Fundamental Attribution Error

In psychology, there is an effect known as the fundamental attribution error. It's basically the thing that makes it so when you almost miss your exit and have to cut a few people off to get to the right lane, you know it was because you had the worst morning and nothing went right and you were going through your presentation for work and didn't realize your exit was coming up.

If someone else does it, well they should've been better prepared. They have to know they aren't the only ones on the road. You can't believe they'd be so self-centered and just plain stupid.

Obviously, we understand that our environment can affect us. We may snap at a friend because of a bad day at school and a friend can understand that. But that random lady at the store who just death glared at you the entire time you were trying to do your job? She's definitely a bitch. We don't take into account that maybe her environment or situation has caused her to be that way. We attribute other people's actions solely to their disposition or choices.

And I think the criminal justice system makes that mistake a lot. If you live in a terrible neighborhood and have to steal to get by, being locked up for a few years won't change that. You're still poor. You still have no skills (except whatever you used to break into people's houses). Sure, jail sucked, but you were fed and had clothing and were taken care of medically. Jail isn't supposed to be pleasant but it can't be a torture camp. As such, I find it hard to believe that there aren't people out there who prefer jail to their life outside bars. That is not an effective punishment, and the second they're out, people have little reason not to just go back to what they were doing. Even if they don't want to go back to jail, the mindset doesn't become "Don't steal," just "Don't get caught."

The fact is that punishment rarely changes behavior in a lasting fashion. If you scream at your kids every time they get lower than an A or you catch them doing something you don't like, they will stop showing you their report cards and start hiding more from you. Sure, if you put them on a tight leash, they may not have the opportunity to do much, but what happens when you go on a business trip? You haven't changed their attitudes, just their behaviors.

In the United States in 1994, recidivism rates for various types of thievery ranged from 70-79% Nearly 4/5 of people who were arrested for vehicle theft are arrested again within 3 years. That's not just the majority, but the majority by far. That's terrible.

Oddly enough, the same study says that the lowest rate of recidivism came from the categories of rape and homicide, coming in at 2.5% and 1.3%, respectively. These are crimes that the majority of people, including many of my co-bloggers, believe should be punished most severely with the least amount of rehabilitation. And I, for the most part, agree. I believe the relatively low recidivism rate probably has more to do with the long sentencing involved in these types of crimes and the fact that the study only included 3 years.

The fact is that in many cases, particularly those related to theft or drugs, I believe the environment is the problem, and sticking a person in very, very expensive incarceration (It's about $30,000 a year to house a single inmate), just delays the problem resurfacing. I'm not saying the person had to turn to crime; that was obviously their choice, but if they made that choice based on factors that haven't changed, what do you think they're going to do? If it were as simple as "Oh, I guess stealing is bad, I'll get a real job and contribute to society!" do you think they'd wait until after they had a criminal record? That just makes it harder. Rehabilitation in this case would make it so the person has job skills and is ready to re-enter society but with a positive goal in mind. It aims to make it so crime is neither necessary nor desired.

Punishment is supposed to be a deterrent, but if someone isn't deterred from doing it in the first place, it seems like the fear of going back rarely has them changing their behaviors. The fact is that incarceration isn't about the criminals. Sure, sending someone to jail will make the reality of what that means far more clear, but the goal of punishment is deterrence, so if they've gotten to jail, incarceration has already failed. I really think in the vast majority of non-violent cases, the goal should be making the criminal into a person that can contribute to society.

Anyway, that wraps it up for this week. Tomorrow will contain our normal topic announcement and also a special announcement of another kind...

See you all then. :)

Fool Me Once, Fool Me Twice

I'll start off my post for this week's topic concerning punishment vs. rehabilitation in the criminal justice system by saying that I'm all for rehabilitating those who can successfully be rehabilitated, but it's often hard to judge who those people are until after they have proven themselves otherwise.  As the old saying goes, "fool me once shame on you, but fool me twice..." you get the point.

I believe that in most first-time cases where mental illness is not a factor, punishment coupled with rehabilitation works as the best deterrent against crime.  I'm a big believer in having the criminal justice system grant second chances, especially to young people who tend to be the most apt to change when given the option of rehabilitation.  However, I recognize that this train of thought is all good and fine in a world that contains infinite resources, but it is very costly in both money and resources to properly undergo both processes.  Since the real world usually forces us to choose one option, I would have choose prioritizing punishment over rehabilitation in the criminal justice system.

My one hope in prioritizing this method in the criminal justice system is that the punishment itself is enough to get criminals' attention and prevent them and potential criminals from committing illegal acts.  However, with our current recidivism rates as high as they are, it seems like punishment itself is not working the way it should.  I'm not saying that we should, by any means, torture or mistreat criminals, but they must be punished for their crimes, and maybe what's going on in our criminal justice system isn't "punishment" enough to deter offenders, wether they be repeated offenders or first-time offenders.  My only problem with rehabilitation is that when our prisons focus on rehabilitating criminals, their time in prison doesn't feel like punishment.  If criminals don't feel as though they are being punished, what's there to prevent them from committing more crimes?  And while rehabilitation does work in some instances, it is simply too risky for our society to rely on rehabilitating all of its criminals instead of punishing them.  There are many people who can benefit from rehabilitation, but quite frankly, there are some people who cannot or will not be rehabilitated.  Unless rehabilitation is coupled with real punishment, I don't view it as a realistic priority for our criminal justice system.

To sum it all up, I think that a combination of punishment and rehabilitation is the best option for our criminal justice system.  Although I think that our criminal justice system needs to put an emphasis on punishment, I also believe that it is important that the opportunity for rehabilitation is available to those who can and will benefit from it.    

        



          

Off With Their Heads.

This week's topic isn't one that I'd previously put a lot of thought into, but as I'm formulating the basic outline for this entry, I'm starting to pull my viewpoint together.  Here we go.

I think that, depending on the severity of the crime, I favor punishment over rehabilitation.  It depends on the severity of the crime committed, and my thought process lends itself toward punishing both the lesser and greater offenses, while rehabilitating the people in the middle.  Let's examine a more petty crime that could be committed - first-offense shoplifting, for example.  If a person goes into a store and steals... well, let's keep it along my "typical" lines, and say that they steal a video game.  I honestly don't think there's an effective way to rehabilitate someone on why they shouldn't steal.  In this instance, I think that the most effective tool at preventing a repeat offense would be to impose a harsh punishment on the offender - most likely in the form of restitution, or a fine, or something along those lines.  The argument could be made that putting a financial strain on someone, in that situation, might actually lead to more theft, in order to cover the financial burden, and that's debatable - but I would hope that having first-hand knowledge of the potential punishment would create hesitation in the person's mind about ever doing it again.

Let's go a bit more severe, in terms of the crime committed - possibly a drunken driver.  This person gets intoxicated at a bar, and while driving home, causes a collision that kills someone.  What to do, in this case?  This is one of the instances where I believe I'd favor rehabilitation over punishment - one could make the argument that the person has already been punished, just by having to live with the knowledge that they were responsible for the death of another person.  I believe that rehabilitating the person in this scenario would prove more beneficial to both that person - it could be possible that the person had something important to contribute to society, and just needed help in battling their problems along the way.  I'd question, also, what kind of punishment would be suitable for this situation.  The most logical punishment would seem to be preventing the person from ever driving again, or, at least, restricting it in some fashion.  But would those restrictions be enforceable, or cost-effective?  The most common thing that I've heard of is an in-car breathalyzer that won't allow the car to start if the user is impaired by alcohol.  But it's not a fail-proof system, and the lower-end cost of such a system seems to be about a thousand dollars a year - that's a hefty bill for anyone to support, whether it be the government or the person needing it.  Rehabilitation seems like it'd have better long-term results, for less cost.

Finally, let's look at a fairly heinous crime - something like a premeditated killing spree.  Let's assume that a person walks into a public area and starts shooting everyone in sight.  There's a lot of death and panicking, and eventually the police arrive and manage to subdue the person before they can do anything like shoot themselves.  Is rehabilitation potentially worthwhile, in this case?  The case could be made that, depending on the person (and their psyche), they have a problem that could be "fixed".  My main concern with this logic, however, is that I don't think there's really a way you can ensure that any sort of rehabilitation would be long-lasting.  If the person just snapped one day, how can you ever really be sure that they won't snap again?  Is a potential repeat of such a terrible incident worth the belief in someone's potential to change?  How can you ever really be sure of the effectiveness of rehabilitation, anyway?  Do we really have the ability to know how much of a hold it has on people, or how much of it might be falsified?

The same thing happens every single time Mario is let loose, despite his rehabilitation...

I'm all for giving people second chances, but some acts are just so heinous and abhorrent that I feel it's more important to prevent the person from being able to commit such an act again.  In a case such as the one I described above, I'd lean most toward life (or, at least, a very long) incarceration of the person who committed the act.  I don't know that I'd have anything against trying to rehabilitate the person, but if that decision was made, it should be done during the course of their punishment, not as a replacement for such.

So, generally speaking, I think that punishments work better as motivating factors than rehabilitation does, generally speaking.  I do believe that rehabilitation has its place in the system, but that it needs to happen in conjunction with punishments, in most instances.  I'm looking forward to reading the rest of the viewpoints for this week.

For the Good of All of Us

Disclaimer: I know little to nothing about the criminal justice system beyond common knowledge type things. If there are any gross inaccuracies or oversimplifications or whatnot, I can try to address them in comments, but otherwise, I'm just gonna go at it with my very limited knowledge base.

Anyway, the way that I see it, this topic really comes down to one string of questions that gets at a single relevant point: what's the purpose of the criminal justice system, and by extension, government as a whole?

This is a philosophical question that has plagued those in charge of public policy forever, and I don't think we have anything remotely resembling a universally agreed upon answer. However, this is an opinion based blog, so I can use my own opinion as a basis for discussion, so here it is: the purpose of the criminal justice system is to prevent crime. This seems pretty simplistic as a definition, but it really pulls attention to the key point in the struggle between the goals of rehabilitation and punishment, which is really, as Kathleen said, that it just depends on the case.

If someone gets a DUI or steals a million dollars from the government, then they might not actually be a horrible person, just a stupid person that made a stupid choice. Punishing these people is kind of useless. That won't prevent crimes, it'll just make them pissed off at the government. The proper response is to take measures to ensure that they won't commit crimes again, and that requires more than just throwing them in jail or taking away their license for a few years. Basically, in most cases, I believe that rehabilitation should be the primary goal.

However, and I'm going to make a rather huge assumption here that not everyone will agree with, there's still the problem of the fact that Evil (a term that I use specifically in reference to the DnD alignment) does exist in the world. Some people exist that are not going to be rehabilitated, and they're going to continue to cause death and destruction and what-have-you. This is not okay for the rights of the law-abiding citizens. Unfortunately, for these people, I think the only currently plausible option is punishment. It's a sad idea, but the truth of the matter is really that sometimes it's the only option.

Well, that felt a little psychotic toward the end. I'm not sure that I actually made a clear point, so here's one now. Rehabilitation should be the primary goal, and if that doesn't work, then the government needs to do whatever is necessary to protect the rest of its citizens. John'll weigh in tomorrow. Until next week, make good choices, and don't embezzle tax money.

It Just Depends on the Case

I am not entirely ignorant of the American criminal justice system. I've had the "pleasure" of visiting a women's prison for one of my college classes. And yet, I cannot make a clear cut decision on whether I prefer rehabilitation to punishment when it comes to criminals. I mean, I know where I stand on things such as the death penalty (I'm against it), but when it comes down to the nitty gritty of how to treat our criminals, I am not a 100%.

When they are youths, I can easily say rehabilitation is the way to go. They are still young enough that perhaps they could change, that we shouldn't lock them up until are older and do not know how to deal with the world. In my opinion, they will probably just end up at they same place they left. So, the youth system should target not as much towards punishment but instead having them learn and become better human beings. Perhaps that is too optimistic, but I would not see it any other way.

What struck me when I visited the women's prison last fall was how much they tried to prepare them for when they left. They could have a job (which payed like less than a dollar an hour), or take classes, or even learn about being a hair stylist. They were being given skills to function in the outside world. I was very impressed by the woodworking they did, making cabinets and other furniture. Others were learning electronic printmaking, and actually made stuff for people outside of the prison to buy. There was separate cell area for the people who were to leave in like 6 months or less, and there were additional programs there, such as training difficult dogs, for them to participate. They were doing their time in jail but learning from it, and how to deal with them coming out on the other side.

I suppose that what I saw there is what I think is a good balance between punishment and rehabilitation, in which the facility probably leaned more towards rehabilitation than punishment. I just don't see the point of just locking criminals away without trying to help them at all and then expecting them to be able to function when we release them. I'm not surprised they would offend again.

And I feel like in some part the one of the ways to change the pattern of criminals is to change the people coming out of prison so they won't be able to influence the youth like that, but perhaps in a better way. I just think rehabilitation would have a better chance of creating a good cycle of change than the other options in the criminal justice system.

Now of course, I do not think we should go around rehabilitating everyone. There is a threshold, at some point you have to think this person will not change. But then, how do we judge that threshold. By length of prison sentence, by type of crime. And that comes in the issue that one size does not fit all, but not everything can cater to everyone. There has to be some sort of standard for how we treat are criminals. They are still criminals; they still did something wrong; they still have to be punished to some extent. And so here is where I struggle with it, and why while I was happy with what I saw at the prison I went to, besides the food, it almost seemed like it was a pretty good deal. Of course I didn't see any of the bad, none of the trouble, but it didn't seem like too bad of a place. But then again we shouldn't be trying to put our criminals in an inhumane environment either.

And of course, I am beginning to ramble. If you haven't figure out by now, I think there is probably a line between rehabilitation and punishment. People see that line in different directions. I think I see that line on how it is implemented in real life. Ideas are nice, but I would much rather see how they work in person than judge them on potential.

So, to sum it up the best I can. I lean more for rehabilitation because I do think people should be given the chance to better themselves and because I think it is better for society overall instead of releasing criminals out in the world who may not care about the punishment given them.

They Tried to Make Me Go to Rehab (I said: I really can't afford that)

In the case of deciding what should be more prioritized: rehabilitation or punishment, I stand in the middle. While I believe that rehabilitating violent criminals is a very important thing to do, I also think that punishment for crimes is practically required to maintain order.

There are plenty of crimes and for each a punishment the government finds fit. We have these set rules for a reason. In the system we currently have, the threat of punishment is supposed to be enough to keep people from committing crimes. The downfall is: it’s just not enough. No matter how strict the laws are on punishments for a crime, there will always be people who commit it anyway. This is why punishment for crimes isn’t going to be the end all.

Now, rehab isn’t a way to fix this problem. That’s not the point of rehab. Rehab and punishment are extremely different and really they combat different problems. Punishment is a threat for those who are considering or planning to commit a crime. It’s supposed to hang over their heads and be a sign to the public that we don’t take things lightly. Rehab is something that we should be doing more of the help those who have committed these crimes.

Basically, the reason rehab is an important part of the justice system is that as a country we should care about the mental stability of our citizens, even the ones who have committed crimes. Not to mention the prevention of double offenders.

Many crimes are committed because of psychological issues that can stem from a number of places. A way of better understanding what causes people to do these crimes and therefore knowing ways to take preventive measures would stem from rehabilitation. If we could record information about prisoners while trying help criminals work their way back into a functional member of society is a win-win.

This, however, raises the issue of what our government can afford. Obviously, in today’s society, our government is far more concerned with the punishment side of this argument. And while I would love to have a solid argument for why rehab is more important, I don’t. It is important that we rehabilitate those who commit crimes, but I think the number one issue is getting people who are a threat to the public off the streets.

Not to mention, if we start treating criminals like we owe them the help, how are we showing the victim we are concerned for them? I think the line of how to best handle this is a very tangled one. On the one hand, you don’t want to treat a criminal as dirt. You want to try and help them and rehabilitate them back into a ‘normal’ person or someone who wouldn’t commit the crime again. But, if we focus more on the rehabilitation side and less on punishment for the crime, we’re probably going to offend a lot of victims who didn’t do anything to deserve whatever crime was committed against them.

Overall, I will say again, that the line for what’s right and wrong in this case is far from straight forward. I think they’re both things the government should focus on, but I’m not really sure how I can justify that economically. In the end, I think what we should do and what they can afford right now are insanely different.

Hopefully that stream of consciousness made sense to someone!

Can’t wait to hear what Kathleen has to say!