In this section
An opinion blog and my primary creative outlet. I post commentary twice a week as time allows, and a round-up of the links at the end of the week.
Subscribe
If you’d like to receive updates by email, please enter your address below:
Blog
- A little perspective, pleaseMay 18 2012 - Read more
- Planned obsolescenceMay 17 2012 - Read more
- The easiest setting to argue about May 16 2012 - Read more
- You think your landlords are badMay 15 2012 - Read more
- That's totally democraticMay 14 2012 - Read more
- A pattern of problematic behaviourMay 11 2012 - Read more
- Rest where the wild things areMay 9 2012 - Read more
- Pre-historic marriageMay 8 2012 - Read more
- The War Against WomenMay 7 2012 - Read more
- AdviceMay 3 2012 - Read more
- A little perspective, please
Blog Archive

4 Comments
This is also more than why we fight – it is at it’s core what makes life worthy.
As blunt and questionable as they are sometimes, Penn and Teller had a speaker on their show (Agnes Heller) who had a pretty good point on why the death penalty offers virtually no deterrent effect on crime.
She stated that crimes were essentially committed for 3 reasons, along with why they were immune to the deterrent:
1. Profit. These crimes are generally very rationally planned out, with the perpetrator believing that this planning will allow them to execute the crime without being caught.
2. Passion. Someone who finds a cheating spouse, followed up by flipping out and shooting someone doesn’t take into account the penalties for such actions.
3. Compulsion. Someone who commits crimes because they NEED to (psychological problem etc) basically can’t be deterred, since it’s a compulsion, not a decision.
The biggest (and in my opinion, only legitimate) argument for the death penalty is cost. One must figure out the value of the possibility of exonerating the wrongfully accused and decide whether that was enough to offset the costs of keeping maximum security prisons.
In a more ideal world, there wouldn’t be prisons: There would be the bullet for those beyond redemption and rehab centers for those who are not. Prisons exist because we cannot make that distinction easily. Obviously, in the most ideal world, there would be neither(because there wouldn’t be any crime).
I also disagree with your assessment of the ‘point’ of the justice system. It’s ONLY purpose should be deterrence and rehabilitation. ‘Justice’ is a fictitious concept that we concocted to feel good about ourselves(and our actions). It serves no real purpose in world beyond offering deterrence to future crimes.
I think there are a couple of different issues wrapped up in this. (Forewarning: I’m still working through my own thoughts on this, so it might be a bit jumbled.)
I think there needs to be a distinction made between the concept of the justice system, and the penal institution. I don’t agree that justice is necessarily a fictitious concept. If we, in theory, give the state certain of our freedoms in exchange for protection, then there needs to be some way for the state to provide recourse for those whose protection was violated.
In my opinion, the purpose of the justice system is to provide a mechanism of providing recourse to victims or the relatives of victims, as they had a part in the so-called social contract much as anyone else. I think that in and of itself is a worthwhile goal. After all, if there were no penalties for breaking the (cringe) “social contract”, then it wouldn’t be much of a contract at all. See: deterrence, however feebly it might work.
At the same time, I think the byproduct of the justice system in allowing us to identify those members of society who need to be rehabilitated is also worthwhile. I agree with you that prison should be about rehabilitation, and perhaps deterrence. I think perhaps where much of the failing of the justice system arises is in its attempt to accomplish both the rehabilitation and the recourse goals in one system, a system that is subject to just as much corruption as any other government institution. That is not to say, however, that simply because the penal system performs the rehabilitation function imperfectly, that the recourse function is not worth pursuing.
But again, these are just my preliminary thoughts on that.
Thanks for commenting!