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}
Re: I disagree.
Date: 2005-06-02 02:34 pm (UTC)True, but the outcome is different than it would have been had they returned the inhaler before your death. By your logic, it would seem that even in that case, they should still be charged with manslaughter. Perhaps this should be considered as two separate crimes: property theft and murder.
If someone steals the last candy bar, then returns it later, the store lost the opportunity to sell the candy bar while it was stolen.
My suggestion addresses this, "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." This would include, I suppose, the amount of interest that the store could have earned on the money that the store would have gotten had the store sold the candy bar at the time it was stolen. (I'll leave the calculation of the exact amount as an exercise for any economists out there. If you're feeling really masochistic, feel free to factor in the probability, over time, that the store would have sold the candy bar had it been there to sell ;)
My suggestion of requiring the perpetrator to offer recompense assumes that it will be possible to do so. In the case of the victim's death, it may not be possible to do so and thus the response is undefined. There are of course the options of covering the funeral expenses, but I don't think that that would even come close to making up for the suffering of the victims (now expanded to include the deceased's family and friends). Perhaps the perpetrator would be required to assume a Death Debt towards the family and friends, though what such a debt would entail I don't know...
This concept was a general one that I put forward with the thought that it would be able to address a large portion of crimes; I recognize that there are several areas where it does not easily apply (such as the one you mentioned, or in areas of psychological trauma; how does one make amends for kidnapping someone?) Those areas definitely deserve closer scrutiny, because they are the ones that involve levels and types of damage that one cannot simply undo or fix with money (and it bothers me that we currently try to).