An argument about America’s prisons being “too full” seems perennial, no matter what perspective one takes. Patterico takes on a dimwit New York Slimes columnist in a recent post, and while I agree with much of Patterico’s argument, I have to agree in principle with folks who assert that as a nation we have far too many folks in prison–including violent offenders.
Quite aside from the stupidity of incarcerating nonviolent offenders (thieves for example and such like should be required to repay court costs and many multiples–truly punitive amounts–of what they stole to their victims, and drug users and so forth should instead be given a lockup where they can have all the drugs they want, as long as they want until they waste away in a Darwinian solution… or make a different choice).
We could substantially lower the number of violent offenders in prison by selecting from the population of murderers, rapists, pedophiles and such like a significant number (something around 100%) and simply executing* them. Heck, I’d include–especially–drunk drivers who kill someone. Diminished capacity? Not when they chose to be drunks. The “helpless victim of disease” defense? In a pig’s eye. I don’t care if someone chose to become an alcohol adict; if they kill someone else as a result, they ought to be served fairly: execution is fair in such a case. If they killed themselves while drunk, well, that’d just be Darwin winning a round. In all cases where someone is executed, their entire worldly goods–including any assets they attempted to hide via spouses or in lawyers’ pockets** or whatever–ought to first be forfeited to victims and survivors.
As for many of the other violent and non-violent offenders, that population could be reduced as well by compelling them, upon conviction of their crime, to either pay punitive damages to their victims–harsh enough to beggar them if necessary, and if they have no means, then forced labor at (sorta-semi-almost) fair (slave) wages, with all but their room n board to go to victims. Yeh, we have the technology to effectively keep ’em “on the reservation”.
Those beggared by their crimes’ punishment ought also to be denied ALL public assistance in the future.
These kinds of approaches (financial punishment aimed at recompensing victims as much as possible) would work for some, perhaps enough to lower the prison count substantially. (Heck, those deemed to dangerous for society could still have their total worldly goods confiscated for victims and be compelled to work at something productive).
Squeamishness at such “slavery” is stupid. Instead of simply simmering criminals in a stewpot of advanced criminality to be eventually released as “better” criminals, at least some good might be reaped from them. Victims at least partially recompensed and penalties that touch the criminals where they hurt the most: their material possessions. (Heck, if a few families of murderers were thrown into poverty, perhaps more folks would look out for themselves by keeping track of the creeps in their own households).
Oh, and executions ought to be very, very public. Like presidential speeches, preempting public broadcasts; heck, overriding cable. If we as a society are going to kill killers, we ought to do it out in the open.
*Execution ought to serve two legitimate functions:
1. Punishment for the crime that is harsh enough to give those who are contemplating the same errors in judgement second thoughts and
2. Removal of corruption of the gene pool, corruption of society, a cleansing process if you will.
**“lawyers’ pockets”–yeh, a murderer who’s convicted? Seize his lawyer’s fees as forfeit to the victim’s family. Greedy sonsabitches who defend murders ought not to profit. Oh, you think that’d lead to lawyers refusing to take such clients? Tough. Let ’em eat cake. I do not flippin’ care.