Crime and Punishment theory/question?

Question

Let's say you had the choice between two theoretical futures:

A) We let all criminals out of prison. We stop looking for those not caught yet. However, you'd be guaranteed that they won't ever commit another crime. Crime rates will be at zero. (Yes, this is unrealistic. Please just accept it as given for the purpose of the thought experiment.)

B) You are guaranteed that every single criminal is eventually caught and punished. However, crime rates would remain at the same level they are at now. (Again, please just accept this as a premise of the though experiment.)

The question now is: Which future would you prefer?

We could make the scenarios a bit more realistic by changing them slightly:

A*) Most criminals get caught, some don't. Those caught each spend one year in some kind of treatment facility where they are treated well, are educated and are taught social values. They enjoy this time, are better people afterwards and are unlikely to commit a crime again. Crime rates are low. (Again: Please just accept this for the experiment.)

B*) Most criminals get caught, some don't. Those caught each spend years in prison, where they are punished, humiliated, raped. This time is a horrible experience for them. When they get out, they are often in worse condition than before. Many of them continue to commit crimes. Crime rates are high. (Again, you know the story...)

Which scenario would you prefer? A* or B*?

What this boils down to is: What is more important to you, a safe society or punishment of criminals?

And as bonus questions:

If you chose B*:

Let's again consider two scenarios (independent of the previous ones):

C) Someone rapes a girl, is never caught, but also never commits a crime again. He leads a happy life afterwards.

D) Someone rapes a girl, continues to rape girls afterwards, is eventually caught and put in jail for decades.

If you had these two (theoretical) scenarios to choose from, which one would you prefer? If you chose D), would you reconsider if you knew your daughter was among the later girls?

If you chose A*:

Which scenario do you think our current situation is closer to, A* or B*? And what could we do to move it closer to A*?

Again: Please try and see these as theoretical scenarios and discuss them accordingly. Please don't say something like "But this is unrealistic!" or change the scenarios by writing something like "But he would certainly rape again if he did it once!".

I hope we'll have an interesting discussion...

P.S.: I expect some people to mention the importance of punishment as a deterrent. Please consider that once someone has committed a crime and got caught the deterrent already failed. And in light of our current prison population and crime rates the deterrent doesn't seem to be very effective. In this thought experiment, deterrent is not an issue because crime rates are considered given for the different scenarios.

Answer 1

I really do like your curiosity.  Unfortunately as hard as I have tried I find no way to fit here in this space all the complicated forces that go into play in this multi-complex phenomenon you put forth.  There are no words I can use to discuss shortly the reality of this subject.  In the end I'm inclined to say that it is mostly the prisoner himself who controls how long he stays in or out of prison, yet we know how much more complicated this really is.

Answer 2

I thought this was going to be a question about Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment, I'm disappointed to find out it's not :(

First one, I'd prefer A

Second one I'd prefer A

(Because all the imaginary criminals are reformed characters, no longer committing crimes)

I think our current situation is closer to A in that they get treated well in prison but closer to B with regard to committing crimes when released.   Criminals get a really easy time in prison (I'm in the UK) then they come out and continue to commit crimes as prison is not enough of a deterrent.

Just the other day I read in a newspaper about a prison letting the worst offenders ( murderers, paedophiles etc) dress up as prison guards and have a BBQ which their families were allowed to attend whilst the minor offenders were locked inside for the day.

Answer 3

Whether A or B is better is based on the perception of Order vs. Punishment.  Personally, I would prefer order, so I would choose A.

As far as deterrent goes, you are right, it rarely if ever works.  In theory, the deterrent is the first level, where you know the punishment for breaking a law.  Prison or execution is the penalty for breaking that law.  So the simple fact that we even have prisions proves your point that deterrents rarely work.

I study ancient history, and two men come to mind on polar opposites of the argument.

B

Han Fei Tzi, the legalist scholarlar of Qin Dynasty China states that punishments must be swift and brutal to the point that no one would ever consider breaking that law again.  No one, from a farmer to the Emperor himself would be immune to the Legalist system of order.

A

Lao Tzu would have disagreed, stating that men are not neccessarily evil, and as such, it is not punishment, but guidance that keeps people good.  "What is a good man but a bad man's teacher.  What is a bad man but a good man's student?" He stated in the Tao Te Ching.

You must also look at the results of the ideas of these two men.

B

Han Fei Tzi's ideas were practiced in the Qin dynasty.  They worked until a weak ruler (only the second) was unable to keep control.  Legalism or any other strict system in theory can work to a degree, as it did in Qin, but must be maintained dillegently.  As few things now and especially then were, they were not maintained, and the result was collapse.

A

Lao Tzu wandered off and left his book to be pondered on.  No government as of yet has approached the philosophies of Lao Tzu, and it  is unlikely any will.  Lao Tzu was also a harsh critic of War, writing his book in a time of great war that saw the works of Sun Tzu's Art of War.

Back then, punishment extended to your family as well.  One member of your family could commit a crime that caused your whole family to be exterminated.  However, Lao Tzu's philosophy still exists today, but is not practiced by any government.

So even though A could never be trully realized, we must look at what makes our countries crime rate so high compared to other countries, many of whom do not have the death penalty.

First, we must recognize that it is a problem with our culture first and foremost.

1. The very freedoms we cherish can be warped to justify even the most heineous crime in the eyes of the criminal.  We must temper Freedom with care for our fellow man.  My freedom and saftey is only valid if I resepect your freedom and saftey.

2. Ours is a culture of greed, pure and simple.  We lack a moral basis for why we seek profit like we do.  Combined with 1, we see how this results in a dog-eat-dog scenario, where only the strong survive.

3. We need an understanding of humanity.  Remember that you are not born good or bad, you are born innocent.  Instead of simply focusing on how to punish people who turned bad, we need to focus on WHY they turned bad.  For the cost of feeding and cloting an inmate for 50 years, you can fund a rec center or youth center to help keep many kids off the streets and out of prisions in the first place.

As far as your second question is concerned...

C is the better option.

I am not a cold person, though this answer may sound as though I am.

But the innocence and rights of one girl are being weighted with the innocence and rights of many.  To opt for D just to punish him means you put more emphasis on punishment than the suffering of the girls and I'm convinced that is wrong.

This was an excellent question that really made me think, thank you.

Answer 4

you missed out E

shoot the bad people dead

we all live happily ever after or in Texas

Answer 5

hmmmm...... let me think it over.

Answer 6

A truly fascinating and provocative proposition!  Thank you for taking the time and making the effort to construct (in detail) the various scenarios and solicit the perspectives of others.

For my reply, I'm "cutting to the chase" so to speak and concentrating on the one sentence summary you position in the middle of your post, "What this boils down to is: What is more important to you, a safe society or punishment of criminals?"

Indeed, that specific question is the nexus of your social experiment and, I'd argue, a fundamental component inherent in the constructing and maintaining societies across the world.

As such, because the question is so connected to our species, it cuts across a series of disciplines and thinking, not the least of them being, anthropology, criminology, psychology, and sociology ... it can even be considered a question answered from a purely religious perspective also.

A short digressive ... I recall studying Douglas McGregor's Theory X, Theory Y (years ago) and how he posited that human motivation may be identified by two, strong, yet opposing assumptions (he focused his attention on organizational behavior generally and management principles specifically).  

Through Theory X, McGregor claimed these types of managers view -and subsequently treat- all employees as "inherently lazy and will avoid work if they can" ... generally, a very pessimistic view of human nature.

Contrary to that, in Theory Y, McGregor asserts that these types of managers assume employees are self-motivated with ambitions and are quite anxious to do a good job -including accepting responsibility, being autonomous, and cherishing being empowered.

End of digressive.

In my view, it's rather easy (and, of course, convenient for my reply) to suggest applying a Theory X, Theory Y template to your scenario where -for the sake of this discussion- Theory X people favor "punishing criminals" and Theory Y people favor "a safe society."

This helps (for me, anyway) drive the essence of your proposition down to considering the factors influencing Theory X people and whether those same factors are present in Theory Y people.

For example, it seems likely that people favoring the punishment of criminals may have a tendency to construct a short continuum of "right" versus "wrong" with a very elaborate system of punishments associated with each wrong as well as the nuances of each wrong (think current criminal justice and penal systems in US).  Generally, this is an ex post facto system (and lends itself extremely well to corruption, discrimination, and loopholes).

On the other hand, it seems that Theory Y people may consider a more progressive -or preventive- system to ensure a safe society by investing thought, education, training, collaboration, cooperation, and other community-oriented programs (and, of course, $$$$$$) that are founded, built, and sustained on sound, fundamental principles of human nature (think Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs as a simple example).  

To me, it seems reasonable to believe that an emphasis on a safe society is preferable to an emphasis on punishing criminals and that a concerted effort to ensure the former actually mitigates the latter.

Again, you present a thought-provoking post -thanks.  

Answer 7

Since every one of your "A" and "B" choices are unrealistic:

I choose " C "

Man rapes girl, man is caught, man is executed.

Answer 8

If we repeal all criminal laws, the crime rate would plummet.