Categories

A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

Aw, poor widdle terrorist!

I know you’re all torn up to hear that Eric Rudolph is mis­er­able in prison.1

Using soli­tary con­fine­ment, Super­max is designed to inflict as much mis­ery and pain as is con­sti­tu­tion­al­ly per­mis­si­ble,” he wrote in a let­ter.

No, real­ly? That’s part of that whole deter­rent fac­tor, ya know? Jail isn’t sup­posed to be a vaca­tion. Maybe you should have con­sid­ered the pos­si­bil­i­ty of los­ing a lit­tle time in the moun­tains before you took to being a bomber, Rudolph?

Of course, he still has his life to com­plain about, unlike some of his vic­tims.

My real ques­tion, I sup­pose, is why is this news? What is our atten­tion being redi­rect­ed away from?


1 http://www.ajc.com/hp/content/shared-gen/ap/National/Eric_Rudolph.html?cxntnid=amn121106e

3 comments to Aw, poor widdle terrorist!

  • This would be all well and good, it’s just that harsh­er pun­ish­ments demon­stra­bly have no effect what­so­ev­er on deter­rence rates. Improv­ing detec­tion rates do increase deter­rence, how­ev­er, and also have the added bonus of not tor­tur­ing or oth­er­wise mis­treat­ing peo­ple.

    Of course, for most crimes you sim­ply can’t deter peo­ple; crimes of pas­sion, crimes of com­pul­sion, crimes result­ing from a ratio­nal cost-ben­e­fit analy­sis (mur­der­ing some­one for their life insur­ance, for exam­ple).

    Either way, mis­treat­ing pris­on­ers solves noth­ing except sat­is­fy­ing those who crave to mis­treat oth­ers. We lock up peo­ple because they com­mit crimes against oth­er human beings; that does not give us the right to com­mit crimes against them. Crim­i­nals are human, and what sep­a­rates us from crim­i­nals is that we respect oth­er human beings. Throw­ing that out of the win­dow sim­ply low­ers us to their lev­el.

    I find it quite hor­ri­fy­ing that some­one liv­ing in the sup­posed land of the free—who pre­sum­ably oppos­es the tyran­nous gov­ern­ment of the world’s dictatorships—endorses the government’s mis­treat­ment of those it oppos­es.

  • cyn

    I don’t think he’s being mis­treat­ed at all. In fact, if you fol­low the link to the arti­cle, you’ll find he isn’t being tor­tured or any­thing — he’s sim­ply being held in a max­i­mum secu­ri­ty prison. He’s lost his free­dom.

    I absolute­ly believe he should have been giv­en the death penal­ty instead of being in that prison. He isn’t going to be “reha­bil­i­tat­ed” in any way. He’s going to be in that prison for the rest of his life, at a very high cost. It would be bet­ter for him and for every­one else if he were sim­ply put to death.

    Bet­ter detec­tion rates? I have no idea what you’re refer­ring to there, but it wasn’t too hard to notice the bomb­ings Rudolph com­mit­ted. Should his crim­i­nal ten­den­cies have been detect­ed ear­li­er? That would have been good, yes. Unfor­tu­nate­ly, as far as I know, the clos­est he came to any kind of trou­ble that would have got­ten him into treat­ment was the sup­posed mar­i­jua­na use that got him kicked out of the mil­i­tary.

  • There is absolute­ly no rea­son to keep him locked in a tiny cell for 23 hours a day; it’s just restric­tion for restriction’s sake. He would have also lost his free­dom if you’d have locked him up in a well-secured prison but still giv­en him ade­quate exer­cise time, space, con­tact with oth­er human beings, etc. He’d still be just as much of a dan­ger to soci­ety (i.e. none at all) and it would cost just as lit­tle to house him.

    As for the death penal­ty, it costs more than impris­on­ing some­one for life, FYI, and comes with a pletho­ra of addi­tion­al problems—the fal­li­bil­i­ty of pros­e­cu­tors being one major one, the hypocrisy of decry­ing mur­der while mur­der­ing crim­i­nals being anoth­er.

    Detec­tion rates are the pro­por­tion of crimes com­mit­ted that are actu­al­ly detect­ed and the per­pe­tra­tors pros­e­cut­ed. Harsh­er pun­ish­ments do not deter peo­ple (and this has been shown time and time again), since crim­i­nals know that—in the vast major­i­ty of cases—they sim­ply won’t be caught; they bal­ance risk and pun­ish­ment and no mat­ter how harsh the pun­ish­ment, low detec­tion rates bal­ance it out. You could have 100% detec­tion rates and absolute­ly no pun­ish­ment aspect to prison, and all crimes would be deterred; this doesn’t work the oth­er way.

    In this case the per­pe­tra­tor has been caught, but that the prospect of life in a super­max prison ipso fac­to did absolute­ly noth­ing to deter him.

    In con­clu­sion, I reit­er­ate what I said before: harsh pun­ish­ments solve absolute­ly noth­ing except sati­at­ing the gen­er­al public’s lust for revenge. Whether or not that’s a good thing depends on whether you enjoy that revenge, I guess.