Politics and Dharma

One running question that seems to follow me from place to place lately, like some lost puppy: what’s it really for?

Reading Scott Henson’s blog about the ‘Texas Criminal Justice Reverse Lottery‘ and the abysmal clearance rates for serious crimes, and I’ve got to wonder about every part of the justice system. What’s any of it really for?

Scott points out the obvious one. Harsh penalties are supposedly deterrents to potential criminals, and thus one might assume that the death penalty is the greatest deterrent. However…

…most offenders don’t actually pay the “price,” i.e, the legislatively established punishment. That’s a big reason the death penalty provides little deterrent. The sentence is imposed on less than 2% of convicted murderers, but nearly 40% of the time a killer will never face punishment at all.

Although cloaked with fancy words like “rehabilitation” and “correctional”, it’s clear that prisons do not correct, nor do they rehabilitate. Their purpose is to punish: to inflict the torment and pain of confinement upon the heads of the wicked. Families of murder victims are unlikely to view the attacker’s death penalty as an advanced form of correction, but rather as one of divine vengeance. Scale back to the emotions of one who has lost a bicycle to a thief, and one is unlikely to find a sincere and fervent hope that the robber finds a quick and fruitful path into obedient society — rather, vengeance will likely be the order of the day.

This kind of reaction is totally predictable. One is rarely happy to lose what one works hard to accumulate. Anyone who can be seen as a root cause of such a loss will be the target of great ire. But let’s step back and consider the alternatives. Of the various ways one might be able to mitigate or resolve the situation, vengeance just isn’t going to be the big winner. Solutions that result in a net increase in economic activity, net gains in social bonding, and an overall reduction in crime are going to be the ones that build societies. The death penalty does none of these things, prisons do none of these things. Medical treatment and care, financial support, psychiatric support, education and career guidance do these things.

Prison is simply punishment. The result of having to survive in the society that develops within a prison generally results in a personality that guarantees that the rest of one’s life will be spent in a prison. It’s the ultimate big loser award. When we can finally advance as a society beyond the juvenile notion that punishment is a proper and useful training tool, then maybe we can take another look at our system of justice and ask: just what is any of this really for?

I would like a system that had as few people in cages as possible. I sound like a such a Buddhist here, but it’s far better for a murderer to be working constructively in a mutually supportive environment than to have him killing or be killed in a captive community. There isn’t anyone in a jail now that shouldn’t be adding to the economy or getting treatment and education toward participating in the economy. Restitution is so much more meaningful when it’s a big chunk of the rent or pays a child’s tuition.

“Guilt” shouldn’t be a reason that someone does or doesn’t receive services — everyone should get this kind of support for free. That’s the sort of thing a government is supposed to do in order to nurture its primary resource: people! We’re not supposed to crowd them in jails: we’re supposed to make them happy and productive.

If the result of a criminal justice proceeding was not punishment, but was instead a portfolio of support services along with a closely directed course of treatment and education, would there be any further purpose for the elaborate dog-and-pony show of a trial court? I fully understand the need for a meeting between the principal investigators and doctors, and even of an official representative to document the results. But if the result is always going to be treatment and not punishment, who would need a jury? Why have a gaggle of lawyers hovering around? If we’re not trying to make some grand pronouncement about the unworthiness of someone’s soul, why bother with the theatrics of “witnesses” and “cross-examination”?

Perhaps someday we’ll decide to do away with prisons and maybe all the lawyers will go with them.