Friday, November 07, 2003
I mentioned the contents of my previous post to a friend of mine (The same guy who suggested that the US should threaten Middle Eastern countries with nuclear oblivion if home brewed Islamic terrorists do something really bad.) Anyway, he agreed with me and proposed this solution.
A justice system (one were there no notion of culpablity) could be structured around the notion that what sentence is given out is given out for more or less the sole purpose of curtailing future criminal acts. As such, two people who committed the same crime would not necessarily receive the same sentence. For example, if it is determined that car thieves under the age of 18 are less likely to re-offend than car thieves over the age of 18, then all things being equal, car thieves under 18 should be sentenced less harshly. When I told him that such ideas would have far ranging consequences, he looked at me and smiled. “I know. It might mean, for example, that a woman would be sentenced for less time than a man for exactly the same crime and that is just the tip of the iceberg”
He also noted that various crimes would also have to be taken off the books. For instance, there would be no room for first degree murder, second degree murder and manslaughter on the books. As it was prior to the 1950s, there would only be murder. The overt act would be sole basis on which crimes would be defined.
He managed to convince me that there were real advantages to this. This is one of the examples that he gave. Say a 23 year old alcoholic man, with numerous convictions for assault and propensity for violence when drunk, gets drunk, gets into a fight and kills a man. Under the current system, this man would be likely be treated less harshly than a 60 year old house wife, with absolutely no history of violence, but who carefully carried out the murder of her husband of 35 years for shacking up with a younger woman. He claims, and I agree, that there is every indication that the man poses a much greater threat to society than does the women. The only thing, he claims, that speaks in favor of sentencing the woman to a longer sentence is this: There was no premeditation in the former case and as result you are not going to deter anyone from doing a like act by taking on some extra years. There is, however, premeditation in the later and as a result tacking on some extra years may have some kind of deterrent affect.
Lastly, although he stressed that there was no reason for punishing all people in the same manner, he said that under such a system there would be no barriers to finding someone guilty. A person’s ability to form intent would be irrelevant in determining guilt. The ability to form intent would only ever be a factor in the sentencing portion and even then it would be no guarantee of leniency (as in fictious XYY cases the converse could be true). There would be no reason to treat teenagers, children, people with mental defects and the “criminally insane” any different in determining guilt.
A justice system (one were there no notion of culpablity) could be structured around the notion that what sentence is given out is given out for more or less the sole purpose of curtailing future criminal acts. As such, two people who committed the same crime would not necessarily receive the same sentence. For example, if it is determined that car thieves under the age of 18 are less likely to re-offend than car thieves over the age of 18, then all things being equal, car thieves under 18 should be sentenced less harshly. When I told him that such ideas would have far ranging consequences, he looked at me and smiled. “I know. It might mean, for example, that a woman would be sentenced for less time than a man for exactly the same crime and that is just the tip of the iceberg”
He also noted that various crimes would also have to be taken off the books. For instance, there would be no room for first degree murder, second degree murder and manslaughter on the books. As it was prior to the 1950s, there would only be murder. The overt act would be sole basis on which crimes would be defined.
He managed to convince me that there were real advantages to this. This is one of the examples that he gave. Say a 23 year old alcoholic man, with numerous convictions for assault and propensity for violence when drunk, gets drunk, gets into a fight and kills a man. Under the current system, this man would be likely be treated less harshly than a 60 year old house wife, with absolutely no history of violence, but who carefully carried out the murder of her husband of 35 years for shacking up with a younger woman. He claims, and I agree, that there is every indication that the man poses a much greater threat to society than does the women. The only thing, he claims, that speaks in favor of sentencing the woman to a longer sentence is this: There was no premeditation in the former case and as result you are not going to deter anyone from doing a like act by taking on some extra years. There is, however, premeditation in the later and as a result tacking on some extra years may have some kind of deterrent affect.
Lastly, although he stressed that there was no reason for punishing all people in the same manner, he said that under such a system there would be no barriers to finding someone guilty. A person’s ability to form intent would be irrelevant in determining guilt. The ability to form intent would only ever be a factor in the sentencing portion and even then it would be no guarantee of leniency (as in fictious XYY cases the converse could be true). There would be no reason to treat teenagers, children, people with mental defects and the “criminally insane” any different in determining guilt.
Comments:
Post a Comment
