Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Regaining the Moral Clarity to Punish Criminals
Sounds easy right? Just a boring topic that states the obvious. The problem is, when it comes to the criminal justice system, the mainstream media has, on one hand, created the myth that prison is hell on earth, and, on the other, horribly mislead the public about the death penalty. The prison systems in the United States have been locked in the 1960s liberal fantasy that we can — and, worse, should — always try to rehabilitate career criminals.
To be clear, I am focusing this post on the worst of the worst: the murderers, violent gang members, rapists, child molesters, etc. The people who my wife and I have dedicated our lives to prosecuting. I will save discussing how retribution should apply to addicts or non-violent first time offenders for another day. But how we punish the worst of the worst will shock you. There is a massive moral deficit in the criminal justice system, one that values criminals far above victims — and it is disgusting. If we are to regain the moral clarity and fortitude to punish the worst of the worst, it will only come from the political right.
Those who don’t have experience in the trenches of the criminal justice system get a very myopic and negative view of it: cops are renegade vigilantes with a badge; the death penalty costs too much and often punishes the innocent; prisons are nothing but raping grounds and murder houses; cowboy legislatures keep increasing not only what is criminal but also the sentences associated with crime. Some of these debates are worth having, but the casual listener must understand that he is only being given anecdotal information from a pro-criminal left that seeks to relegitimize the liberal fantasy of the reformed killer. One needs only to look to how the left slobbers over Mumia Abu-Jabal — a convicted cop-killer who has turned his crime into celebrity — to see how morally bankrupt the criminal justice system is. In a moral society, Abu-Jamal would have been vilified and put to death — as most of those on death row or serving life sentences should be.
We do not do to criminals what the left wants us to believe that we do. As NYLS professor Robert Blecker has pointed out the media only report one dimension of punishment: duration — how many years the criminal got. But in doing so, they completely ignore the second dimension of punishment: intensity. How unpleasant is the time that you spend in prison? For the intensity of the crime, most people only have television shows like Lockup, Lockdown etc. — shows that are produced by that agenda-less bastion of truth, MSNBC.
What MSNBC does not show is the child-raping murderer getting a college education, playing organized sports on the rec yard (complete with taxpayer-supported uniforms!), receiving contact visits with his family and friends, indulging in arts-and-crafts time, or, in certain states, enjoying conjugal visits. Arizona’s death row gives each murderer a flat screen TV and premium movie channels. This was driven home to me as I was listening to the phone calls of a man I put on death row for torturing and killing someone to get into the Aryan Brotherhood. He was telling his mom about how he was learning about Wicca, watching movies and Sons of Anarchy, and eating potato chips. This was just after my wife and I reduced our cable to just local channels because we couldn’t afford the $140 a month for expanded cable. Would I want his life right now? Of course not. But I didn’t torture a man to death.
One needs only to look at the mission statement of any Department of Corrections to see how far from the idea of punishment we have gone. I challenge readers to find a single state that even mentions “punishment” in their mission statement. You won’t. I took a quick sample of large states as an illustration here, here, and here but they are all the same.
Take a quick look at the mission statements and you’ll easily see the main theme: prisons do not exist to punish, but focus on safety, security, and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation has its place for the vast majority of non-violent offenders. It has no place for criminals like Kermit Gosnell. What is the appropriate punishment for what he did? It’s probably no shock that I fall on the side of a quick but painful death. Even those who don’t agree with that, however, would probably balk at the intensity with which he is actually serving: dorm setting, medium-security prison, in and out of his cell when he chooses, recreation, contact visits, sweets ordered from the store, arts and crafts, and the ability to socialize with his fellow “inmates” (a chummy word that has unfortunately taken hold in our society. They are prisoners, not inmates). Once a criminal leaves the headlines and heads into the prison system, no one will ever ask what he did to get in. Corrections officials almost have a phobia about the topic — they’re not about to tailor some sort of confinement commensurate with the crime.
No I am not proposing the rack, burning at the stake, or water torture. But free college educations? Should a brutal child-rapist like Patrick Kennedy get contact visits? Does he really need to play on a softball team? Or eat chocolate? Charles Manson — arguably, America’s most notorious murderer — was recently in the news because he was going to get married. While the press took a tongue-in-cheek approach to the story — especially once the wedding didn’t pan out — I was shocked at the real story: we are letting this man get married? How does our society step over the bodies of those victims and allow a criminal like Manson to enjoy one of the greatest blessings we have in life? As a free man, Manson lived in absolute squalor, a filthy hand-to-mouth existence. In prison, he enjoys a vastly better life than he ever could have had otherwise. Our rapists and murderers enjoy more access to quality of life opportunities than our homeless veterans. That is a moral outrage and a failing to victims of crime.
We have a moral obligation to punish the worst of the worst. It is an obligation that is as old as society itself. And no, this does not extend to the parents of innocent blood. It is our obligation to the victim — the actual victim — not to foster an environment that leads back to blood debts.
Our society has lost its moral compass on a number of fronts. And while there is plenty to debate and reform in the criminal justice system, we must regain our moral fortitude to once again punish the worst of the worst. Our side is the only one that is capable of leading this charge. If not us, who? If not now, when?
Published in Domestic Policy, Law
I agree with the principles Vince asserted in the original post. The victims, including us in the larger society that has been harmed by violent crime, deserve justice, and that means to see punishment done.
That said, given God’s instruction to us to forgive each other and let him take care of justice weighs heavily on my conscience. Justice is mine, saith the Lord, and all that. I don’t want to cross the line where just retribution ends and my own new crime of a disproportionate response to someone else’s crime begins. I want to stay on my crime-free side of that line. I am secure in my faith that God will sort us all out in the end. By not overpunishing, I’m protecting my own soul. And since I cannot see into another’s person’s heart and mind, the risk to me that I will overpunish is great. That’s how I look at this.
And I can’t fault the prison system for running itself internally the way it does. Human beings confined to a small space all day have nothing else to do but get in trouble. They have all day to plot. They will also go insane from boredom. That is an inescapable fact of life.
The prison system has few resources to work with to maintain order among a group of people who don’t want to be there. And the system has to protect the other inmates. If I were running a prison, I’d probably go in the direction of incentives and disincentives to keep the inmates calm.
For me, I’m okay with confinement as being punishment in and of itself. Personally, I would go totally nuts in prison. Taking away my personal freedom would be the worst thing another person could do to me.
I don’t really care what other hardships they have to endure while inside, but I am adamant that convicts MUST be kept safe from violence.
If you take away 100% of a person’s liberty, you have a 100% responsibility to protect their security.
I’ve been plenty steeped, so I guess that means I have a slightly myopic and negative view of it? What is happening to the worst of the worst is not nearly as pressing of an issue as what is happening to the nonviolent offender serving jailtime.
That looks like how it should be given limited correctional system resources that don’t extend far enough to even protect inmates from each other, much less protect the guards from the inmates.
Five times in the Torah as Dennis Prager explained, we are told the punishment for deliberate murder of another human life is to eliminate that person. You can forgive the person but not condone the act, and the punishment for that act is death. We are talking punishment, not vengeance which would be a slow, torturous death. Or killing the entire family of the killer, which is why we have the Law, “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.”
Kate, you wouldn’t kill anyone in the first place which is why being locked up would be the worse punishment for you. You should not put your feelings into a cold, viscous, murder’s mind. We are talking justice, and the safety of society, not vengeance or feelings. Jesus said to sell your cloak if need be to purchase a sword. Would that sword be for good looks, or to kill someone trying to murder you? Jesus did not say to forgive and love these kinds of monsters. Millions of people have died needlessly as pacifist, misunderstanding the laws of forgiving.
Hi Kay, that was all me, not Kate. :) I’m flattered that you would confuse us, however. :)
I understand your point about the death penalty. It’s a personal moral issue for me. James of England has nearly persuaded me of its necessity.
That said, I’m bound by “forgive them, they know not what they do.” God lets me protect myself, not exact revenge. That’s his and his alone. That’s my belief.
Also, as you know, I was raised by a paranoid schizophrenic who walked around with her mind and heart naked. I have a different view of culpability than other people have.
Hi Kay, that was all me, not Kate. :) I’m flattered that you would confuse us, however. :)
Sorry about that MarciN. Sometimes when I get going my fingers out do my brain. But MarciN, removing people from society that keeps society on constant guard to protect themselves is not revenge.
We are a rich society that we can afford to keep all those criminals in prison.
And I’m all for that. And I understand war. But if there’s no imminent threat, I have trouble with too much punishment.
But it’s a problem in the United States with so many religions. Religion is in part a justice system.
And I understand the desire for the death penalty for terrorists.
And even in a prison, if a prisoner creates a threat to other prisoners, to protect people, as in war, we have a right, perhaps a duty, to exact the death penalty. To protect others.
There are a lot of ifs, ands, and buts in my head on the subject of punishment and justice.
Hi Kay, I stand corrected. That was Kate’s comment, not mine. Sorry.
When I glanced at it, it sounded like something I had thought. :)
I have a houseful of company arriving momentarily. I will forgive myself for my lapse in sense. :)
Carry on, guys. :)
How horrific, Kay! I find it impossible to imagine how I might feel in your place.
I totally agree that the death penalty is for the protection of society from the monster.
I agree 100%, and this is really important to me.
It does no good to take a stupid kid who got in with the wrong crowd and made some bad decisions and turn him into a truly violent person by allowing him to be assaulted while he serves out his sentence. While I agree that prisons should be primarily concerned with justice and punishment and only secondarily about rehabilitation, it’s arguably a step backwards to allow them to become factories producing even more violent people. Justice should be dispassionately administered and retribution should have no place in state-administered punishment. (Victim compensation is something else…)
Wealthier prisoners the (Martha Stewarts) should also bear the costs of their own incarceration. Formal education should not be free. Some form of useful activity (work) should be required during most waking hours. and I agree that providing gym equipment and the free time to allow prisoners to bulk up and become even more physically imposing is pretty stupid.
Steroids probably have more to do with prisoners bulking up as well as increased aggressive behavior than simply working out. A lot of pent up stress and rage can be taken out from lifting weights. The prison system would also see a ton of lawsuits due to an uptick in hypertension and other maladies that arise from being out of shape. I only say this slightly in jest.
As far as Martha Stewart or even Bernie Madoff. I’ve kind of come to the conclusion that imprisoning these people is a waste. I don’t walk down a dark alley frightened Bernie Madoff will jump out with a knife an tell me to give him all my 401k and my IRA. It’s seems silly were imprisoning these people on our dime. These people deserve to be punished but it seems it would be more beneficial to have them try to rectify the financial damage they’ve done in some way.
Martha Stewart paid $30,000 in fines. Which doesn’t seem like a lot, I realize. But since the charges against were somewhat trumped up, the fine should have been sufficient.
It’s why I don’t’ get upset about “botched” executions. Hell, it’s supposed to hurt.
Citation needed.
Really?
I’m not a prosecutor. Maybe you should define it. I’d be interested to see what kind of wiggle room it gives you. Probably a lot.
I’m reading a lot of cases where cops are punished for misconduct. Such incidents are highly publicized. The only case I’ve heard of a prosecutor getting punished was the Duke Lacrosse case. Even the Ted Stevens trial where the judge cited the assistant U.S. attorneys for misconduct did not result in actual punishment.
Here’s my real point. It doesn’t sound very just to me, for example, if a law breaker gets a lighter sentence just because he ratted his mates out first. At best it’s morally ambiguous. Prosecutors are getting their hands a little dirty whenever they do that, figuratively speaking.
I do see the necessity for it. What I expect is a little humility by the people with the power to do that kind of thing.
I’m not seeing that in your posts.
This reminds me of restorative justice programs, Vince. I’m sure you’re familiar with the idea? The commission of a crime— for example a theft—does more than merely depriving the victim of his or her property. It is dehumanizing, and damaging to the essential relationship of trust that members of a society must have in one another if they, and their society, are to function.
I could write a whole post about that! But not here and now!
I am familiar with Restorative Justice and I fall in the same general area that you do. I am 100% against RJ programs that are in the slightest bit mandatory or even recommended. They all too often fall into the strong suits of the anti-social defendant: allowing him to narcissistically gloat about the crime in a way that casual observers (read: Oprah) think is contrition. Oh he looks sad! He must have remorse! That kind of thing. And I have never seen a defendant actually take full responsibility for his crime. Why should he? He has a life of relative comfort and decades of appeals. He’d feel awfully sheepish if he fully confesses and then he gets granted a new trial. That being said, if the victim wants that moment, and they have been given the appropriate warnings, then I’m all for it. I tell the next of kin the same general thing at the beginning of every murder case: it was there son/daughter/wife/husband etc. I will tell them as little or as much as they want to know, but nothing about the process will be happy. If knowing everything brings some peace I’ll do it. Hearing the defendant fudge the facts with a pseudo apology brings peace, I’ll set it up. I’m just skeptical, but ultimately not my call.
What I advocate is only one side of RJ. Connecting, or attempting to connect, the defendant to his crime. That generally will come one of two ways: through discomfort at his constant situation, or through actual contrition by his own reflection. He will never appreciate how he destroyed love for as long as he is able to disconnect himself and allow his life to essentially go on. What a lot of the posts I’ve read seem to discount is that for people like blow torch guy, it wasn’t like it was his first trip to the joint. All his life he wanted to be in the AB so threatening him with life in prison was giving him what he wanted. Many of the guys on death row are far more comfortable with being in prison than the outside world, or at least so I am told.
And you should write that post! I think it would be a great read! :)
Well actually this is peripherally what the Supreme Court has been dealing with lately on lethal injection. In Baze v. Rees (I don’t have the cite but I could update, ballpark 2008) John Roberts correctly points out that the Supreme Court has never required a painless death. In fact, in the 150 years or so of death penalty litigation the Supreme Court has never struck down a method of execution as cruel and unusual. That’s the Wilkerson v. Utah case where the Supreme Court upheld capital punishment by “hanging, shot or beheaded” or words very close to that. Firing Squads are coming, there is no doubt on that. One state has already adopted it, and 5 more should follow suit soon. The anti-death crowd has only themselves to that for it. Like Ring, they should be careful what they wish for, and their attacks on lethal injection were stupid.
But frankly some murderers should receive an execution that is quick, but painful. It makes no sense to me that we should kill someone we as a society despise in the same manner that we kill someone we love. Lethal injection right now is identical to physician assisted suicide, and to give that death to someone who planned to kill an innocent person in a manner to prolong suffering seems barbaric to me.
The other thing you’re not seeing is a discussion on what the media chooses to cover, how to handle a snitch, proper sentences after a testimonial agreement, or police misconduct. I appreciate you trolling my posts (kinda flattered actually!), but if you are going to get upset over issues I don’t raise I can’t help ya Bubba. And if you think disbarment isn’t punishment then heck, earning a living isn’t high on your list of things to do. For me and my mortgage company, being able to practice law is one of the things I have to remember to do each day.
If only there was a forum, an internet community so to speak, where I could tease out my unfiltered opinions, bounded by decorum of course, with relatively like minded people? Hmm. I might even pay to be able to have access for an interesting discussion (and occasionally spirited!) with intelligent people on topics that I find intriguing. I would find said forum a delightful retreat from the pressures of my day. Oh well. I guess I’ll just keep striving for that appropriate level of humility so that I can properly satisfy the dignities of strangers.
You are doing just fine Vince, I’ve enjoyed every word you have written.
As dissonant as a minor second. Shocking that condescension doesn’t get universal support.
I still haven’t seen any justification outside of “they deserve it” for why we should inflict suffering on our prisoners. Maybe it’s fine to do so, or we don’t have any alternative, but why should that be our aim?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Martha Stewart convicted of lying about a crime that nobody could prove she ever committed?
(Kinda like Conrad Black being convicted of “obstructing justice” when the fraud conviction was ultimately thrown out. How can one “obstruct justice” when one is not guilty of the primary charges?)
Seems to me that railroading someone on trumped up charges is punishment enough, regardless of their net worth.
I’m not sure I can think of any other better justification than actually giving someone exactly what they deserve. That’s the definition of justice. It’s a moral issue and it’s hard to bring anything but a moral answer to a moral question. I’ve never advocated for a blanket “inflict suffering on our prisoners”, it was much more narrow. I think it is morally bankrupt that the worst of the worst, men who rape children to death as an example, to obtain a college education, get married, contact visits, play in rock bands, and participate in the Prison Leagues. How is that morally defensible? We have many alternatives to that kind of life in prison.
We as a society have a moral obligation to the innocent blood that was shed, and that should be our aim. It is a concept as old as civilization itself: “I hear your brother’s blood crying out to me from the ground”. The idea of “blood pollution” goes back 5,000 years to the ancient Greeks. Everything about the criminal justice system centers around the defendant: the name of the case, the focus of treatment, who is suffering. In popular culture defendants are celebrated on Oprah, daytime talk shows, and nighttime crime shows. Rarely is the suffering of the victims and their families ever focused on. I cannot fathom a single reason why a man who tortures and kills should be granted the ability to play in the Prison Leagues or have weekly jam sessions in the Joint. How is that justice? How do I explain that to the mother who visits a grave?
I didn’t mean to comment on how valid charges may or may not have been against Martha Stewart in particular. I meant when people such as her who are very wealthy and sentenced to prison time. Even if I have doubts about someone’s guilt, I don’t want my tax money used to pay their living expenses if they have the resources to pay for themselves.
Although, since it’s been brought up a couple of times, if one is guilty, they should be punished for the crime they were convicted of – even if they were somewhat forced charges. It really, really stinks if it turns out later their conviction is overturned, and in that case the amount of money they paid for their incarceration should be repaid – immediately. If it’s found that it was a malicious prosecution, the prosecutor personally or the govt institutionally should be required to reimburse the cost of their defense. A message should be sent that those kinds of things have no place in the rule of law and will not be tolerated.
Is one able to sue the court/prosecutor/whomever for malicious prosecution in civil court?
Giving someone what they “deserve” begs the question. You couch all of this in terms of “moral clarity,” but it is very unclear to me that we should treat prisoners who have already been deprived of their freedom in a less than humane fashion.
I’m not persuaded that the Greeks’ “blood pollution” is actually helpful in determining the general bounds of treatment of prisoners. On the other hand, my own ancient belief system talks about turning the other cheek and blessing those who visit prisoners. I disagree that advocating for torture of criminals has anything to do with regaining moral clarity.
You say on one hand that this is limited to child-rapist murderers, but on the other hand you complain that defendants (in general) are at the center of the criminal justice system. I’ll take you at your word that your post is about only the worst of the worst (not at all clear from your original post), but you can see where one might think these are the gripes of a prosecutor who saw a couple hard cases go against him.
Depends on the State and what exactly was done. Bringing a case where it is later determined to have no probable cause, that’s disbarment and then it depends on the State if you can sue civilly. Most prosecutors have some type of immunity if a case is brought in good faith and supported by probable cause. The immunity will protect the prosecutor personally, but they generally do not bar a plaintiff from seeking damages from the County or other entities. Some States require the “exonerated” to sue for a certificate of actual innocence, something has proven difficult for some. But if proven they obtain a guaranteed sum.
So, like all legal answers: “It depends”.