Crime and Punishment
Jun. 2nd, 2005 10:55 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tcepsaIn an article today regarding the recent Runaway Bride case, the closing paragraph was:
"Later recantation doesn't excuse you from the criminal behavior, under Georgia law," Gwinnett County District Attorney Danny Porter said. "That would be like stealing something and then putting it back. It doesn't help you to say, 'Oh, I put it back.' "
Mr. Porter's statement bothers me.
The purpose of punishment is deterrance. The idea is that if you punish someone for doing something, then they will associate the suffering of the punishment as a consequence of the action for which they were punished. It turns out that this is actually one of the least effective methods of behavior modification, but that's a topic for another time.
Stealing something and putting it back and stealing something and not putting it back are two different things, and should not receive the same punishment as a consequence. If you steal something, you now have it and they do not. If you steal something and then put it back, there was a period of time where you had it and they did not, but now they have it again. If you punish both cases the same way, then you send the message that "If you steal something, you might as well keep it." I can't see how that helps...
In either case the sentence should be applied based on the recovery of the victim instead of focusing on inflicting suffering on the perpetrator.
Chances are that the perpetrator is already suffering. That's probably why they committed the theft in the first place; they figured that if they had whatever they stole, it would ease their suffering. Adding more suffering on top of that suffering is neither humane nor helpful. It will serve to increase resentment towards the laws that justified it (as an example, how many of you who have gotten speeding tickets feel a greater amount of respect for speed limits as a result, and how many of you resent them more?) It is a rare criminal who feels grateful towards the laws and law enforcement for showing him the error of his ways and helping him to correct it by punishing him.
In addition, punishing the perpetrator does not generally help the victim (with perhaps the exception of the cases in which money is taken from the perpetrator and given to the victim--and even in those cases, I often feel that the amount of money is inappropriate;how much was awarded to the schmuck who wasn't bright enough not to set a cup of hot coffee in her lap? 2.7 million dollars was awarded due to the callous response of McDonalds to the woman who received 3rd degree burns from coffee--see ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
blushing_grace's FAQ below for details) Yes, there is some schadenfreude to be had at knowing that the perpetrator is suffering at least as much as the victim did, but I have grave doubts as to how much healing actually comes from that.
On the other hand, if the sentence is focused on helping the victim to recover instead of causing the perpetrator to suffer, then the damage is repaired to the maximum extent possible. If the perpetrator steals something and then puts it back, the punishment should be something along the lines of making recompense for the suffering that the victim experienced during its absence. If the perpetrator steals something and does not put it back, the punishment should be that they must replace it to the best of their abilities and, again, make up for the time that it was gone. Under that system, it does help you if you put it back, and circumstances are restored as closely as they can be to what they were before the crime was committed.
Best wishes
"Later recantation doesn't excuse you from the criminal behavior, under Georgia law," Gwinnett County District Attorney Danny Porter said. "That would be like stealing something and then putting it back. It doesn't help you to say, 'Oh, I put it back.' "
Mr. Porter's statement bothers me.
The purpose of punishment is deterrance. The idea is that if you punish someone for doing something, then they will associate the suffering of the punishment as a consequence of the action for which they were punished. It turns out that this is actually one of the least effective methods of behavior modification, but that's a topic for another time.
Stealing something and putting it back and stealing something and not putting it back are two different things, and should not receive the same punishment as a consequence. If you steal something, you now have it and they do not. If you steal something and then put it back, there was a period of time where you had it and they did not, but now they have it again. If you punish both cases the same way, then you send the message that "If you steal something, you might as well keep it." I can't see how that helps...
In either case the sentence should be applied based on the recovery of the victim instead of focusing on inflicting suffering on the perpetrator.
Chances are that the perpetrator is already suffering. That's probably why they committed the theft in the first place; they figured that if they had whatever they stole, it would ease their suffering. Adding more suffering on top of that suffering is neither humane nor helpful. It will serve to increase resentment towards the laws that justified it (as an example, how many of you who have gotten speeding tickets feel a greater amount of respect for speed limits as a result, and how many of you resent them more?) It is a rare criminal who feels grateful towards the laws and law enforcement for showing him the error of his ways and helping him to correct it by punishing him.
In addition, punishing the perpetrator does not generally help the victim (with perhaps the exception of the cases in which money is taken from the perpetrator and given to the victim--and even in those cases, I often feel that the amount of money is inappropriate;
blushing_grace's FAQ below for details) Yes, there is some schadenfreude to be had at knowing that the perpetrator is suffering at least as much as the victim did, but I have grave doubts as to how much healing actually comes from that.On the other hand, if the sentence is focused on helping the victim to recover instead of causing the perpetrator to suffer, then the damage is repaired to the maximum extent possible. If the perpetrator steals something and then puts it back, the punishment should be something along the lines of making recompense for the suffering that the victim experienced during its absence. If the perpetrator steals something and does not put it back, the punishment should be that they must replace it to the best of their abilities and, again, make up for the time that it was gone. Under that system, it does help you if you put it back, and circumstances are restored as closely as they can be to what they were before the crime was committed.
Best wishes
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-06-02 09:50 am (UTC)Secondly, our penal system has ALWAYS given lip-service to the notion that we're trying to deter the criminals/other possible future criminals. People don't want better society, they want "justice" they want "punshment."
For example- the death penalty. Sure there are a FEW psychos out there who are simply beyond help, but I hardly think it's the numbers we actually choose to kill.
We generally don't want to change things because it's such a HUGE thing to change- to figure out why people commit crimes to begin with, to help notice at an early age, to solve THOSE problems.
Instead, people are just bad and need to be smacked. Easy, simple.
Let's face it- this particular case happens probably a few times a year. For whatever reason, it became sensationalized, so there needs to be an example made. How's that for justice?