The "Civilised" approach to crime, punishment and justice is all wrong.
In the first place it goes against the Darwinian principles of human psychology that will doom it to failuire in the same way Communism is doomed to fail. It doesnt recognize the true nature of man.
The primary goal of the justice system is to apprehend and prove the guilt of a wrongdoer.. So far, so good.. But then we concern ourselves with the rights of the criminal, his or her welfare and rehabilitation and probable re entry into society. (I know we dont do any of that well. But that is the stated aim) And I have come to the conclusion that this whole approach is wrong.
First. We set way too many arbitrary rules and limits on each other. Only the following principles should apply. Is there harm, damage or cost to another party? (How thats defined can be worked out later) If not, there is no offence.. If so, that harm can be quanified.. At this level , even littering or grafitti is damage and can be quantified.
At that time, a penalty can be imposed, financial, custodial or whatever. But the difference is that once convicted, the criminal has their right to return to society suspended. Society can choose to deprive them of a vote, employment, liberty or even life, if they deem this person will be a risk of more harm to the law abiding members of society. The law should not protect the criminal. The law should be firmly behind those who are not criminals, to protect them. This turns Blackstones ration on it head.
"it is better that 100 guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer". Attributed to Benjamin Franklin. A fine ideal. But it puts society at risk from the guilty. In nature, in particular with our nearest relatives, the primates, we see those who break the laws of the group shunned, banished or killed, for the good of the tribe. No appeal. No legal technicalities. No rehabilitation. And no repeat offenders.. And pretty much everyone follows the rules that promote harmony in the group..
The primary goal of the justice system is to apprehend and prove the guilt of a wrongdoer.. So far, so good.. But then we concern ourselves with the rights of the criminal, his or her welfare and rehabilitation and probable re entry into society. (I know we dont do any of that well. But that is the stated aim) And I have come to the conclusion that this whole approach is wrong.
First. We set way too many arbitrary rules and limits on each other. Only the following principles should apply. Is there harm, damage or cost to another party? (How thats defined can be worked out later) If not, there is no offence.. If so, that harm can be quanified.. At this level , even littering or grafitti is damage and can be quantified.
At that time, a penalty can be imposed, financial, custodial or whatever. But the difference is that once convicted, the criminal has their right to return to society suspended. Society can choose to deprive them of a vote, employment, liberty or even life, if they deem this person will be a risk of more harm to the law abiding members of society. The law should not protect the criminal. The law should be firmly behind those who are not criminals, to protect them. This turns Blackstones ration on it head.
"it is better that 100 guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer". Attributed to Benjamin Franklin. A fine ideal. But it puts society at risk from the guilty. In nature, in particular with our nearest relatives, the primates, we see those who break the laws of the group shunned, banished or killed, for the good of the tribe. No appeal. No legal technicalities. No rehabilitation. And no repeat offenders.. And pretty much everyone follows the rules that promote harmony in the group..
70-79, M
