(November 8, 2016 at 2:00 pm)robvalue Wrote: This is a discussion I had with my wife recently, regarding something we heard in the news. A guy was using his phone at the wheel, and crashed into another car killing several people. He was given a jail sentence, around 10 years I think.
This got me thinking about the suitability of such a sentence. I think it's an interesting point to discuss. To me, the primary purpose of prison is to remove dangerous people from society. The secondary purpose, where possible, should be to rehabilitate them. This could sometimes be achieved simply by stopping them doing what they were doing, and giving them a new environment in which to reflect. The third and least important is punishment.
Why do we punish? If there is no other purpose to it, the only reasons we could come up with are "justice" and acting as a deterrent. The second I can understand the pragmatic value in, although it feels unsatisying to me when applied to adults.
In this particular case, it was an accident. The guy didn't mean to kill anyone. Of course, he is accountable. But what does anyone gain by him being in jail for 10 years? Is there a better alternative? As a rough suggestion, how about being banned from driving and being indebted to society in some way, being forced to "pay back" in a positive way, with prison time being reserved for refusal to adhere?
The immediate problem would be people suddenly not caring about running people over by accident. Would this really follow?
I'm not saying the current or alternate "punishments" are right or wrong, I'm very much unsure what would be best. I'm interested in peoples' thoughts!
bold mine
Yes an accident, but an accident due to negligence. And I'll take it a step further, negligence with regard to human life. So, basically, he didn't care if he took a human life, using his phone while driving was more important. I'm sure he knew he was using a potentially lethal instrument (the vehicle). So, we ban him from driving, what will that do to change his negligent behavior/thinking? Nothing. That simply makes an inconvenience for him. If he's wealthy and money is no object (and don't get me wrong, he should have financial consequences) what will that do to change his negligent behavior? Nothing. And if you make him poor and he still has his negligent behavior/thought with regard to human life, what will he be capable of doing to survive?
There needs to be something that causes him cognitive restructuring when it comes to his concept of the value of human life and his actions. Maybe the accident was enough. But how do we know? What if there is no adherence, no restructuring? Should we let him off and then wait for the next time? Maybe prison is needed, it certainly give a person time to allow cognitive restructuring to develop. Hopefully it would be a prison that provides rehabilitation. How about a lobotomy, a society imposed restructuring? (joke, taking it to the absurd)
I don't have an exact answer or position. There may be as many answers are there are offenders and offenses. In a perfect world maybe the retribution should be specifically tailored to the individual and their offense. An example for this case may be sentencing him to a subsistence life style while having to care for motor vehicle victims for the 10 years as his only job or means of support. If he does not agree or adhere, then he can do the time.
Again, I don't like it either, but I'm not sure I have a better solution. Or a better solution that society would accept.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental.
