Report comment

Fred Parkinson,
I agree that a legal system that treats every criminal case so individually that there is no perceived relationship betwixt crime and punishment is dangerous. So also is one, like ours, that allows judges - with no relevant qualification (if such were possible), no philosophical argument and certainly no reference to public consensus on what the concept of 'justice' is in general, (which is the only definition that should count in a (supposed) 'democracy' - to determine what it is in an individual case (criminal or civil).
We have a completely illogical (and ineffective) approach to dealing with criminals. Although a member of Justice, Liberty and Amnesty, the, sometimes flagrant, miscarriages during my lifetime are my only reason for currently being opposed to the death penalty. 'Deterrence' is apparently, an acceptable aim for sentencing, so why isn't it obvious that the prime consideration for WHETHER offenders should be locked up & for HOW LONG (the only guaranteed, though time-limited, form of deterrent - except that our incompetent system allows prisoners to continue to direct their affairs from 'inside') is how high the chances are that they will re-offend?
"What about punishment"? - Well, yes, if it serves a purpose worth society's paying for (inc. as a demonstration of our sympathy with the victims). However, if a victim wants to inflict punishment, then it is deemed 'vengeance'; but it's OK if 'society' does it, via a learned judge, who would be completely unable to explain HOW his quantum of punishment matches society's quantum of suffering.
We lock up, and for very long periods, inc. whole life, those who are professionally judged to be incapable of controlling their offending & are, therefore, not in judicial terms "guilty", and we have no qualms about it, but they are a tiny number & are only those who have committed what would normally be judged the most frightful crimes. Yet the far larger number of incorrigible (or only with difficulty corrigible or improvable) persistent offenders (violent/white-collar, small-time or willing to 'do their time' because the State is too incompetent or complacent to recover the wealth they have accumulated - by LEGAL as well as by illegal means) are increasingly felt as a largely uncontrolled plague by the society they batten upon. Why is this measure (the relative importance of deterrence in each case) not an essential calculation in their sentencing?
And why IS sentencing a wholly judicial power, when the more important decision, that of guilt is left, in the worst cases, to a jury? The jury gets a say in the USA - though, unlike the more important decision on guilt, the judicial system can second-guess them. We should have panels of experts and laypeople who would assess the probability of re-offending and the degree of societal offence it would cause, in order to determine the type and length of sentence.
It should also be for society, which will pay through taxation for the detention, to determine how much they are willing to spend. I would imagine we would get a consensus that, in general, we do not wish to inflict pain on prisoners but see no reason why we should make them more comfortable than the poorest, innocent members of society. Therefore, a just sufficiently warm environment and meals calculated to meet their bodily needs but not to undertake body-building, let alone to supply gyms and other facilities that a large proportion of society does not have access to. Greater hardship does not necessarily drive people to suicide, so, if a prisoner feels he'd be better out of it, I cannot see why it should be incumbent on me and my fellow-citizens and, only hence, the penal system we fund, to frustrate his will. By extension, if we can be sure of guilt, I see no reason why we should have to pay for a lifetime or even an extended period of deterrence by confinement if we judge the person to be less worthy of our funds than any of the many for whom our tax contributions are and will likely always be insufficient.