It lies in this assertion: that, there is absolutely no reason, whatsoever, why convicted criminals should be "worse off," than citizens.
Perhaps the only lacking quality of life necessary would be a diminished autonomy. If we take seriously the true goal of the prison system as corrective justice, than a diminished quality of life cannot and should not be justified. A corrective system is not retributive or deterrent, but strives to restore the individual to full societal participation. This cannot be done unless a relatively comfortable standard of living, inclusive of mental and physical health, is established.
So, what if we combined this corrective mentality (for real, this time) and kept mens rea? Is there anything wrong with taking responsibility for an action, and then allowing oneself to participate in a lifestyle in which helps the individual cope with and later correct the problems that caused the criminal action in the first place?
The retributive notion of punishment can easily be mixed with the (mens rea) notion of accepting responsibility of an action, but I would argue that these are linked via thousands of years of proportional punishment in judicial systems, and with an intense psychological attraction to see wrongdoers "pay" for their wrongdoing. Beyond tradition and a psychological, socio-cultural propensity for vengeance, in no way is punishing criminals via inadequate living conditions acceptable, holding of course, that the primary goal of the system of justice is indeed, corrective.
They way that punishment is distributed in America does not seem to incline towards being corrective, although it may suggest that it is. A person seems less likely to succeed if they have been convicted of a felony or other criminal act. This is because people take into account a criminal history such as when one is filling out an job application. This way the criminal system is set up seems hypocritical then. If they have served their punishment by going to jail or paying a fine, why should the "corrected" criminal be hindered in terms of a job or being a proper citizen. By establishing that they have been a criminal in the past makes an individual more prone to resorting to crime because they have unfair opportunities.
ReplyDeleteIntriguing post; and I wonder in our current society if what you suggest as corrective justice might in fact represent a higher or better standard of living than currently available to a considerate membership of our current populace. I think a “diminished autonomy” might in fact make someone worse off, depending on our current acceptable standards of living. And, I wonder if our duty, to insure no one suffers a diminished quality of life, extend first to our poorest law abiding citizens. I like the idea of a “relatively comfortable standard of living, inclusive of mental and physical health..” and think it may help to prevent criminal behavior if we provide these means to everyone. I think we may run the risk of encouraging, or at least neutralizing, criminal behavior if the benefits of corrective justice outweigh the opportunities available to our poorest citizens. Perhaps a genuine system of corrective justice needs, as a necessary and preexisting condition, an equal opportunity society -- a genuine one.
ReplyDelete