What are criminals?
First of all we need to define criminals. I think it is healthy to exclude victimless crimes. That pretty much means I want to exclude drug abuse and “Sex crimes” like prostitution and pornography. That does not mean that there are no victims, but that is often due to the circumstance that it is illegal business.
Further I think we should ask what makes people do illegal things. I came up with three general categories that I hope cover all spectrum of crime: Crime of Opportunity, Crime of Survival and Crime of Psychological Instability.
Crime of Opportunity
Crime of Opportunity shall on one hand have the traditional meaning of taking something that belongs to someone else. But there shall also be another meaning. The irresistible offer. There are very few people completely free of greed, almost everyone has his price. I wanted to give a harsh and honest example for my price: If someone pays me 100.000$ for beating up a person, so that neither him or me suffer long term injuries, I would do that. Greed is not about survival and not necessarily a psychological illness. That is why it got his own category.
(source)
Crime of Psychological Instability
I think this covers a majority of serious crime. Anger issues are as far as I can tell the predominant reason for violent crimes. Beating people to bloody pulps, murder, rape. All these if done with passion (not because of Opportunities) are symptoms of a disturbed psyche. We also have diseases like kleptomania in this category.
Crimes of Survival
Mainly self defense, but also stealing food, because you are starving. Defending your home and your loved ones. As a sole example, I want to give the classic from philosophy class: Would you kill someone to get the meds for your dying mother? I would and I would not want to sort that under greed (Opportunity).
Alternatives
The Crimes of Survival need to be prevent by a decent society. There cant be a fair punishment for Crimes of Survival in my opinion. Thus the approaches I present will focus on punishing Crimes of Opportunity and Psychological Instability.
I see three approaches that when combined might solve the problem. First surveillance; inmates get monitored almost around the clock and have to stay in prison. Slap a camera on them and a microphone, and put police and social workers on patrol to check on them and be nearby. This should be enough for people with lesser violent crimes and Crimes of Opportunity. The ankle monitor is pretty much already a realization of this concept, sadly I dont have any numbers on the success of this method... please tell me if you can point me to any studies on that topic.
Secondly we need to actually rehabilitate. @coloured-content came up with ideas of spiritual rehabilitation. See his comment on my first article for more details. I think for the Psychological imbalanced this is a very good approach. Experiences like living in nature for several days, can give you a whole new perspective on life. I also think classic psychology can play a big role. Violent Psychopaths, the hard cases in Crimes of Psychological iInstability, should be at least as strictly controlled as todays prison inmates, but actually get help for their problems. With tearing down all prisons, there is a lot of money left to give for better mental hospitals.
(source)
Lastly and maybe my most controversial approach; the loss of your rights. This is mainly to discourage and punish Crimes of Opportunity. If someone makes a scam by creating a dubious company, he loses his right to found a company. If someone steals and makes shady business, he has to pay back the money and loses his right to practice business in that area. If someone kills another person in a non-passionate way (assassination), he loses the right to have his life protected by the law, the classic definition of outlaws or German: Vogelfrei. These punishments scare people away from committing them in the first place, but also you can prevent them from engaging in the same criminal activities after they have been punished.
Please discuss in the comments. What do you think about my solutions? Do you have others? I would love to have as much input from you as last time!
Interesting ideas, and observations. I don't think overall this sounds like a bad idea. It is closer to how someone like me would ultimately propose we handle these things, it just wouldn't require the state/government to do it. :) Yet, if we are stuck with a government/state then this is still a better solution.
We'd also have a lot more jobs back in our economy (at least with regards to the U.S.).
As far as drugs as an example of how this can work all people really need to do is study Portugal in the last decade and a half.
Well, I could imagine this working without a state, but of course I have a more centralistic approach ;).
And it was also my intention to bring more jobs into the economy. Psychology is one of my favorite topics to talk about, second to politics of course :D, and I know I am not the only one that shied away from it because you need to study for a minimum of 8 years to practice psychotherapy in Germany. Even though an open ear and a gentle hearth is sometimes all you need to make a person psychological stable again.
Thank you very much for the Resteem!
You could become an amazing psychologist without school. The information is all out there to self learn. The only thing is you wouldn't be permitted to "practice" psychology.
I often wish that most aptitudes had a way that someone could be tested by an expert in that field to see if they warrant the label.
If you self apprenticeship, you'd essentially seek out a master to test you later.
The reason I recommend a master is because if you make a test those tests are typically leaked to the internet or the common questions and often people pass such tests without knowing what they are doing.
A master can create a custom testing situation on the spot and see how you do.
This is what I do in the IT field. I don't care about degrees as I've met people with masters degrees that were very bad at what they had their degree in, and I've met people without degrees that were brilliant in them.
So instead of worrying about degrees I just give them some practical tests and watch to see how they deal with them.
I believe the same could be done for most fields of study.
Scientist is another term. All that really means is one who follows the scientific method seeking answers and truths. There are plenty of people with degrees in scientific fields that clearly do not follow these things. There are also people who follow them quite well with no degree. We must remember these fields and degrees did not exist for all time, and we still had people studying such things.
The only benefit of a degree in my opinion is that odds are much higher that the person will have had the proper exposure to what they should be doing than someone without one. Yet, that is becoming less and less true I think.
Just to be clear, I am talking about your ability to write engaging political and philosophical texts.
Also since I discovered Ron Paul (two months ago) I want to know more about this strange idea called Liberterianism. I don't really want to join this movement, but they got new approaches I often never thought of. I consider you an authority when it comes to the question "what is the Libertarian viewpoint on this?"
It does not mean that I think you are always right, when we discuss politics. I just don't see me criticising your writing style or that I say "I don't think this is what a Libertarian should do/think "
Libertarianism is similar to anarcho-capitalism, but it does not believe in complete elimination of government. It could be a stepping stone towards doing that in the future if people are ever in a position where they could reasonably be expected to be able to be responsible enough to try that.
It basically is..
That is at the core of it. There are of course people in the Libertarian party that add their own things, but that is the heart of the idea right there.
Anarcho-Capitalists are essentially just continuing that path to the extreme that they believe in the future people may be responsible enough and enlightened enough that we could remove the government component. Now this is a big GOAL, it doesn't mean it is achievable.
Libertarianism though is achievable. It is very doable.
Right now most governments are neither truly liberal, or conservative. They throw the labels around but their actions show them to be neither of these things.
thanks for the explanation, I thought Libertarianism and Anarcho-Cap is much more synonym. Guess its like Communism and Socialism .
I think it is worth to try Libertarianism its sounds fine and dandy if it works as it is supposed to.
My end goal in socialism is also quite achievable. I want to get rid of the corrupt superrichs. Every person has a right to wealth, but you could cap that at maybe 50 million. Should be enough to fullfill your dreams.
Companies should belong to the people. What would you think of giving workers more stake in their company? I know it has been a tradition to give them some stock, but I think sharing the part of the income of a company or community could motivate people to be more constructive and helpful to their fellows. It might enable Libertarianism ;)
I made a few edits to that lengthy reply.
also just edited the middle part in my last reply. About forcing socialism on people.
One of the major changes I always mention when I talk about changing the school system. Stop stealing my ideas! :D
I actually am quite fond of master-apprentice relationships. Why do you think I engage so much in conversations with you? ;) For me it is far more than just the custom testing....and I just found a new topic to post about, thanks
well, I worked as a student in an IT company for three years. Many people there are quiet friendly and dont have a high nose, some do of course. It felt like the more capable ones were also the more friendly people.
One of the reasons I am starting to do an apprenticeship in IT after I dropped out of college...again ^^*
Looking forward to your upcoming tutorials btw :)
With almost every information available on the internet it is hard to disagree. I would not even have a problem trusting a non-degree medical doctor if he seems capable.
I love the look of the post, and will read it at my earliest convenience!
I would have loved to include more of the spiritual alternatives to psychotherapy, that you talked about. But I have no clue about it and I felt like comparing it it to "survive in nature for a few days" is the only thing I can do without pretending to know more than I do. I mentioned your name, so people may read the comment you wrote under the previous article.
I guess there are whole books to read about "spiritual healing for psychological ill people", but I would love if you could maybe point to an article or shorter text that helps me grasp the topic better.
Senpai, did you forget about me? ;.;
OK, good post as always dude. Not as controversial to me as the last (I even think you have taken on-board some of my ideas- thanks)
To be honest the system you have outlined is not unlike the system we have in Australia anyway - a range of different punishments including loss of rights (drivers licence; to be company director), home detention etc, based on the severity of the crime; along with difference rehabilitation measures.
The only thing outside the norm in your post is...
On my reading of how this has been written - I disagree with this loss of rights with as I am a staunch believer in 'Innocent until proven guilty' the very foundation of 'Liberty.'
However, once they are declared guilty by a jury of peers, then the punishment should be scaled in accordance with the severity of the crime.
Cheers mate.
SK.
I always seek the opinions of people that think differently. I like people that take political thinking serious, but can still crack a good joke about it. And those you find on all sides of the political spectrum ;).
And I should have explained the Vogelfreiheit better. it is meant to be sentence cast on someone that was spoken guilty of the most severe crimes.
It should also have a preventive nature. If someone who is rehabilitated after committing a very cruel crime is let back into society .
Lets get a bit more concrete: A young man kills his girlfriend, beating her to death because he was jealous. He confesses the crime and in his mental hospital therapy he shows every sign of rehabilitation. He regrets what he has done every day. Because of this he is let out into the normal world after only 2 years, but he is vogelfrei. One year later his next girlfriend, who knows about his past, feels like he is acting very strange all of the sudden. She can now take any preemptive measures that she thinks are needed.
Im normally not a fan of specific examples, but I think this can highlight the preventive nature of the loss of the right to protect your life. It is meant for the most extreme cases of convicted crime.
Sounds a bit like 'probation' to me...
And now here we are back at the 'Scales of Justice'. Man who Murders girlfriend should be locked up for 20 years minimum regardless of how "guilty" he feels. Justice must be served! Simple.
I have a daughter! What if it was my daughter?
Focus must be on the victim and the victims family - the guilty must be punished 1st, rehabilitated 2nd.
SK.
Mhh, I can understand where you are coming from. But you know if that offender that only served 2 years of mental hospital is the new boyfriend of your daughter, you can shoot him in the head without any questions asked, if you feel he deserves it. The family of the original victim itself can also choose to have revenge and throw him in a hole for the next 30 years, he has no rights. He lives by the will of his victims, isnt that punishment enough?
OK. Cool. Could live with this - but even to me this sounds barbaric. To avoid anarchy and to avoid fathers to becoming vigilantes justice fighters, it would probably be better to let the justice system handle the punishment. SK.
It is better to trust the victims to judge the situation. I dont think many will assert straight up revenge, it is not illegal, but in society killing is still frowned upon. Do you want to trust some White Coat with a diploma on the wall to judge the situation or the people in danger?
Im normally not an anarcho or libertarian, but I think in this case it is the right way