Crime and punishment: is "justice" good public policy?
Dysfunctional features of American penology are mitigated somewhat by the application (though uneven) of modern science. Unfortunately, these advances do not address major flaws in the ideas on which the system is erected. These include retribution, proportional punishment, and all-or-none notions of criminal responsibility. We propose abandoning retribution for its own sake; making punishment proportional to its effectiveness for behavior change rather than to the indignation evoked by the offense; and incorporating punishment into sentences based on the clinical and behavioral characteristics of the offender, including containment as necessary for public safety. Every offender would be held responsible, but the meaning and consequences thereof would change. The proposed changes could only occur incrementally. New systems of oversight and accountability would be required. Legislative bodies could provide guidelines, and courts could oversee, but neither could micromanage. Few are better qualified to work toward these goals than readers of this journal.
Curtis
George C
GC
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. gcurtis@umich.edu
Nygaard
Richard L
RL
D003415:Crime / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D003416:Criminal Law / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D006801:Humans; D011640:Public Policy; D011678:Punishment; D014481:United States