08 February 2005 Blog Home : February 2005 : Permalink
This is the sort of thing that seems more worrying the more I think about it. The Torygraph has an approving editorial on Michael Howard's ideas on criminals. The Vodkapundit in a case of synchronicity links to a US article about "The Excuse-Making Industry" about the excesses of the US bleeding heart criminal apologists.
What is worrying me is not the "more prison" vs "more community service" arguments, it is something that the Torygraph touches on:
Does prison work? The evidence suggests so. Reoffence rates are no higher than those associated with community punishment - and the practical advantage of prison is that, at least, your average burglar is not burgling your house while he's inside.
The justice system around the world has generally speaking got itself into a state where it worries about punishment vs rehabilitation. This is wrong. The whole point of the system is to permit the average man or woman in the street to go about his lawful affairs without being mugged, raped or having his house burgled. This of course explains why the "gun control" lobby have it wrong. As the Telegraph says:
We can agree that all sorts of factors contribute to the sort of persistent criminal career ... [b]ut high up in the list is the blatantly obvious: you are much more likely to pursue a long-term career as a burglar if you know from experience that you are unlikely to be caught; and that, if caught, you are unlikely to spend more than a short time in jail. The burglar plays a careful game, balancing risk against rewards. The principal goal of any sensible crime policy is to make that gamble look as unattractive as possible.
Of course rehabilitation is probably a good idea, but a better idea is to tweak the incentives so that the risk/reward ratio is swung more firmly against a life of crime. One way to do this is to make long term unemployment less of a life of ease - another unintended consequence of the Nanny state (An Englishman's Castle has a good book recommendation in this area) where the provision of basic food and shelter for free means that the non-working have time to devote to crime.
Another way, at least for those embarking on a life of crime, would probably be public punishment. I'm sure that there are lots of reasons why putting people in the stocks was halted as a punishment but I have to say I can think of plenty of reasons why it would deter. Firstly it would publically humiliate and for a teenager the loss of status would probably hurt. Of course I could see it being counted as a public honour or rite of passage by some gangs but I suspect that the majority of borderline criminals would think twice before spending a while in the stocks. Even more so if the length of time involved a certain risk of death or severe physical pain. I think being sentenced to many hours in the stocks with no food (except for that thrown at you), no toilet, no water and no way to sit down or change position would be excruciatingly painful. And of course if caught a second time or third time the length of the sentence could be increased. 6 hours would be tough. 12 would be very tough and 24 or 48 hours would probably be nearly fatal, especially if the sentence took place in winter.
The problem of course is that human rights people think that criminals shouldn't suffer unduely from their punishment. This goes right back to the risk/reward calculation. Seeing criminals nearly dying when caught is rather different from seeing them given 200 hours community service. If the point of the Criminal Justice System is to stop crime, which would seem to me to be correct, then all ways to shift that risk/reward ratio need to be considered.
In addition to visibly making it clear that being caught is a bad thing there are two ways to shift the odds. The first is to make it likely that the crime victim can fight back. At present in Europe a vigourous defence is likely to land the victim in more trouble than the criminal. This is wrong. If the idea of people carrying guns is too scary then a simple rule would be that while engaged in crime a person forfeits his human rights would suffice. In otherwords if you try to mug someone or burgle their house and they resist they can legally do ANYTHING to you. The second is of course to do the Rudy Guiliani New York trick and get lots of policeman patrolling so that the chances of you being caught are higher.