Crime and Punishment

I have something I would love to ask to those among you who have had infinitely more experience in the area of government and law than I. Because I did not come across a thread where I thought this could be appropriately asked, I thought I'd start my own.

I have a a single topic I'm questioning, but I would not mind hearing more about Objectivist takes on crime and the judicial process in general terms. I am sure I will come up with more later.

This case has many levels... I will try to present them clearly.

For those of you not from the U.S. or maybe even the South, I will give a general overview of the story that my question stems from. In Florida, a young girl (9 or 10, I'm not sure) was taken from the home of her father and grandmother-- from her own bed, late at night, while her family was asleep-- by a man who was staying with his sister across the street. The man, named Couey, held her for 2 days, molested her and then killed her. He was eventually caught and charged with her kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder.

In the states, in case this is not true elsewhere, many places have laws that provide internet listings of sexual offenders that you can check for your neighborhood. It is also possible, if your crime is bad enough, to have all the neighbors notified of your crimes. The issue her family has brought up now that he has been caught and charged was this: he was a registered offender, but he was not registered as a sexual predator, even though he was charged previously with numerous incidents of sexual crimes, even against other children. Because of this distinction, he was searchable on the internet, but neighbors were never explicitly notified. Also, he was staying at his sister's house in this town, which was a parole violation. He never told his parole officer that he moved, and the officer never checked... this young girl's family never even knew he was there. He had asked for rehabilitation in prison and admitted that he would probably commit again, but he was not given any special treatment from what I have heard.

The young girl (named Jessica) met a terrible fate at the hands of this man. That is obvious. However, her father has now gone on record demanding stricter laws on sexual predators (especially those who have committed crimes against children). As a person is is always concerned about government's ability to jail its citizens, I have been wrestling with the idea of some of their plans in this realm. I have heard certain lawmakers and commentators coming out with ideas saying because recidivism in the realm of sexual crime is so prevalent, that these people should be locked up for life in some cases. And in cases where they are let out, that they should be exposed in some very public ways. Some have suggested signs in front yards, mailings, TV exposure, and other oustings. This is after they have served the recommended sentence in prison or otherwise has been carried out.

I am wondering what the very knowledgeable among you would say about these practices. I am wary of courts handing out sentences that affect people so greatly that are not imprisoned, especially after they have served their time. Am I wrong? I do not have a problem with the act of ousting the worst among the offenders, but for some reason the thought of having the court be able to affect people's lives outside of prison so profoundly rubs me the wrong way.

My questions, after all of this, are:
Are these public oustings preventing the offenders from setting up new, productive lives that might help to alleviate their compulsions? What are the rights of the neighborhood dwellers that want these people out of their area? Is this a mental health issue? Should the state pay for some sort of rehab for these offenders while incarcerated? Would it be worth the money? What is the right amount of time for a sexual offender to be imprisoned? Does Jessica's case (and the many others similar to it) just inflame passions that could lead to laws that go too far? Should notification policies be in place for other criminals too... thieves, murders, prostitutes, drug dealers... should all of them be ousted? What are the rights of released criminals anyways? Is it morally right to let a crime "follow" a person for so long after they have served their time? Should the rules as they are be modified in some way... and if so, should they be weakened or strengthened?

I think that the SOLO forum is an appropriate place to address these questions because after just exploring the thread dealing with the Schiavo case, I have been amazed at the insights offered by so many of you. I cannot ask these questions at school, because the answers would be so ridiculously liberal, so I have come to you for help! When I cannot make up my mind on something using my own knowledge, it is very frustrating, you know? (Luckily, I have come to a conclusion on the Schiavo case... after a lot of personal hemming and hawing.) You all have such a talent for combining the legal issues with the moral... all parts of my intellect are satisfied with the reasoning that is done here.

I humbly submit my (rather lengthy!) inquiry. If I am unclear on any subject presented here, let me know. Thank you in advance! I really am on the fence in this case, and I cannot stand not knowing which way to jump. Any insight you can offer would be greatly appreciated. (Thank you for even reading the whole way through this novel that I feel like I have just written!)

(Edited by Nicole Theberge on 3/26, 11:47pm)

(Edited by Nicole Theberge on 3/26, 11:48pm)

(Edited by Nicole Theberge on 3/26, 11:51pm)

Post 1

Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 12:51am

Nicole, there are a thousand possible tangents here...the concept "justice" is notoriously difficult to get a handle on. Like trying to grasp "love" or "happiness." Be sure to not demand more precision than the subject allows. Anyhow, can't answer all those questions but I'll say something.

Two things come quickly to my mind. One is that we are too soft on crime in America. Secondly, you will never be able to eliminate these kinds of horrible crimes entirely. But you can stop them from happening a second time.

Most Americans of the non-criminal variety try to get away with as much as they can in life. They push the limits of the law to see what they can and cannot get away with. We are a Pragmatic People. We are not practicing Virtue Ethicists as Aristotle would have liked. As a result the public is wishy-washy about crime. If something truly and obviously terrible like this happens everyone wants the guy hung. But then they'll think about it for a couple days or watch the pederast's family members crying on Oprah and they'll soften their stance to life in prison.

Throw in a bit of national unearned guilt over slavery and racial discrimination....a few conflicting religious sects....and a general lack of education and well...it's a problem in America.

Aristotle said, I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.

Too many miscreants are running around who are not intelligent enough to be afraid of the law. And the masses turning to philosophy doesn't appear to be in the cards.

That was a tangent...

My best attempt at justice in this case is to say make sure you have the right guy and then kill him immediately. Each case will have its own context so there is no way to take on more than one case at a time.

A sexual predator is an imminent danger to society. He causes irrevocable damage to American citizens. Life in jail seems to me a worse punishment than death. Call me harsh but my vote is to put his lights out permanently.

All that about putting up signs and TV commercials is the wishy-washy self-denial of lawmakers. You put up signs for flash floods and falling rocks because you have no better choice. To not remove an obvious societal threat when you can is to default on the choices we do have.

(Edited by Lance Moore on 3/27, 12:53am)

Post 2

Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 1:23am

Nicole,

You asked a good question. Full disclosure:

While serving as an elected member of a school board in New Jersey, I discovered that the local Sopranos were placing released felons into jobs in the public schools. Chief Rumola, of the local police, squelched the school board's investigation by claiming that it would interfere with police business. Not long after, someone placed and "discovered" child pornography in the garbage outside my apartment.

I was lucky: I had money to hire a first-rate lawyer, and I was smart enough to figure out how it was done and prove my innocence. But before I was able to do that, I was imprisoned for 11 days - my bank accounts had been frozen and my friends had to raise 100,000 dollars for my bail without me. I was kept in a sleeveless uniform in a cell frozen to about 30 degrees below zero by intense air-conditioning, in severe pain because I was deprived of my prostate medication, at constant risk of stroke or heart attack because I was also deprived of my blood pressure drugs. My cellmates included an aggressive-impulsive violent criminal who was a member of a notoriously anti-Semitic "religious" sect. A poor and less knowledgeable person would have yielded to the torture and fear, and gone for a plea bargain just to survive.

What I learned from my experience - and from my lawyer - is that our police and prosecutors and jail guards tend to be recruited mostly from among sociopaths and power freaks and sadists; that judges are usually "former" prosecutors who still see themselves as members of the prosecution team; and that law enforcement is at least as attractive as any other government function to the dishonest and the corrupt. I see no strong relation between felony convictions and actual guilt - and the hundreds of previously "convicted" people who have been proven to have been innocent all along, on the strength of DNA and other hard evidence "overlooked" in official investigations, are cases in point.

I was a parent of a child before notification laws were in place, and I did the work: being informed about one's neighbors; having a strong perimeter alarm, with motion detectors; having a handgun and knowing how to use it; and always knowing where one's child is, and being or having a trusted friend within shouting distance of your child at all times. Keep in mind that for every falsely convicted innocent man, now tracked and ostracized for the rest of his life, there is a criminal still out there. But parents believe that the government will keep them safe, and thanks to the notification system let their guard down. The parents of that murdered girl might have been more watchful if they only realized that criminals, including predators, do not obey the laws, including the sexual predator registration laws.

Post 3

Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 5:29am

Nicole, that was a thoughtful post with many challenging questions. Lance is correct, this could go off in a thousand directions.

By way of providing a framework in which to resolve such questions, I just posted my own effort to explain the meaning of "justice," and the appropriate response of the criminal justice system to cases such as that of little Jessica Lunsford. You can find it online under the title "Crime and Moral Retribution." It's adapted from my book, Criminal Justice? The Legal System vs. Individual Responsibility -- the first book-length treatment of the topic of criminal justice from an Objectivist point of view.

Hope you find this helpful.

Post 4

Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 9:35am

Lance,

     You're absolutely right about the fact that this could go in many directions. I should have written that I was just looking for a direction to be pointed in... not for an exact answer. The questions were just meant to show you which direction I was prepared to head. Wishy-washy is absolutely correct. If they're not afraid of the law, I'll make them afraid of me. ;o)

"All that about putting up signs and TV commercials is the wishy-washy self-denial of lawmakers. You put up signs for flash floods and falling rocks because you have no better choice. To not remove an obvious societal threat when you can is to default on the choices we do have. "

This was a very powerful statement from you. It's interesting to think about what would happen if people had more control over their own safety. Which leads to...

Adam,

     What an incredibly scary story. A lesser person would have given in. I certainly see that you are one of the strongest, as well as most intelligent. It's certainly a very relevant topic to what I've been thinking about here. I can somewhat relate: my senior year of high school I was charged with assaulting a teacher by throwing a desk at her. This was ridiculous... if you saw me, you'd know why: the desks were made of granite and metal... I was not about to lift (let alone hurl) these desks. (Although I may have wanted to... ;o) Long story short, I was exonerated, but the incident still appears on my record. (That was great while applying for colleges.) It also prevented my from getting a scholarship. Perhaps this is one of the reasons I am so concerned about this ability of a criminal record to "follow". You're absolutely right when you say that people should be in charge of their own kids and their own safety. Having all of the safeguards you mention are necessary in today's world, unfortunately. These laws probably do give parents a false sense of security... it would be very interesting to find out the answer to that question. Thank you for sharing your story, and giving your insights to my long-winded post.

Robert,

     It will be extremely helpful! Thank you for taking the time to write it. I am glad to know that there are other people out there who are thinking about these issues. I'm about to get started on it right now.

~Nicki T.

Post 5

Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 6:07pm

Nicole,

After reading your post, I was reminded of (among all things!) an Oprah rerun that I happened upon while flipping through the channels late at night a while back. The guest on her show was a convicted pedofile who had served his sentence, and was now a leading proponent of sex offender registration laws.

He explicitly stated that pedofiles cannot change their orientation, he knew first hand. However, he believed pedofiles are capable of controlling their actions if they seek ongoing therapy and make sure their inclings are known to all around them. He talked about how whenever he moves into a new neighborhood, he will proactively approach any nearby parents with small children to tell them that he is a registered sex offender, and that their children should not be allowed to ever associate with him. Being out in the open like that apparently makes it less likely for him to be in a frame of mind where he would consider engaging in predatory activities.

I was struck by this individual's attempt to live a moral and ethical life given his orientation. He put a human face on the type of person I would otherwise label as a sub-human monster. I actually felt some pity for the man. However, it reinforced that sex offender lists are very important and that each parent should be aware of any living nearby. My only concern is that certain types of activities don't put someone on this list who doesn't need to be there (for example, a 19 year old who has consensual sex with a 16 year should not be morally equated with someone who molests young children).

(Edited by Pete on 3/27, 9:21pm)

Post 6

Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 8:03pm

Nicole, Robert mentioned his book, "Criminal Justice? The Legal System vs. Individual Responsibility." I have read it, and it is by far the best work on the subject that I've ever found. It -- particularly the articles by Robert -- will answer many of your questions.

Barbara

Post 7

Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 9:01pm

Adam,

What a story! You sound like one of those combative types that are a real pain in the ass to law enforcement people when they are caught with their pants down. I kinda like that spirit. Reminds me of me...

Thank your lucky stars that you were not in Brazil.

You are right about a certain type of psychological profile migrating to enforcement jobs (not all, but many I know really get off on the power they wield).

Even a very dear friend of mine who is a retired prison officer (Carandiru in S�o Paulo where that famous massacre occurred) and an otherwise sweetheart of a guy once told me, "When I see something I think is wrong, I don't talk about it. I handcuff the guy and lock him up right away. To hell with talk."

Cops... This guy is one of the select few I put up with (we started to produce some music together a while back). We may need 'em, but I sure don't like 'em.

Michael

Post 8

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 12:07am

Good post Nicole, I've followed that case a bit. Knowing Florida and the South in general, they're going to string him up and the only people who'll protest are those who think he died too easily.

So for me at least, the real question is what to do with people like that beforehand. They're called sexual predators for a reason, a good number of them won't stop even after they've served their sentence. On the other hand though, I'm also of the persuasion that once you've served your time in prison you should be able to go back to society with no more ill affects then other ex-cons.

So here's my solution, lop it off! Or some equivilent, I've heard some of the effects castration can sometimes be countacted but I'm sure a more permenent solution can be satisfactorly devised. I'd make it a part of the sentence but if that seems unfair to some, make it a condition to getting out of prison.

When I was little one of those people came to live with his mom down the street where I live. This was the country and all the kids around including myself would sometimes play in the woods for hours and frequently camped out by ourselves. My mother got everyone around to sign a petition to give to the police to get this guy out, he left soon after and got an apartment somewhere. Now I of course agree with her, it wasn't that he was an ex-con, we all got one in our families, but what he might do in the future.

Post 9

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 7:50am

My best attempt at justice in this case is to say make sure you have the right guy and then kill him immediately... A sexual predator is an imminent danger to society. He causes irrevocable damage

Sometimes southern justice is justified. There is a point where a human loses their humanity and in my eyes it is when they molest children. They should not be allowed to live long enough to make it to trial.

I lived for 10 years on the same block as a family where one of the sons almost ended up in the crawl space of John Wayne Gacy. Although this happened long before I met the family, the thought of such things so close still gives me chills....

Post 10

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 8:09am

Barbara, dear -- where were you when I was looking for endorsements for my book??? (Just kidding!)

Thank you so much for the plug.

Post 11

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 4:54pm

What an amazing amount of information! Thank you all for contributing. This will certainly be a subject that I continue to inform myself on... I think I will make Mr. Bidinotto's book a part of my summer reading list. Right now, I am preoccupied with Marxist literature for school. Ick.

Thank you also for sharing your stories. It is amazing that in this relatively small group of people, there are so many that have been affected by these issues. Kat, I feel most for you and your family. What a horror to experience. My thanks for sharing. I was particularly interested in Clarence's mention of castration. As much as it sounds perfectly violent for sexual predators, I am not much in favor of a government that has the power to kill it citizens... I also don't know how I feel about one that also has the power to mutilate them. But we'll see ;o)

And lastly, thank you Ms. Branden for validating Mr. Bidinotto's book recommendation. It's always nice to have a second. Thank you for taking the time to come over to this little thread!

~Nicki T.

Post 12

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 5:55pm

To help with studying that Marxist lit, try Sowell's MARXISM book - will give you a good clear handle on things......

Post 13

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 6:37pm

Nicole,

I have an argument that I have used effectively that puts the relationship of human predators and the civilized people in the proper context [to me]. I have argued that many activities that people engage in are inherently dangerous. The more dangerous the activity, the fewer people engage in them. For instance, there are very few rock climbers that try certain climbs without ropes. The interesting thing is, when they are killed, as they occasionally are, no one feels particularly sorry for them. Sad maybe, but it is understood that the activity they chose was inherently dangerous. The same should be true of people who choose to be predators amongst other people. We should not feel sorry for them when they are killed. Preying on humans should be the most dangerous activity of all. Up there with souvenir hunting the day after Chernobyl. We should arrange our attitudes towards these activities to increase the level of danger to the appropriate level. For people who prey on children, if they are not killed immediately, their status as humans should be removed. If they are ever released and the parents or relatives find them and kill them, the parents should not be prosecuted. We should have no more pity on these people than the rock climber who fell to his death. They chose their actions.

Post 14

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 6:59pm

Mike Erickson, I believe that the original (or at least one) meaning of outlaw is "outside the protection of the law". In other words, the purpose of the law is not to punish wrong-doers, but rather to protect the innocent accused (make sure they get a fair trial). Someone who has been declared an outlaw is fair game and no court will come to his aid.

Post 15

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 7:47pm

Kat:

You write: "They should not be allowed to live long enough to make it to trial."

Without a trial, how will you ever know that the suspect was guilty? Child abuse accusations have been made to serve many and diverse reasons, from blackmail and grudges to getting rid of an inconvenient spouse. I once lived two houses from a case that was the subject of the book and film "In a Child's Name." A man killed his wife and claimed that she was sexually abusing their son - and very nearly got away with murder. There is a good reason why civilized societies put sanctioned force under objective control.

Post 16

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 4:09am

Well, Adam, I don't have a whole lot of faith in our American justice system. I don't like those evil sub-human creatures polluting the air that I breathe with every breath that they take. I realize that people do make false accusations and everyone has a right to a fair trial, but dammit make it a speedy trial and consider it a capital offense. I believe that the punishment should fit the crime. And this is one of the most heinous crimes there is. IMO serial child molesters should never ever have contact with children in any way shape or form. Pedophiles are seldom rehabilitated and usually there is more than one victim. If they are allowed to roam free in our society and someone decides to snuff the rabid animal, it is a justified action. Call me quirky.

Thanks Mike E. you put it very well.

For people who prey on children, if they are not killed immediately, their status as humans should be removed. If they are ever released and the parents or relatives find them and kill them, the parents should not be prosecuted. We should have no more pity on these people than the rock climber who fell to his death. They chose their actions.

Post 17

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 4:23am

Adam, what a horrendous chain of events! Was anyone prosecuted over the attempted child porn frame up?

Robert, that looks like an amazing piece of work, which I will certainly get hold of. Perhaps we could discuss your ideas in more detail at a future date?

By the way, you are all welcome to join the SOLO Law forum if you haven't already. (It's open to all, not just lawyers or those with law degrees.)

Nicole this is obviously a very difficult issue, as I'm sure you and many of the other posters realise. While pedophiles do indeed seem to reoffend, I'm sceptical of the value and indeed the justice of an entirely open public register. Imagine for instance a scenario of two teenage lovers where one was marginally above the age of consent and the other marginally below it. That type of situation is obviously of an entirely different order to one a where a middle-ages pedophile prays upon young children, yet both "offenders" would be classed as sex offenders, and logically both would appear on a register.

Even assuming that a public register was set up listing only the genuine pedophiles, the public would have to be trusted to use that information responsibly (i.e. to refrain from any notions of "mob justice") and I'm not sure that would happen - some years ago one of the popular newspapers here in the UK, with the best of intentions, published the names and addresses of a number of convicted pedophiles. The result was precisely the irresponsible type of mob mentality that has no place in a civilised society. Many were driven from their homes, as were a number of innocents due to some mistake over a similar name or address (the most tragic example being that of a doctor who was listed in the phone book as being a pediatrician!).

I have to say also that I'm rather shocked to see certain posters here advocating a form of mob justice. Obviously where any criminal poses an immediate threat, there ought to be a right of self defence extending to the defence of other innocent persons, but where the criminal is not posing an immediate threat and can be peaceably apprehended, a full and fair trial including if necessary an appeals process, is a prerequisite to genuine justice.

Generally then I am sympathetic to Adam's contention that increased parental responsibility holds a far better solution than government action.

MH

Post 18

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 6:37am

Matthew,

Adam, what a horrendous chain of events! Was anyone prosecuted over the attempted child porn frame up?

Are you kidding? The people who perpetrated the frame-up, including the township's chief of police, were the same people who infiltrated criminals - including a drug dealer who had served ten years in prison for selling hard drugs to children - into jobs in the schools. This mob owns the political machine, and the political machine owns the township and county governments - including the county prosecutor's office. Do you seriously think that they will go and investigate and prosecute themselves?

I do belong to Solo Law, and I've posted there on numerous occasions. But if I ever write at greater length about what passes for law in New Jersey, I'll probably submit my article for the masthead. That situation comes closer, than anything today, to a real-life illustration of how the anarchists' "competing defense agencies" would function in real life.

Post 19

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 6:54am