"The degree of civilisation in a society can be judged by entering its prisons." - Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The House of the Dead
.....
"The quality of a criminal justice system is an important measure of the value of a political community. Apart from waging war, no decision made by the state is more significant than its judgment about what conduct should be proscribed and how severely to punish it." - Douglas Husak, Overcriminalisation: The Limits of the Criminal Law
.....
The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilisation of any country.
A calm, dispassionate recognition of the right of the accused, and even of the convicted criminal - a constant heart-searching by all charged with the duty of punishment - a desire and eagerness to rehabilitate in the world of industry those who have paid their due in the hard coinage of punishment: tireless efforts towards the discovery of curative and regenerative processes: unfailing faith that there is a treasure, if you can only find it, in the heart of every man.
These are the symbols which, in the treatment of crime and criminal, mark and measure the stored-up strength of a nation and sign and proof of the living virtue in it.
- Winston Churchill, Speech in the House of Commons (1910)
Balancing the rights of the accused, the dignity of all individuals, a respect for the rule of law, and civil order has always been difficult, but in the hundred years since Churchill spoke those words, it is clear to me that America has drifted a bit too far down the "tough on crime" road. The Innocence Project would not be in such demand if juries (in representing and reflecting the nature of our society) were not so quick to replace the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" with "probably did something worth going to jail (or dying) for." Another example are the numerous variations of "three strikes and life" legislation that slams the door shut on rehabilitating and nurturing the heart of so many.
2 comments:
Talking tough on crime and employing draconian, reactionary tactics is easy, mainly because its little more than performance art.
Actually fighting the causes and effects of crime is very, very hard, and doesn't always yield immediately discernible results.
Justus, you and I have talked around the fringes of criminal law and jurisprudence before, and I think we agree on most counts. I also think we agree that the criminal justice system in America needs improvement on many levels.
I'm not sure I would put so much on the feet of "tough on crime" laws. The Dostoyevsky quote could show us to be quite civilised or quite the opposite. Probably depends on the prison and prisoners you visit. I think it would also be quite possible to write a well supported article stating that we are not tough enough on crime.
Of course, being "tough on crime" should never be the goal of the court system. I would agree with you and Rosen that rehabilitation and fighting the cause of crime is much more important, albeit much more difficult. It is also more difficult to discern the cause of crime than to address its effect.
Not easy answers or simple solutions, but would submit that much of our legal system is more reactionary rather than objective. Most of our politics are as well.
Thank goodness for the group of us that write and follow this blog. We are truly a beacon of light and intelligence in a world of uncertainty.
Post a Comment