![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Crime and Punishment
Sep. 30th, 2004 09:46 amLast night I was watching 60 Minutes. The first story was about a man who had been a college professor for the past fifteen years. He was, by accounts, a very good teacher and a nice guy. However, recently he was blocked from teaching.
Why?
Well, when he was young he committed a triple homicide in Texas. He had been given three consecutive life sentences.
While in prison he earned a Bachelor's degree. He changed a lot. After 12 1/2 years a written evaluation stated that there was nothing he more could do to improve rehabilitate himself further as he was fully rehabilitated; he was let out of prison on lifetime parole. He earned more degrees and started teaching at universities, and by accounts his students appreciate his work greatly.
As I've gotten older I've noticed a lot more punishment given for crimes of all sorts. In my opinion some of these crimes really need to be punished more severely, such as rape; others are far too severe and getting worse, such as illegal drug use. Point being, more and more the jail time and parole system are no longer serving as 'you did the crime, you spent the time.' There are sexual offenders lists and requirements for same to tell everybody in their neighborhood that they have been previously convicted for a sex crime. There's the loss of right to vote in most states without some sort of action by the governor, the loss of right to serve on a jury in many others. Many states have rules about former felons owning guns, regardless of the felony; some have more restrcitive rules that have to do with courtroom appearences, such as if you've ever had a restraining order put out on you.
I've also noticed a disturbing trend toward people, especially politicos, being tough on criminals and calling it being tough on crime. Being tough on crime means working to mitigate the root causes. Being tough on criminals means punishing them more than necessary.
Ayesha and I discussed this issue, and this man in particular. She had a couple of snarky comments, basically boiled down to the idea that if the guy hadn't been white he would probably still be in jail. I don't challenge this assertion; she's quite possibly right. Most of her comments were not snarky, and it was an interesting conversation. The topic went over to the purpose of our criminal legal system. Is the purpose supposed to be punishment, rehabilitation, or some combination? On this point she wavered. Yes, rehabilitation is a good idea, but isn't punishment needed? she asked.
My stated opinion: yes, punishment is necessary, but punishment should be a means to the end result of rehabilitation and not the end itself. Rehabilitation is showing someone the error of their ways and encouraging them to wholeheartedly embrace the idea of never committing that act, or related acts, ever again. I view it as a useful tack to take.
The man I saw during the interview was once a boy who committed a horrible crime. The man I saw would never do such a thing. I'll be the first to say that only 12 1/2 years for triple homicide is flatly astonishing; that said, he did it. On the interview he said he did everything he could to be rehabilitated, which was borne out by a jailer in Taxes saying he had done so. He posed the question: "What more can I do? If somebody tells me I'll do it."
So: barring supporting the families of the people he killed so long ago, what more can he do? And should he be barred from teaching?
Why?
Well, when he was young he committed a triple homicide in Texas. He had been given three consecutive life sentences.
While in prison he earned a Bachelor's degree. He changed a lot. After 12 1/2 years a written evaluation stated that there was nothing he more could do to improve rehabilitate himself further as he was fully rehabilitated; he was let out of prison on lifetime parole. He earned more degrees and started teaching at universities, and by accounts his students appreciate his work greatly.
As I've gotten older I've noticed a lot more punishment given for crimes of all sorts. In my opinion some of these crimes really need to be punished more severely, such as rape; others are far too severe and getting worse, such as illegal drug use. Point being, more and more the jail time and parole system are no longer serving as 'you did the crime, you spent the time.' There are sexual offenders lists and requirements for same to tell everybody in their neighborhood that they have been previously convicted for a sex crime. There's the loss of right to vote in most states without some sort of action by the governor, the loss of right to serve on a jury in many others. Many states have rules about former felons owning guns, regardless of the felony; some have more restrcitive rules that have to do with courtroom appearences, such as if you've ever had a restraining order put out on you.
I've also noticed a disturbing trend toward people, especially politicos, being tough on criminals and calling it being tough on crime. Being tough on crime means working to mitigate the root causes. Being tough on criminals means punishing them more than necessary.
Ayesha and I discussed this issue, and this man in particular. She had a couple of snarky comments, basically boiled down to the idea that if the guy hadn't been white he would probably still be in jail. I don't challenge this assertion; she's quite possibly right. Most of her comments were not snarky, and it was an interesting conversation. The topic went over to the purpose of our criminal legal system. Is the purpose supposed to be punishment, rehabilitation, or some combination? On this point she wavered. Yes, rehabilitation is a good idea, but isn't punishment needed? she asked.
My stated opinion: yes, punishment is necessary, but punishment should be a means to the end result of rehabilitation and not the end itself. Rehabilitation is showing someone the error of their ways and encouraging them to wholeheartedly embrace the idea of never committing that act, or related acts, ever again. I view it as a useful tack to take.
The man I saw during the interview was once a boy who committed a horrible crime. The man I saw would never do such a thing. I'll be the first to say that only 12 1/2 years for triple homicide is flatly astonishing; that said, he did it. On the interview he said he did everything he could to be rehabilitated, which was borne out by a jailer in Taxes saying he had done so. He posed the question: "What more can I do? If somebody tells me I'll do it."
So: barring supporting the families of the people he killed so long ago, what more can he do? And should he be barred from teaching?
