Thanks, bub.
The last philosophy class I took put the death penalty under a microscope, and I was completely shocked that
incapacitation was a
sub-division of another major purpose of the death penalty. I honestly can't even remember what that was under, because I reject that inferior way of thinking wholeheartedly. Incapacitation is the one and only purpose of the death penalty that can never be questioned by intelligent people. Dead is dead. Also, prison sentences supposedly act as incapacitation a well, although not nearly as effectively. For one thing, prisoners still can hurt other prisoners while behind bars, and they also tend to get out of prison as fast as the system can push them out. There truly is no such thing as "life without parole," unless you're talking about a high-profile assassination case or serial murderers.
In my ideal criminal justice system, most seriously violent offenders would either be put to death in a humane manner (painless lethal injection, a shot in the head or the guillotine, rather than something cruel like the electric chair or a lethal injection designed to cause suffering in the last moments), or put in life-long prison colonies that are completely cut off from society, where they have no access to e-mail (outside a limited intranet) or phone books or anything they could use to harass the law-abiding population. They would have mail priviledges, but closely monitored. There would be no "reasonable expectation of privacy" for convicted dangerous humans, and the slightest chance that a criminal could be sending out a message designed to get someone hurt is enough to justify reading their in-coming and out-going mail. Any prison staff that would use this or any other power and knowledge over prisoners for nefarious purposes isn't fit to be part of the system. Prisoners would spend their days working a reasonable number of hours, producing products or items used by both themselves and the legal population, but only items that can't be dangerously flawed. License plates, as cliche as that is, are probably a good example, since it's not a part of the car that could go wrong and get someone hurt. That's kind of what I'm talking about. These prisoners would essentially earn their right to stay alive by working, as I don't believe it's right to spend society's taxes on keeping dangerous animals alive.
The prison colonies would not be designed to be cruel, horrific places. Cruelty in general hurts the entire species and should not be officially justified. Institutionalized cruelty is despicable, because it is not productive and makes things worse, so the entire concept of "punishment" should be abolished from the system.
I am one of the most vengeance-minded people you would ever meet, so understand me when I say all this; a person has a right to want to be cruel to others for personal gratification, but the government should never encourage that behavior and act it out on anyone. Neither prison nor death need to be instruments of punishment. The government's role should be to protect the people, and cruelty and punishment does not do that at all. If a dog bites a person who isn't part of the household, they are often put to death. A dog with rabies is always put to death. Is that punishment? No, it's for society's protection. Ignorant, naive people seem to think that a human should be treated more leniently than a dog in this kind of situation, but the undisputable fact of the matter is that humans are thousands of times more dangerous than any dog, and that's the only thing that matters. Death comes to us all and can be kept at bay to a certain degree only so long. Joy and pain, however, are far more controllable, and since violent offenders bring more pain than joy to law-abiding citizens, they should be removed as a threat for the greater good.
The only way a prisoner would ever leave these colonies and rejoin society is if they pass psychiatric tests specifically designed to judge how they will act in the real world, and the idea that a "model prisoner" is a good candidate for parole will be forever aboloshed. It's unspeakable amoral for shrinks, parole board members and wardens and whoever else to suggest it's okay to let a dangerous animal back into the population simply because they have behaved themselves in a prison environment. I don't think I should have to explain why that is, and anyone who would argue that is a piece of trash. I'll explain for those who don't understand, but I won't dignify an argument, because I don't talk to people who would rather see innocent people put at risk than read a book on psychopathic criminals.
The prison colonies would mostly not be for reform or rehabilitation, but there would be institutions that would attempt to rehabilitate anyone the system deems likely to be "fixed" in a reasonable amount of time and at a reasonable cost. Again, I don't believe in spending money that could go to the purpose of socialized medicine and education should go to keeping a miserable killer or rapist alive is ever justified. This applies to the insane and mentally deficient as well. Intent matters to a certain extent, but the real heart of the matter is whether a person is dangerous or not. If it's a psychotic condition that can be controlled through medication (such as schizophrenia), then that's a potentially rehabitable person or at least a controllable one.
The overall basis for all of this is utilitarianism-- the highest amount of pleasure for the highest amount of people
in the long term. This stems from something called "hedonic utilitarianism," which is
not to be confused with "hedonism." In it's purest form, hedonic utilitarianism is ridiculous, because there's no such
unit of measurement for pleasure such as a "hedon" (I'm not kidding, there was a guy who came up with that). Also, personal priorities for individuals should not be based on the highest number of people in all situations. Family and loved ones come first, then the highest number of people. That's for individuals, though. The government should be concerned with the numbers, and if they're doing a good enough job, citizens won't have to make too many huge decisions regarding the welfare of "the people" a opposed to
their people.
Realistically, there is no way to guarantee that. The best I could do is carefully screen everyone that is part of my government while in power and bring in new, younger people (because they would have been indocrinated in utilitarian, benevolent ways of thinking, and if I were dictator I'd be alive a long time 'cause I get good health coverage) that are deemed suitable to take care of the people.
Again, V would not like me very much and would surely rebel against me, but I don't and would not implement an agenda that strictly forbids creativity and would certainly not descriminate based on meaningless categories such as "race" or sexual orientation and so forth.
Religion, however, is a different matter. People act like different religions should be accepted as if they were "race" and ethnicity categories. They aren't. Ideas and thoughts and intent actually matter, and therefore religion would have to be kept under control. Again, what people do in their own homes
when it doesn't hurt anybody should be their own business (not that I wouldn't be spying on people once in a while, since that's the only way you can make sure it
stays harmless), but when it affects other people, it better be benevolent. Most "mainstream" religious practices would be permitted, since snakehandlers and honor killings aren't the usual religious fare, but if people used their "beliefs" as an excuse to hurt anyone, they'd be sentenced to death as soon as guilt was proven. If someone commits an "honor killing," they will be executed as soon as possible, since that's the kind of psychosis that not even medication can effectively treat without leaving someone nothing more than a financial liability. Same thing with bombing abortion clinics and so forth (and yes, abortion would be completely, unequivocally legalized throughout the entire jurisdiction of this government, and doctors would still be required to learn how to do them, although they wouldn't be forced to perform them).
Ah yes, that reminds me; people would need licenses to have children. The smaller the population, the better the chances of keeping it safe and happy. The less unfit parents and screwed up kids, the less criminals crowding the colonies and temporary prisons (for lesser crimes that require probation to test their rehabilitation potential). The government would fund drug stores all over the jurisdiction that provide free birth control products (with doctor's prescription if it's medication as opposed to condoms, etc.) and comprehensive sex education would be required in all schools. Ah yes, I forgot to mention, all schools would be public schools, reformed to teach kids how to be decent people and not end up in a courtroom where they're given the choice to either live in a prison colony for the rest of their lives or be killed quickly and as painlessly as possible very shortly. Private schools would be a detriment to society, as kids could go out in to the world with values that conflict with utilitarianism and thus conflict with the laws. Again, this doesn't mean books will be banned and kids will have to suppress all their emotions, it just means that a fully functional educational system would be in place to teach people how to deal with their emotions in constructive ways, how to become productive citizens and how to maximize the joy/pleasure/goodness/whatever in their lives without hurting anyone.
Yes, this is an idealist utopia and will never happen. I'm aware of that. Still, I think if someone had implemented a system like this centuries, or even one century ago, a better world (or at least country) could have been ours.
