Laisse Faire Criminology
Of the many theories of crime, none is based on doing nothing. Every theory assumes that someone has a duty to act to punish wrongs or remediate harms or save the sinner. Traditional studies of victimology come closest to a laissez faire theory that problems in our social environment are only analogous to problems in our physical environment: we protect ourselves from the elements; but we do not seek to punish storms, either for their own good or as general deterrence to any other bad weather.
Altruism informs criminology. Even more than the golden rule, the parable of the Good Samaritan tells us all that we are our brother’s keeper. And no one is kept better than someone in prison.
When Sir Robert Peel formed the London Metropolitan Police Service in 1829, crime was a political problem defined by religion. Today, criminology resonates within sociology. A hundred years ago, Marxists criticized Max Weber in particular and sociology in general for being concerned only with church, family, and state. Today, those critical sociologists and critical criminologists define the content of most university programs: racism and sexism are caused by capitalism; end of story.
Even libertarians and objectivists who generally do not care what you smoke or with whom you sleep insist on the enforcement of property rights specifically as the punishment of those who violate the rights of others. Within those circles, self-identified “anarcho-capitalists” engage in long arguments with advocates of constitutionally limited government (“minarchy”) attempting to prove that a completely free market in protection and adjudication would still bring justice in the form of punishments to wrong-doers. No one says, “So what?”
That should seem peculiar. Is it not self-contradictory to claim that you are completely responsible for your own life unless you can complain about someone else? A completely consistent criminology based on individualism is centered on victimology: understanding your risks in society and taking preventive and preparatory actions to avoid losses.
Altruism has a range of definitions. Objectivists and libertarians cite the inventor of the word, Auguste Comte, and take him literally. Comte was a political Platonist who advocated for a secular civic priesthood to rule a common humanity that was united in complete concern for others – and no concern for self. Comte was explicit. Later philosophers softened this. After all, Jesus commanded us to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. Self must come first before benevolence can be extended to others. Today, altruism is mere politeness and civility, common grace, and simple decency. That seems harmless enough.
But what happens when that fails?
I am a fan of public transportation and ride one or more buses to work or play most days. “Pardon me”, “excuse me”, and “sorry” are important acknowledgements of small harms. Criminal justice is based on the expectation of larger and more complicated apologies for harms of greater consequence.
We generally understand others as extensions, projections, reflections, or reiterations of ourselves. “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” assumes that others share your values. More deeply, it assumes that others think as you do – even that they think at all. Our propensity for copying the behaviors of others runs far deeper than “monkey see, monkey do.” In point of fact, researchers found that given a puzzle and a ritual, and later shown the short-cut, chimpanzees abandon useless actions, while humans repeat them for no apparent reason. Thus, everyone seems to be able to learn how to drive a car (or ride a bus), use a computer or a cell phone, and learn a foreign language. So, when you are harmed by someone else, you assume that like you they had no intention and having committed a transgression, they are remorseful, and cannot be content until they have rebalanced themselves with some propitiatiation.
Why?
And if that other person has no such inner needs, where do we find the motivation (“political right”) to redirect that person’s body, mind, and soul?
Why do we feel differently about losses caused by other people than we do about losses caused by storms? If we protect ourselves from nature, why do we not also protect ourselves from human nature?
Altruism informs criminology. Even more than the golden rule, the parable of the Good Samaritan tells us all that we are our brother’s keeper. And no one is kept better than someone in prison.
When Sir Robert Peel formed the London Metropolitan Police Service in 1829, crime was a political problem defined by religion. Today, criminology resonates within sociology. A hundred years ago, Marxists criticized Max Weber in particular and sociology in general for being concerned only with church, family, and state. Today, those critical sociologists and critical criminologists define the content of most university programs: racism and sexism are caused by capitalism; end of story.
Even libertarians and objectivists who generally do not care what you smoke or with whom you sleep insist on the enforcement of property rights specifically as the punishment of those who violate the rights of others. Within those circles, self-identified “anarcho-capitalists” engage in long arguments with advocates of constitutionally limited government (“minarchy”) attempting to prove that a completely free market in protection and adjudication would still bring justice in the form of punishments to wrong-doers. No one says, “So what?”
That should seem peculiar. Is it not self-contradictory to claim that you are completely responsible for your own life unless you can complain about someone else? A completely consistent criminology based on individualism is centered on victimology: understanding your risks in society and taking preventive and preparatory actions to avoid losses.
Altruism has a range of definitions. Objectivists and libertarians cite the inventor of the word, Auguste Comte, and take him literally. Comte was a political Platonist who advocated for a secular civic priesthood to rule a common humanity that was united in complete concern for others – and no concern for self. Comte was explicit. Later philosophers softened this. After all, Jesus commanded us to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. Self must come first before benevolence can be extended to others. Today, altruism is mere politeness and civility, common grace, and simple decency. That seems harmless enough.
But what happens when that fails?
I am a fan of public transportation and ride one or more buses to work or play most days. “Pardon me”, “excuse me”, and “sorry” are important acknowledgements of small harms. Criminal justice is based on the expectation of larger and more complicated apologies for harms of greater consequence.
We generally understand others as extensions, projections, reflections, or reiterations of ourselves. “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” assumes that others share your values. More deeply, it assumes that others think as you do – even that they think at all. Our propensity for copying the behaviors of others runs far deeper than “monkey see, monkey do.” In point of fact, researchers found that given a puzzle and a ritual, and later shown the short-cut, chimpanzees abandon useless actions, while humans repeat them for no apparent reason. Thus, everyone seems to be able to learn how to drive a car (or ride a bus), use a computer or a cell phone, and learn a foreign language. So, when you are harmed by someone else, you assume that like you they had no intention and having committed a transgression, they are remorseful, and cannot be content until they have rebalanced themselves with some propitiatiation.
Why?
And if that other person has no such inner needs, where do we find the motivation (“political right”) to redirect that person’s body, mind, and soul?
Why do we feel differently about losses caused by other people than we do about losses caused by storms? If we protect ourselves from nature, why do we not also protect ourselves from human nature?
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
"by whom?" I carried a Q clearance for 33 years,
and still have to get a background check to buy a
shotgun as recommended by our vaunted VP. -- j
Justice would be having the criminal work to compensate his or her victims and pay for the room and board, if they are incarcerated, and the Police and court time that were necessary.
good shots, so that we can just scare offenders
away from our acre and home -- no harm, but a
very memorable event!!! -- j
A society like that which the original poster proposes, would not have single-family residential lots held in allodial title. The most anyone would have would be a fee-simple title to a part of a much larger property that someone else, collecting rent from the fee-simple holders, would then defend. The result is either a town government, or a landlord or land-holding company.
bought a dvd which purports to answer questions
about self-defense and property-defense parameters
which tend to keep you out of jail. need to watch
it soon.
defending myself or my wife, when genuinely
threatened, is no problem. property, though, is
a puzzle. how much is too much defense??? -- j
Using Objectivist ethics, how would this concept relate to whether a witness to a crime has a moral obligation to testify in court, even under a credible threat of physical harm from the criminal's friends? Would testifying be, in the philosophical sense of the word, altruistic? Or would it be an act of justice? Or both?
Rand even treated this problem. See "The Ethics of Emergencies." When you see someone is about to die, do you refuse to intervene because some principle tells you you lack authority to act?
a shallow, one of them was seized with cramp and began
drifting downstream. The main current ran rather swiftly,
but not too strongly for even a moderate swimmer. It will
give you an idea, therefore, of the strange deficiency in
these creatures, when I tell you that none made the
slightest attempt to rescue the weakly crying little thing
which was drowning before their eyes. When I realized
this, I hurriedly slipped off my clothes, and, wading in at a
point lower down, I caught the poor mite and drew her
safe to land." -- _The Time Machine_ by H. G. Wells.
Criminology might not be about punishing the perpetrator, but rescuing the victim; and often, really, both victims.
The theory you seem to plump for, calls for the use of force in defense only--and that being immediate self-defense. (Question: what have you to say to me, who have a history of intervening forcefully against a man whom I caught assaulting a woman? I did not place him under "citizen's arrest," but I did chase him away. According to your theory, should I have done that, or not?)
Without the exertion of force in retaliation, we all would have to go about armed, or else pitch in and hire a contract bodyguard force who would act only when they see a crime in progress, and then only to chase the perpetrator away. But: with force-in-retaliation at the sole discretion of one suffering a real or imagined wrong, the result is a continual state of blood feud. If you read Rand's essay on "The Nature of Government," you will readily recognize that as my main source.
with "bad actors" like the physically and mentally
diseased, the violent, the power-seekers, the leftists
(but I repeat myself), and many of us travel armed.
we buy home alarm systems and travel in locked
metal cages, etc.
and when our preparations fail, we get all huffy
and ask government to protect us.
the result? we are harmed more insidiously! the
cost of personal protection would likely be less
than the taxes we pay for it, and we know that
the cost of charity would be better spent privately!!! -- j
Similarly, a relative of mine - who was something of a reckless teenager - turned 18 and, the next time he was picked up, he was put into a cell overnight with a 300lb man accused of murder. My relative, not being unintelligent, turned over a new leaf and became a lawyer (raised a family, yadda yadda).
So I think, anecdotally, you have a leg to stand on, Mike Marotta. But 'anecdote' and 'survey' are the beginnings of science, not its endpoint. I think we need to violate custom and look at the whole process of criminality and then conduct some local experiments in different communities on possible solutions.
For example, it is becoming possible for us to medically identify socio/psychopaths. Now, only a fraction of that population commit crimes but if someone who commits a crime falls into that category then they might be treated differently than someone who committed a crime to get more money for drugs (which should not be illegal in the first place).
These are just ideas, but your underlying premise that we should re-examine the whole idea of punishments in terms of 'what is effective'. I will note that I have never raised a dog without whopping it when it did something wrong, so I think that punishment will still play a role - but perhaps it will be one of several solutions.
Jan, dog whopper
Perhaps punishment is the levie that protects us from human nature. We assess reality and take steps to mitigate its detrimental effect on our lives.
Our legal system supposedly insists on a presumption of innocence. However, the common belief is just the opposite. If you are not guilty, then why are you on trial?
Federal prosecutors have a 90% conviction rate. That is not unusual. Local prosecutors who lose do not keep their jobs; and state's attorneys who lose cases do not get re-elected. Defense lawyers who win do garner more clients, but those who lose stay in business.
Also, of course, the government can marshal several orders of magnitude more resources than a defendant. RICO assures that. But even absent RICO, standing up the government is costly for you but bread-and-butter for them.