Crime and Punishment

[tcepsa]

In 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 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

Comments

[emeraldliz.livejournal.com]

First off, the analogy totally sucks. Nothing was stolen that could be given back- time, energy, worry. I suppose if she paid for all the expenses that it cost to try and find her, but generally the analogy sucks to me to begin with.

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?

[blushing-grace.livejournal.com]

Side-note on the McDonald's thing: They had been told multiple times that their coffee was too hot by official organizations. They do it to stretch out the same amount of coffee for a longer time. The woman had severe burns and was hospitalized for them. I know people who spill coffee all the time, but none who have had to spend considerable time in the hospital for it. She tried for damages-just medical bills and was ignored by McDonald's. It took that to make a change in their (cheap) policy.

Here's a FAQ on it...

[blushing-grace.livejournal.com]

Stella Liebeck, 79 years old, was sitting in the passenger seat having purchased a cup of McDonald’s coffee. After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her. She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years. Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000. However, McDonald’s refused to settle. The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages -- reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20 percent at fault -- and $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald’s callous conduct. (To put this in perspective, McDonald's revenue from coffee sales alone is in excess of $1.3 million a day.) The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000.

By corporate specifications, McDonald's sells its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit; Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the skin is burned away down to the muscle/fatty-tissue layer) in two to seven seconds;

Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim for many months, and in some cases, years;

The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;

McDonald's admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years -- the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;

From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks; Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by McDonald's scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent spillage by McDonald's employees;

At least one woman had coffee dropped in her lap through the service window, causing third-degree burns to her inner thighs and other sensitive areas, which resulted in disability for years;

Witnesses for McDonald's admitted in court that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald's required temperature;

McDonald's admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not;

McDonald's witnesses testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat -- As one witness put it: “No, there is no current plan to change the procedure that we're using in that regard right now;”

McDonald's admitted that its coffee is “not fit for consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;

Liebeck's treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen.
Morgan, The Recorder, September 30, 1994. Moreover, the Shriner’s Burn Institute in Cincinnati had published warnings to the franchise food industry that its members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns by serving beverages above 130 degrees Fahrenheit.

In refusing to grant a new trial in the case, Judge Robert Scott called McDonald's behavior “callous.” Moreover, “the day after the verdict, the news media documented that coffee at the McDonald's in Albuquerque [where Liebeck was burned] is now sold at 158 degrees. This will cause third-degree burns in about 60 seconds, rather than in two to seven seconds [so that], the margin of safety has been increased as a direct consequence of this verdict.” Id.

[tcepsa.livejournal.com]

Thanks for bringing this up; it's amazing what context can do... post has been amended. *grin* This brings up the topic of the culture of corporate America... but I'll save that for another post sometime ;)

I disagree.

[elkor.livejournal.com]

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 I need a medical inhaler, and someone steals my inhaler and then returns it after I have died as a result of an asthma attack, the outcome of the crime is exactly the same, despite that the individual returned the item after knowingly stealing it.

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.

The punishment is for comitting the crime, not the behavior of the individual afterwards.

If someone turns themselves in after getting away "clean" then they are generally given a lighter sentence than someone the police have to track down.

In the case of the bride, she "came clean" pretty much after people figured out she had been lying.

So it wasn't so much out of some sense of guilt, it was an attempt to mitigate the punishment because she "knew" she was going to get caught.

Re: I disagree.

[tcepsa.livejournal.com]

If I need a medical inhaler, and someone steals my inhaler and then returns it after I have died as a result of an asthma attack, the outcome of the crime is exactly the same, despite that the individual returned the item after knowingly stealing it.

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).

[fad-knitter.livejournal.com]

Bah, stealing ethics. Of course that's what democracy was built on, what makes something property, good ole' Locke. It's simple, you pick the apple you deserve to keep it and no one should take that apple from you. If someone takes the apple from you, the government, in exchange for some freedoms you gave up, should find a fair resolution. But until the government does, you can kill them yourself because if your apple has been stolen, who knows what else they will do? Or something to that affect. I'm not sure what Locke would say about returning the apple, so the apple analogy doesn't work here.

But I can't really think about apples when Ben Stein is telling me that Nixon was a wonderful pacifist who was targeted and his poor name is tarnished because he was lying and all presidents lie. Well, he wasn't just lying, last I checked he was running the government like a terrorist group with secrets galore and a quest for power. And wasn't he going to nuke some people without concern for the common citizen he would kill? I'm not saying the Felt is a hero, but he was no traitor and somethings should not be a giant secret in the White House.

[ivorydamsel.livejournal.com]

Hey there, J. It was lovely to meet you Friday evening and to discover another LJ-er in the community. Your journal looks interesting (and perhaps more substantive than mine has been of late, but we're working on that). I'd like to add you, if you wouldn't mind.