Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Daniel Owen]

Daniel Owen, you say that we need prisons and that England needs capital punishment. Why do we need them?

I want to see a society of individual liberty. Individual liberty is not possible if society tolerates those who impinge upon other's freedom. If social harmony is not ensured by a decentralised syndicalist polity we will simply revert to the bad old ways of statism. Plus, my view is that freedom means self-responsibility. In a free society individuals will have to pay for what they do and be held responsible.

What allegedly needed purpose do they fulfill that cannot be fulfilled by restraining the inmates in medical institutions that provide treatment?

That's a nightmarish totalitarian-liberal vision that makes me sick to the stomach. Except for a few insane individuals, people freely choose what they do. They should be treated with the respect automatically due them as free human beings. They should be held responsible.

You say that society cannot survive anti-socials and that freedom cannot survive freedom-haters. Why can we not protect society and freedom by restraining "anti-socials" and "freedom-haters" in medical facilities for the purpose of receiving treatment?

That's awful and totalitarian. There is nothing physically or psychologically "wrong" with them (unless there is, but we're not talking about those few exceptions). Sounds like "re-programming" or some similar dystopian measure. [/i]

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Daniel Owen, you say that we need prisons and that England needs capital punishment. Why do we need them?

I want to see a society of individual liberty. Individual liberty is not possible if society tolerates those who impinge upon other's freedom. If social harmony is not ensured by a decentralised syndicalist polity we will simply revert to the bad old ways of statism. Plus, my view is that freedom means self-responsibility. In a free society individuals will have to pay for what they do and be held responsible.

I also want individual liberty, and to that end I also believe we need to restrain victimizers. But why do believe we need prisons and capital punishment to do that? Can't victimizers also be restrained in a more compassionate environment focused on providing treatment and rehabilitation?

What allegedly needed purpose do they fulfill that cannot be fulfilled by restraining the inmates in medical institutions that provide treatment?

That's a nightmarish totalitarian-liberal vision that makes me sick to the stomach. Except for a few insane individuals, people freely choose what they do. They should be treated with the respect automatically due them as free human beings. They should be held responsible.

How is it more nightmarishly totalitarian to allow a person to get treatment as opposed to locking them in a prison or executing them? Sure, if the person wants to die rather than get treatment, then we can let them. But it makes me sick to my stomach to take the totalitarian approach of forcing a person to suffer from the barbarity of prison or execution when we could provide them with treatment that would protect other people not only the same amount but I believe even more.

You say that society cannot survive anti-socials and that freedom cannot survive freedom-haters. Why can we not protect society and freedom by restraining "anti-socials" and "freedom-haters" in medical facilities for the purpose of receiving treatment?

That's awful and totalitarian. There is nothing physically or psychologically "wrong" with them (unless there is, but we're not talking about those few exceptions). Sounds like "re-programming" or some similar dystopian measure.

I'll wait for your answer about how you see it as more awful and totalitarian to allow a person to enter treatment in a compassionate environment rather than forcing them to spend life in a prison or be executed.

You say that there is nothing physically or psychologically "wrong" with them. If that is the case, then they can be safely released. The crux of my argument is that, of the people who have committed an act of criminal victimization, they each (by the law of the excluded middle) are either psychologically abnormal in some way that makes them more dangerous than a typical person (i.e. more prone to choose to commit acts of victimization) or not. If not, then we do not need to restrain them. For the few who do have some dangerous psychological abnormality, then I think we do not need prisons (or execution) because we can restrain those dangerously psychologically abnormal people in treatment and rehabilitation facilities. In fact, I think it is far less totalitarian and much more preferable.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Josiah Niedrauer sent me the following reply to the original article.

Strongly disagree with the article.

I went to Mexico once. The so called "victimless behaviors" don't exist. Prostitution. You mentioned it as one of them. Have you ever seen little kids out on the street trying to sell themselves to you? Yeah, so much for victemless.

Incidental Criminals. The logic in your argument is so weak here that it is laughable. You're trying to excuse those who steal, instead choosing to blame it on society. Yes, maybe their intentions were honorable, but they are still a threat to the safety and freedom of others. In matters of stealing though, prison is a somewhat stupid penalty, as it gets nothing back to the original victim and costs the state money. A system of restitution might work better.

And "Mentally Sick People" are a lot smarter than you might think. They will play the system and get "cured" just to get out of prison. Some things, like a human life, can only be payed for by a human life.

Your argument is an age old argument of supposed compassion, but in reality it would just destroy any self-respecting society.

Josiah Niedrauer,

You may disagree about prostitution being a victimless behavior. Nonetheless, people who commit victimless behaviors do not need to be put in prison. (Whether or not prostitution specifically is one of those victimless behaviors is irrelevant to whether or not we need prisons. We can discuss the legality of prostitution in this thread.)

You say that I try to excuse criminal victimizers such as thieves by blaming it on society. No, not necessarily. I am saying that (by the logical law of the excluded middle) either the person committed the criminal victimization as a result of having some abnormal psychological tendency to commit a crime or not. If not, then I am calling the person an incidental criminal.

I also want their to be a system of restitution (i.e. making people repay damages they caused to others), but prison does not fulfill that purpose. Restitution is dealt with by civil courts not by criminal courts.

You make a good point that criminals would pretend to be "cured," which I'm sure they already do at parole hearings and such. I'm not sure how that is an argument in support of prisons because prisons are no better at judging when a person has been "cured" than medical professionals in more compassionate environments. Regardless, I would suggest that the burden of proof be put on the convicted criminal, so that they do not get the benefit of the doubt. Additionally, there needs to be a system of accountability for whoever agrees to release the person. Obviously, we cannot trust the criminal, so it must be put up to someone else when to release the criminal, and that person would be held accountable for that job.

You say my argument is an age-old argument about compassion that would destroy society. How would it destroy society? If you ask me, society is being destroyed by the institution of throwing criminal victimizers in prison--where they get made even more dangerous--for a certain amount of time and then releasing them once they serve the sentence. How would it destroy society to release the people who are not abnormally prone to choose to commit criminal victimization and to put the others in treatment and rehabilitation facilities where they would be treated with compassion by professionals rather than with the corrupting barbarity of prison?

Thanks,
Scott

[Daniel Owen]

Daniel Owen, you say that we need prisons and that England needs capital punishment. Why do we need them?

I want to see a society of individual liberty. Individual liberty is not possible if society tolerates those who impinge upon other's freedom. If social harmony is not ensured by a decentralised syndicalist polity we will simply revert to the bad old ways of statism. Plus, my view is that freedom means self-responsibility. In a free society individuals will have to pay for what they do and be held responsible.

I also want individual liberty, and to that end I also believe we need to restrain victimizers. But why do believe we need prisons and capital punishment to do that? Can't victimizers also be restrained in a more compassionate environment focused on providing treatment and rehabilitation?

I just find that too "Brave new world"-esque. Criminals choose to take away others life, liberty and happiness and it should be taken away from them. Justice rests on the idea of reciprocity -- tit for tat.

How is it more nightmarishly totalitarian to allow a person to get treatment as opposed to locking them in a prison or executing them?

Because it's treating criminals as if they're cute furry animals who need domesticating. I think the whole idea of treatment -- except for the young -- is fundamentally flawed. Or rather, misses the point.

Sure, if the person wants to die rather than get treatment, then we can let them. But it makes me sick to my stomach to take the totalitarian approach of forcing a person to suffer from the barbarity of prison or execution when we could provide them with treatment that would protect other people not only the same amount but I believe even more.

But can they/should they be "treated"?

I'll wait for your answer about how you see it as more awful and totalitarian to allow a person to enter treatment in a compassionate environment rather than forcing them to spend life in a prison or be executed."

I don't think drugs should be illegal, so I don't see that kind of treatment being an issue. We're talking murderers and rapists here -- who, even if they can be treated, do not necessarily deserve a second chance.

You say that there is nothing physically or psychologically "wrong" with them. If that is the case, then they can be safely released.

I don't follow you? Serial killers get a thrill out of killing. They're not forced by objective circumstances to kill - its their own prerogative.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Daniel Owen,

To me, it seems more totalitarian (or more "Brave new world"-esque or more like treating them as animals) to force violent criminals into prison for life or to die then to give them the option of going into treatment and/or rehabilitation in a compassionate enviornment; wouldn't you say so?

You say the idea of treatment is fundamentally flawed. I think that statement is manifestly incorrect. Most anti-social people can easily be treated medically with some combination of psycho-therapy and psychiatric medication and/or socially with education, compassion, and job-training. In fact, even among average people, there are very few who do not benefit greatly from going to a psychologist and talking about their problems; similarly, though not run by a psychologist, AA meetings and such work on the same principle of the obvious effectiveness of rehabilitation and treatment.

I believe most inmates can be treated and/or rehabilitated to the point that it is safe to release them (at least under mandated conditions, such as having to attend AA meetings, see a psychologist, be employed full-time or so forth). I believe most inmates would prefer to be provided with the methods of rehabilitation (e.g. psychological care, quality education, etc.) in a compassionate enviornment than be thrown into a horrible, corrupting prison to suffer for a certain period of time. Whether or not they "should" be treated is beyond me because I do not know what any given person means by the word "should," and I do not consider myself a moralist. I personally would much, much prefer that criminal victimizers be put into compassionate treatment and rehabilitation rather than left to suffer in a prison--not only for their sake, but for the sake of the other people in society some of whom will likely be victimized by offenders who are being released from a torturous prison after serving their sentence instead of having been treated and rehabilitated in a compassionate enviornment.

As for the few people who are so dangerously psychologically abnormal in such a way that they could not be treated or rehabilitated to a point where it would be safe to release them back into society, I still want them to be restrained in a compassionate enviornment rather than made to suffer from the excess horribleness of prison. Of course, it is mostly irrelevant because we probably wouldn't know they couldn't be treated or rehabilitated until a lifetime of trying.

You can say what you think a person does or does not "deserve." Personally, I do not want laws made to conform to some people's vengeful morality. I want the law and so-called "criminal justice system" to protect people. Out of compassion for all humans, my first goal is to protect innocent people from being harmed by criminal victimizers. Out of the same compassion for all humans, my second goal is to cause the least harm to convicted victimizers. To be the most agreeable, I believe any political system, legal system or criminal justice system must work for the interests of all humans (at least in its jurisdiction); morally, it can be called Utilitarianism; amorally, I call it compassion. The philosopher John Rawls called it the veil of ignorance.

You say that serial killers get a thrill out of killing, and I would add that they would choose to commit murder (much more than the typical person) in any given situation. That especial willingness to murder is a very dangerous psychological abnormality, which is what is "wrong" with them and what is in need of treatment. I have no interest in indulging our petty anger and vengefulness to refuse to let these people suffer from the extreme horror of prison because of their so-called nature when we could still protect ourselves as effectively, if not more effectively, by treating the people more compassionately.

Thanks,
Scott

[Thoughtless]

Floyd,

In these treatment facilities, would treatment be optional, or mandatory? I find the idea of, say, mandatory medication to be abhorrent.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

In these treatment facilities, would treatment be optional, or mandatory? I find the idea of, say, mandatory medication to be abhorrent.

I understand the feeling towards mandatory medication. Nonetheless, for the few people needing medication, I find it no less abhorrent to force them to take medication than to force them into a conventional prison.

I also think the issue of forced medication is very limited in scope. For most violent criminals, I do not think psychiatric drugs are necessary. Medication only represents one aspect of treatment. The other main aspects are education and psychotherapy, which I think can include anything from A.A. meetings to one-on-one sessions with a friendly psychologist. Of the few inmates who need psychiatric drugs, I bet most would take them voluntarily, especially if taking the drugs meant the inmate wouldn't be left to rot in a horrible prison.

I do not think my methods would lead to more people being forcefully medicated than already happens. People that blatantly crazy are usually already put into poorly run insane asylums. In more well-run treatment facilities, I bet less forceful medication would occur.

[Thoughtless]

I agree that forceful medication already occurs. For some people, such as the severely schizophrenic, it's hard even to determind whether or not medication is desired, and with such terrible symptoms it's understandable when they are "forcibly" medicated.

I also have no problem with mandatory A.A. meetings, counseling, et cetera. Judges can and do sentence people to take driving classes, anger management classes, and the like.

However, I think that there would be a great number of "marginal" cases where the criminal is mentally unstable enough to need medication, yet cognizant enough to refuse it in no uncertain terms. I have a big problem with forcing these individuals to take medication if they don't want to. You say that it's no worse than throwing someone in a cell, but I see a very sharp line drawn between the situations you can force me to be in and what you can put inside of my body, and, even more to the point, what control you are allowed to have over my mental and emotional states.

If such a marginal case refuses medication, will they be released after they've served a certain term, or will they be held indefinitely?

[anarchyisbliss]

no. First of all prisons just concentrate convicts into one large unit where they can bounce ideas of each other's heads and I don't think any of you who agree with their convictions want them to get more ideas. Secondly, sometimes people get locked up on crimes they aren't accountable for or crimes they didn't actually commit. Lastly, a lot of time people get locked up for extra sentences because their opposing party just had a really conniving attorney who could easily manipulate the mind's of the jury members. Lastly, I think it is the ultimate bar on personal freedom.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Thoughtless,

Treating someone such that they could be safely released would almost always mean that they would need to voluntarily take their medication once they have been released. So part of the treatment would have to be finding a way to get the person to voluntarily take their medication. Of course, it would be a very rare issue because most people do not need medication, most people who do will take it willingly, and most people who would choose not to take it if they weren't threatened with prison would still choose to take it when their other option is to rot in a prison cell.

There are many different scenarios, but I cannot imagine any in which a marginally crazy person would need to be forcefully medicated and the person would choose to be left to rot in a horrible prison cell rather than be medicated. In other words, I assume a person would have to be more than marginally crazy to choose to rot in a horrible, conventional prison cell rather than choose to be medicated in a compassionate well-run treatment facility.

I do not think I am suggesting changes to the current way decisions are made regarding forced medications. I truly believe my idea of compassionately treating dangerous criminals for safe release into society would lead to less forced medications even using our current standards regarding when to forcefully medicate and when not to forcefully medicate.

About forced medication, I think I feel mostly the same as you. I want it mostly avoided, but I may tolerate it in exceptional cases when a person is intensely and self-destructively crazy that can be treated with medication.

If such a marginal case refuses medication, will they be released after they've served a certain term, or will they be held indefinitely?

Well, that's precisely what I am trying to avoid. I want dangerous people treated and not released until, if ever, they have been rehabilitated. I do not want to merely throw dangerous people in a cell for a certain amount of time and then release them without regard to whether they have been rehabilitated. Releasing non-rehabilitated offenders leads to recidivism.

[Thoughtless]

Floyd,

I think that there would be many more criminals than you seem to think who would rather "rot in a prison cell" than take medication.

I understand where you're coming from, and I appreciate the sentiment behind it, but I think that such a system could become ghastly. I think that the option to refuse treatment and serve a normal prison sentence needs to be there.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

If a normal prison sentence means life in a barbaric, horrible prison and a criminal victimizer would choose that over treatment and release, then I believe that person is more than marginally crazy.

How much would I let a very crazy person make self-destructive decisions before forcing medication on the crazy person so that the crazy person no longer makes those self-destructive decisions? I don't know. Forced medication already happens, and all I know is that I would like to see it happen less. But I don't know how much less.

Thoughtless, are you saying that you think that there would be many criminals that need medication but would choose to rot in a prison cell instead of voluntarily taking the medication? I would think it is less than half of one percent of current prison inmates.

Let me show you my rough, unconfirmed estimations, using 'vast majority' to refer to over 75% of a group:

• I believe that the vast majority of people currently in prison could be safely released immediately without treatment (e.g. non-violent drug offenders). After that, we're left with less than 25% (one fourth) of current inmates.
  
  Out of that, I believe the vast majority do not need psychiatric medication, but rather can be treated with other methods--namely education and psychological care (e.g. one-on-one sessions with psychologists, group therapy, A.A. meetings, etc.). After that, we're left with less than 6.25% (one sixteenth) of current inmates.
  
  Out of that last group who do need psychiatric medication, I believe the vast majority of them would voluntarily take the medication rather than suffer in a conventional prison. After that, we're left with less than 1.5625% (one sixty-fourth) of current inmates.
  
  Out of that, I believe most of them can be convinced using other methods of treatment (e.g. education, psycho-therapy, etc.) to voluntarily take psychiatric medication rather than rot in a prison cell for life. After that, we're left with less than 0.390625% (one two-hundred-fifty-sixth) of current inmates.

So, using my very rough, unconfirmed estimations. We're talking less than half of a percent of current inmates who would need psychiatric medication to be treated but who are so crazy they would rather suffer for life in the horrible conventional prison than to be treated with medication and hopefully released eventually. Even if we would refuse to forcefully medicate any of that tiny fraction of inmates who are so crazy they choose a lifetime in a conventional prison over medication, then I would still recommend trying to treat that very tiny fraction of inmates in a compassionate, well-run medical facility using other methods besides forced medication. Nonetheless, I think most people would support medicating at least most of that tiny fraction of people who need chemical treatment but are so crazy that they would choose to suffer in prison for the rest of their life than to take the medication.

Whatever the case, I definitely oppose ever releasing them without treatment. If they do not need treatment to be safely released, then they are in that first group that can be safely released now, and they do not belong in prison at all.

I think we both agree that on average the people in society would be better off if our society used compassionate, well-run treatment facilities instead of the vengeful punishment facilities called prisons. The issue you seem to have raised is when, if ever, the well-run treatment facilities would use forced medication as a method of treatment. I am unsure about that latter issue, but I do think it only applies to a tiny fraction of inmates.

Thanks,
Scott

[Thoughtless]

Whatever the case, I definitely oppose ever releasing them without treatment.

That's where I have a problem. Right now, you can assault someone, serve 5-10 years, and be released. Are you saying that if an assailant is deemed to require treatment, but refuses treatment, he should be kept in prison for life?

Also, I think that you are underestimating the number of criminals who would be categorized by those in positions of authority as "requiring medication" but who would not wish to be medicated.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Whatever the case, I definitely oppose ever releasing them without treatment.

That's where I have a problem. Right now, you can assault someone, serve 5-10 years, and be released. Are you saying that if an assailant is deemed to require treatment, but refuses treatment, he should be kept in prison for life?

Yes, I want a dangerous person kept locked up for life if they cannot be treated (i.e. made non-dangerous enough to be safely released). If the person is non-dangerous enough to be released than I do not want them locked up at all.

I honestly do not see the point in locking someone up for 5-10 years and then releasing them while they are still as dangerous as they were, if not more dangerous they were, at the beginning. If they are so dangerous that we need to restrain them with incarceration, then wouldn't we need to keep them incarcerate until, if ever, they can be made sufficiently less dangerous?

Also, I think that you are underestimating the number of criminals who would be categorized by those in positions of authority as "requiring medication" but who would not wish to be medicated.

That would be the case if the authorities over-prescribed medication, which is perhaps a reason to do away with forced medication entirely or at least almost entirely. Again, I'm not sure when, if ever, I would support forced medication. But I do know I want it used a lot less than it is used now. I think you and I can agree that the more we leave the choice of taking medication up to the patients, the less likely forced over-prescription is.

If I had to roughly estimate the number of people who cannot be safely released and who cannot be treated without psychiatric medication but who would choose life in prison over taking medication, I would estimate it is less than half of a percent of the current inmates in prison. If we are not going to force any of them to take medication, then I would still recommend incarcerating them more compassionately and trying to treat them without medication. If an inmate is so dangerously crazy that the inmate cannot be safely released without medication and the inmate refuses medication, then can we agree that the inmate belongs in a compassionate, well-run insane asylum not a prison?

[Thoughtless]

Scott,

I think that what you propose would lead to a dystopia. You're saying that we should restrain people indefinitely for what they are, not what they do. The problem is that we can never be as certain about what someone is as we can be about what someone does (and we can never even be certain of that, unless we witness their action). Just as communism fails due to the calculation problem, your proposed system would fail due to what we can call the "determination problem": how do we determine if someone is fit to be released?

Like I said, I believe that this would be a dystopia.