Kevin Vranes has a phud in Physical Ocean- ography and Cli- matology. He now studies sci- ence policy and politics at the The other day, while writing about the probability that the state of Texas executed an innocent man in a tragic misapplication of scientific evidence, I also wrote that one of the reasons I am opposed to capital punishment on practical grounds is that there is simply no way our current system acts as a deterrent to murder. (That alone isn't enough -- the complementary components are that the appeals process is far more expensive than just locking them up and there is a solid possibility of executing the innocent which must be avoided at all costs.)
You don't need Freakanomics-style stat-bending to see this, you can just look at the picture as a whole. It takes well over ten years from crime to ultimate punishment, a vast majority of murders don't get the ultimate penalty leading to almost arbitrary application of the fate, and the alternative (life in prison without parole) might be a fate worse than death. Further, a sociopath is a sociopath and I doubt seriously is meditating on possible punishments before killing.
But it's the "life in prison" point I am struck by now, as Zack Moussaoui moves into the arms of my home state's welcome wagon. There's a good array of stories here and here.
I'm not sure about Zack, but if you gave me the following choice:
a) death by your choice of lethal injection, firing squad, e-chair or the noose
or
b) spending 23 hours of every day of the next 40 to 60 years or how ever long you last in a 7' x 12' unadorned concrete block (complete with concrete bed), with one hour a day of time outside your block and no interaction with any other human being except the guards who surround you for your one hour outside and the guards you see for seconds while they bring you your three meals a day in your cell,
I would absolutely, without hesitation or question, choose (a). [The humanists like Dr. Frist who all wanted Terri Schiavo to live would have chosen (b) for me, obviously, but that's another post.]
Maybe it's just me. Remember in Orwell's 1984 when the authorities find the one thing that so tortures the nonconformist that said nonconformist is helpless to resist it? For Winston Smith it is a cage attached to his face and filled with rats. For me, it is what Moussaoui is about to go through.
Hell, I get angry whenever I visit somebody who has a caged bird in their house. I think "what ungodly torture! And for what? Your pleasure?" A bird was made to fly free, from tree to tree, bug to bug. Locking it in a cage is so antithetical to its nature than doing so seems a perverse action that brings pleasure by torture.
And that's what I'm wondering now. Whose purposes, or to what purpose, does the solitary confinement of ADX Florence serve? The inmates (a roster which also includes such beauties as Terry Nichols, Richard Reid, Ted the Unabomber and Robert Hanssen) will spend their long, long days staring at a blank wall. For 23 hours. For decades. This can only have one conclusion and it's the same as the rat cage for Winston Smith: absolute and total insanity.
What I want to know is this: Are we as a society specifically setting out to extract revenge on supermax-level prisoners by torturing them thus? Or do we really buy the argument that these prisoners are so special that they must be put through this treatment for their own good, society's good, or both? I refuse to believe that 23-hour solitary for these fellas is necessary to keep America safe. I also refuse to believe that we are serving humanity by forcing psychological torture into insanity. So what's left? Revenge? Punishment? Deterrent?
Comments
# 1 | Roman Werpachowski | May 13, 2006 3:51 PM
So what's left? Revenge? Punishment? Deterrent?
Yes. Punishment. Crime should be followed by one. These are not ordinary killers who happened to be at the wrong time in the wrong place, hit the guy one time too much or murdered their spouse in a fit of passion.
If you think spending the rest of your life in prison is horrible, think about being married to a woman. Having her killed. And spending the rest of your life without her.
I think Mussaoui's punishment is fitting. He conspired to kill thousands of people. He must be punished in the way which preserves his dignity (no torture, no prison rape, no humiliation), but severely. I believe his fate WILL make some terrorists think "is it worth it?". It's very good he didn't get the death penalty, which would:
1. be the unnecessary killing of a human being (he's not harmful now)
2. make him a martyr.
But it's also very good that he will rot in prison. If you do, willingly, bad things and hurt people, you must pay. And the price sometimes is great.
# 2 | Corkscrew | May 13, 2006 3:55 PM
So what's left? Revenge? Punishment? Deterrent?
I'd go for "fear that these people will escape and continue where they left off, coupled with an unwillingness to top them". In that context, it kinda makes sense - the more resources of any sort you give them, the more chance that they'll find some bizarre way of using them to bail.
# 3 | Kristjan Wager | May 13, 2006 4:07 PM
I think it's a clear case of revenge, which is pretty much what this kind of stuff shouldn't be about.
Punishment and deterrentcy is locking them away, as is protection of the public, however isolating them in this way is just plain revenge on top of the punishment.
BTW, my argument against the death penalty is much more simple than yours - I don't believe it's society's role to kill except in self-defense. It cannot in any way be claimed to be self-defense, to kill someone who is locked away.
# 4 | Flaky | May 13, 2006 7:00 PM
Consider this as a question of who we are. If we treat criminals as badly or worse than how they treated their victims, are we any better than them?
Response to crime should be based solely on the goal to reduce crime. Criminals too dangerous to be released should simply be locked up and treated as humanely as possible. Imprisoned sociopaths may also be opportunities to learn: What makes them tick? How to detect them or prevent children from growing up to be that way?
# 5 | Bulman | May 13, 2006 8:28 PM
The goal of incarceration should be to remove those who pose a danger to society from society. There is no need to punish or exact revenge. There is a need to prevent whatever horrible thing from happening again, and an obligation to not punish tose who are innocent. So, I agree with Flaky, I just happen to see "locked up and treated as humanely as possible" as a retirement/gated type community with no exit.
I know people react poorly to suggestions of "criminal country clubs", but we really have to let go of desires for punishment, and focus on rehabilitation where possible and safety of the public always. We should do this for the innocent as well as for those that may someday re-enter society.
Oh, and no locking people up for dopey crap (pun intended). Not only does it make more sense, we can't afford to if we actually make our prisons something more than concrete blocks and a basketball court. I would love to see our prison system taken away from for profit corporations and given over to accountants, psychologists, sociologists, and scary looking guards.
# 6 | Kevin Vranes | May 14, 2006 12:10 AM
Roman - I hear you, but I still trend toward Kristjan and Flaky. Like I said in the original death penalty post (linked in the first sentence), I do believe that aggravated murder (in theory) deserves the same. But once we've decided to not go that route by giving life/no parole, I don't see psychological torture for decades as fitting punishment. Permanent lockup is punishment enough (especially for what ZM did and did not do, but that's really beside the point). Staring at a wall for 23-hours a day with no human interaction, ever, is beyond cruel and unusual, and we have the 8th Amendment for a reason.
# 7 | Roman Werpachowski | May 14, 2006 8:50 AM
Staring at a wall for 23-hours a day with no human interaction, ever, is beyond cruel and unusual
Isn't he going to have some books available?
Isn't he going to have an opportunity to see his lawyer?
Isn't he going to have an opportunity to exchange mail with his family?
Isn't he going to have medical checkups? dentistry?
I don't think it's going to be as bad as you suggest.
# 8 | Mike the Mad Biologist | May 14, 2006 4:38 PM
I refuse to believe that 23-hour solitary for these fellas is necessary to keep America safe.
But it might be necessary to keep convicted terrorists safe in prison.
# 9 | Brian S. | May 15, 2006 11:39 AM
I have the same doubts about life without the possibility of parole. If the person reforms, maybe it's in our societal interest to let him go.
Mark Kleiman at samefacts.com made a good argument a while back, though, saying that retribution (a prettier word than "revenge") is a legitimate reason for punishing wrongdoers, something that maximizes societal utility. Too bad that I'm too lazy to go find the link.
I thought the studies of the deterrent effect of the death penalty have been inconclusive - some say yes, some say no.
# 10 | kevin vranes | May 15, 2006 3:33 PM
Roman - sorry, but having something to read while in a 7x12 concrete box for 23 hours just wouldn't do it for me. I've been out to sea on research cruises twice - first for three weeks and then for five weeks. In both cases I had the run of the ship, but obviously nothing more -- you're confined to the (pretty small) ship. And in both cases I almost lost my mind.
Mike - that is an arguement used, but I kinda doubt it. Maybe...
Brian - yea, what I'm saying is that prison (especially life/no parole) is retribution/punishment enough. Life solitary is torture or at the very least cruel and unusual. (Maybe not unusual enough, though....)
# 11 | Joy | May 17, 2006 3:09 PM
I think solitary confinement for remainder of life is fate worse that death. That's the worst form of torture because there is no easy way out. Granted that it is an expensive form of punishment, but if you want to exact the most punishment for a crime, there is nothing worse than that. Death penalty is quick, mostly painless except for some freak situations..
Honestly, I would also choose death over life in prison rotting away..
# 12 | Charlemane | May 30, 2006 12:11 PM
It all just makes me sad that people do bad things and hurt other people and then they spend their life in jail and in solitary confinement. Prison is already not a good place for people. Now a person has to spend 23 hours in their little cell blocks. What is our world coming to? Do people really think they will not be caught, so therefore they do bad things? I don't have a clue. It's all bad!!!!!!
# 13 | MARLA | June 4, 2006 5:51 PM
I personally think he should have recieved the death penalty. He was invovled in the attacks , just for being invovled in the army. I think solitary confinement is not a sufficent enough punishment for his crime.
If someone has asked me which one was better for me, then I would have chosen death. I could not live with the memories I had killing innocent people, then sleeping at night.