I oppose the death penalty. But I don’t oppose it in principle; there are behaviors for which it seems some should be put to death. I do oppose it in practice though; for three reasons. First, it costs more to use the death penalty than life without parole. Second, there is the well known chance of error. We surely don’t want to punish an innocent person and even more don’t want to execute anyone who doesn’t deserve it. Third, something that doesn’t get attention; even in the most ideal circumstance where there would be no chance of error, we should not use the death penalty. In a case in which everyone knows the accused is guilty, the accused admits it, there are no unanswered questions and the criminal is competent and completely responsible for his/her actions, there is a problem . . . and this problem may be insurmountable. It is the effect that implementing the death penalty has on the non-criminal members of society. So hypothetically, there could be circumstances in which I would say a person should be put to death. In principle I would admit it’s right, but in practice I could not support its implementation because of the damaging effects to those participating in the deed.
I want to preface this exploration by saying, I respect the fact that a person who has personally experienced the trauma of crime will have a view that others will not, and cannot, have. I am not trying to take away from or diminish the feelings of any victim of crime or any desire for retribution. I would just like to present some points for consideration as our society has and will continue to wrestle with the ethics of this matter. How we collectively deal with the death penalty has a direct bearing on people’s lives, both the ethical and the criminal in our society. And if it’s not obvious in my writing, I’m not trying to defend the properly convicted criminal. I am trying to defend the innocent—on both sides of the law. The bottom line being, wrong choices in this matter are disastrous. As it stands now, when errors are made, innocent lives may be ruined. And even if there were no errors in convicting and punishing criminals, innocent lives would still be damaged.
I am strongly convinced, based on justice, fairness and cost, we can reach and maintain the goal of the justice system without the death penalty; therefore without the risk of executing an innocent person and without burdening the good people in society with such an egregious task. Furthermore, eliminating capital punishment would eliminate the additional expense of billions of dollars as the conviction process is even more critical.
Maimonides said “It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent man to death.” I think we can take that one notch higher by not requiring the good citizens of our communities to participate in the death penalty process.
Most likely we all agree on one thing, the horrible crimes some people commit are beyond our capacity to comprehend. The thought of these revolt and sicken a normal person. Just hearing about them has scarred some of us for life. Consequently, to consider the elimination of the death penalty is asking a lot, from anyone. But this is one of those things we really need to get right.
Emotion plays a big part in our reaction to violent crime; as retribution does to our judgment of what should be done about it. To rationally examine such an emotional subject is difficult. To do this we must consider, detached from the emotional component of violent crime, the goal of the penal system. I hope to explore this subject with sufficient objectivity to determine if we are doing the right thing when executing another. In light of the fact, innocent fellow humans are convicted and executed; we must continue to address this flaw in our society until it is corrected. Lives depend on it!
This is a complex issue. In fact so much so that only recently are we able to begin to grasp the complexity. Even now in the 21st century the factors affecting the commission of a crime and those affecting the proper resolution of a conviction are just barely on the radar screen. Once upon a time it was easy. If someone did something the majority, or those in power didn’t like . . . they were killed. In fact you could kill them any way you chose. As ‘fair’ punishment for crimes people have been: skinned, flayed, burned, boiled, drawn, pressed, drowned, eaten, beheaded . . . you get the idea. There seems no end to what humans will think up and inflict on others in the quest for justice, perhaps more to the point—retribution.
Also beyond my capacity to understand is the way people have historically acted about executions, and gruesome sights in general. Exactly what is being revealed about the minds of some people when you consider the ambiance created by complete strangers gathering to see someone executed? Or what should we think of those who choose to be and are executioners? It may be very revealing for psychologists to study some of these aspects of human nature.
It wasn’t until well into the Age of Reason that our attitudes regarding the death penalty started changing significantly. And it is only in the last few hundred years that the idea of long term incarceration in prison as punishment developed. Prior to this development, jails were more of a temporary holding area where people were detained until trial or execution. In those days not only was it easy, it was cheap. Exorbitant cost in the justice system is relatively new.
The changes in attitude in the last couple centuries toward criminals and punishment have realized improvements in the penal system. There is a lot to do yet, but we have climbed up from what appears to me to have been a cesspool of demented, superstitious, black-hearted pseudo-humans. Incidentally this string of adjectives isn’t describing the criminals, but those exacting horrible atrocities under the guise of justice, law and religion.
Today it costs a lot more to manage a death penalty homicide case than a non-death penalty case, and this is due to human diligence, within and without the system, trying to eliminate irredeemable errors. The proportionally greater cost for maintaining the death penalty, assuming the needs of the justice system may be met without it, affords sufficient justification for abolishing the death penalty. In researching this part of this subject it appears that 1 to 1.5 million dollars per execution is common, with some going much higher. A death penalty case contrasted with the cost of a LWOP (life without parole) case is as much as 70% more. With over 3200 people on death row in the U.S. this quickly becomes billions of dollars that could be put toward much better use. But this is strictly a financial consideration by which one could reasonably justify abolishing the death penalty. Since some people think that retribution is justifiable regardless of the exorbitant cost, I will explore the question from a moral perspective.
Some of the important questions I hope to answer in this essay are: What is justice in a case of criminal homicide? What does the notion of justice demand of us; and what does ethical propriety allow us? Once we identify the answers to these questions, we can answer the question this essay is concerned with:
Should we abolish the death penalty?
In my quest to find the ‘right’ answers to this question I have read other’s arguments. Some of these are well articulated defenses of the death penalty. They contain the arguments of deterrence, justice and retribution. I understand these terms and had the typical attitude toward the death penalty before I started thinking very much about this subject.
An article that I read most recently was by a judge and it was quite convincing on an emotional level. He gave specific instances of gruesome crimes in meticulous detail. No doubt this works on a lot of people. Unfortunately, it is all the emotion stimulating information many people need to be convinced, even on matters of such importance that errors may cost innocent people their lives. Fact is, this style of argumentation stirs my emotions, but it is most important to try to consider this objectively. His method of argumentation fell mostly on the persuasion end of the argumentation spectrum, its goal to convince the audience. But with persuasion, it doesn’t matter if there is truth or if it is good for humanity. In this mode of argumentation a person is successful when they have convinced their audience of their perspective—period.
Here’s some I thought inadvertently, articulated how much dominion emotion has in this arena. “The rule of law does not eliminate feelings of outrage, but does provide controlled channels for expressing such feelings. As the Supreme Court has recognized, society has withdrawn, both from the victim and the vigilante the enforcement of criminal laws, but [it] cannot erase from people’s consciousness the fundamental, natural yearning to see justice done—or even the urge for retribution.” The urge for retribution is emotional, very emotional. It is the emotion-driven desire that someone be punished for perceived wrong-doing. And it is because of this very strong emotional response that we must use our intellect to properly control our actions regarding the administration of justice. The second one. As Professor Walter Berns has explained: “In a country whose principles forbid it to preach, the criminal law is one of the few available institutions through which it can make a moral statement …. To be successful, what it says—and it makes this moral statement when it punishes—must be appropriate to the offense and, therefore, to what has been offended. If human life is to be held in awe, the law forbidding the taking of it must be held in awe; and the only way it can be made awful or awe inspiring is to entitle it to inflict the penalty of death. This one decries the judgment of the thinkers in this country who choose not to mix religion and law. It seems readily evident that we would not benefit from a Pentecostal government using biblical texts to discern right from wrong to administer justice. It doesn’t take much imagination to figure out what the consequences of this could be.
There’s no doubt, if we make our choices from an emotional level we will have the death penalty. And from an emotional position it would then be easy to justify the most horrific techniques for killing violent criminals just as slowly as we can. But there is a problem with this notion; we have the ability to think rationally. And we need to continue to get better at it if we have any hopes of a better culture for ourselves and posterity.
My preferred method of argumentation is nearer the opposite end of the argumentation spectrum—truth seeking. The best goal is always to arrive at the truth. In this mode I am successful when I have tested my beliefs against relevant information. I am not trying to convince anyone . . . except myself. For this reason I encourage argumentation about life’s important issues; it forces me to evaluate my beliefs. I am glad to consider other ‘truths’ in the process of trying to find whatever is closest to the actual truth, and I invite others to do likewise.
The death penalty has been around since the early days. There is record of it from at least Draco’s time, around 621 BCE. Apparently Draco was an ardent fan of the death penalty and applied it to pretty much all crimes, hence the term draconian. Proponents will suggest that the death penalty has some credibility just because it has been around throughout history (appeal to tradition) and most people have supported it. But the fact that it has been around for a long time has absolutely no bearing on whether it is right or whether we should maintain it.
We have responsibility to the present as well as the future. Bad or delayed choices now surely hurt these generations, but will also have detrimental effects on those coming. So, what is our responsibility to justice?
There is a lot to get right in a criminal case, and a lot that can go wrong. In capital cases this is even more so. When considering justice various facets are deemed important: retribution, rehabilitation, restoration, incapacitation and deterrence. Some of these are modern ideas (rehabilitation) and some ancient (retribution). The question before us is whether the death penalty is a legitimate choice for today’s population. So a major theme for this essay is ‘How do we best serve justice?” I want to consider this and more. There are facets of the justice system which aren’t accepted the same way they used to be e.g. retribution. And there are facets which just don’t seem to be considered at all e.g. what capital punishment does to the good people functioning as part of the system; employees, jurors, etc. In order to decide objectively whether the death penalty is right one must consider the goal of the justice system and the best way to accomplish that goal. Justice, by dictionary definition, must be considered from a moral perspective as well as a legal one. ‘Administration of the law; moral rightness.’ My goal, and my plan, is to cover enough of the subject matter to make my point—so I will not try to cover all aspects of justice or all of the facets of the death penalty.
In a death penalty case it must first be determined whether the suspect has committed the crime. And if so, it has to be decided to what degree the suspect would be responsible for his or her actions. Then the appropriate consequence of the crime would have to occur to satisfy the five facets mentioned previously: retribution, rehabilitation, restoration, incapacitation and deterrence, of meeting out justice.
Just as important, we need to consider what society needs to get out of this process. First, we want to know we’re doing the right thing. We also need to feel a sense of safety. And we need to know we’re improving the present and the future for those we want to protect. Then, we would want to get on with our lives.
Finally, we have to ask if society has any responsibility for the behaviors of these criminals—and if so what we need to change. The United States is at the top of the list for homicides in the world. Some claim there are reasons for this: poverty, prejudice, ignorance, violent entertainment, consumerism, drugs, alcohol, diet and many more. Considering this, if we really want to improve, we will need to remedy the flaws in these conditions.
Each of these are important points in a just society. And as we consider whether the death penalty should be abolished, each point, being integral to the success of the process, bears on this question.
WHAT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO THE ACCUSED?
Properly determining a person’s innocence or guilt is paramount. If this can’t be done then any decisions based on this part of the process are suspect, in fact not legitimate. Anything that jeopardizes the integrity of this part of the criminal justice system renders it all ineffective. And there are plenty of obstacles to getting this part right:
- Mistaken eyewitness testimony
- Coerced verdicts, false concordance
- Inadequate legal representation
- Police and prosecutorial misconduct
- Perjured testimony
- Prejudice
- Suppression and/or misinterpretation of mitigating evidence
- Community/political pressure to solve a case
At this stage of the criminal justice process errors start costing innocent people their lives. The statistics indicate that the error rate is significant. And when you consider the possibility of executing an innocent person, one mistake is too much. There have been approximately 138 people released from prison since 1973 because of exonerating DNA evidence. This doesn’t bode well for the way people have been prosecuted in the past. This leaves us with another troubling fact—there are a lot of people in prison who can’t be helped because there is no biological evidence in their cases. It also forces us to ask, how many of the cases tried without biological evidence are incorrect? And . . . how many innocent people have died because of errors in the process? DNA tests will no doubt make the results of trials better, but cases which have biological evidence are the small minority.
I realize there is a dilemma here that has to be the source of indescribable frustration, anguish, and anger. That is, when not able to adequately prove guilt—having to release someone who may be guilty. This comes down to trashing the rights of society in favor of the rights of an individual. This is surely one of those ineffable situations—anguish and anger just don’t get it, but the philosophical position which seems to make the most sense is to support the rights of the individual. No reasonable human being wants an innocent person to suffer, so this must be done right.
In a study by Wells (1998) they examined the first 40 cases in which DNA exonerated wrongfully convicted people. Mistaken eyewitness identification played a major role in 90% of these cases. Ninety percent! That is almost every case in this particular sample. Interestingly, as far back as 1896 psychologist Albert Von Schrenk-Notzing claimed that a witness testifying about a crime would not be able to sufficiently distinguish between what they had seen and what had been reported in the press.
Today’s science admits of cognitive errors in the trial process. A study (cited in Loftus and Doyle, 1992) recorded verdicts in mock trials with two separate sets of jurors. They each heard evidence differing only in the presence, or not, of an eyewitness. With no eyewitness, 18% of jurors found guilty verdicts. With an eyewitness the guilty verdicts increased to 72%. From this example it is evident that jurors, and others, give unprecedented credibility to eyewitness accounts. And this is easy to understand when considering the circumstance. A witness, presumed to have pertinent knowledge and sworn to truth, responds to questions . . . albeit questions specifically designed to suit a particular purpose. Whether the line of questioning is designed to clear or designed to condemn the suspect—you can be sure the witness is being steered—just exactly where the questioner wants the witness, and the jurors, to go. Add to this the fact that people don’t naturally want the responsibility of making important decisions and you can be sure the outcome will be somewhat tainted—at least.
Psychologists have demonstrated that even educated people will knowingly answer incorrectly when it is apparent their (correct) response will be rejected in a particular situation. Experiments have shown intelligent people freely giving wrong answers when those before them gave the correct answers, but were told they were incorrect. This was only under the minimal pressure of university experiments, nothing like a criminal trial.
Is it possible to avoid bias when the suspect is accused of criminal activity by people, presumably interested in justice? Is it possible to avoid prejudice when the accused is from a different group: race, nationality or ethnicity? Once someone is charged with a crime can anyone avoid being prejudiced by that charge? It is plain the deck is somewhat stacked to begin with.
I should take a minute here to admit that if I were to have the unfortunate experience of losing someone to a violent crime I suspect I would vote for the death penalty and would want to be the executioner. But this doesn’t take anything away from the argument to abolish the death penalty. In those conditions my desire to slowly torture the criminal would be understandable. But I also suspect that if that were to happen I would, subject to strong emotions, have created my own terrible memories and the experience would have altered me in a way that would not be beneficial to me or society. I think it is reasonable to support this notion with fact that many come home from the military permanently damaged by what they have seen, and most importantly, according to psychologists, by what they have done. But the fact is I would be responding from an emotional place. This response wouldn’t even require thinking as I suspect it would take place at a level of mental processing which does not engage rational, controlled thought.
The fact that I would want to be the executioner is why we need to resolve the controversy over the death penalty. The situation is further complicated by the fact that some people have been scarred by violence and their perception of right and wrong is probably, likewise, scarred regarding decisions about punishment. And there are people making decisions about punishment who have not experienced the indescribable trauma that comes from being a victim. So how can we hope to ever reach a reasonable decision in how to manage this part of living in a world where awful things occur?
If we don’t believe a normal person is capable of beating an old person to death just for fun, then we have to admit, those who do so must be abnormal.
Once a person is convicted of a crime we must know whether the convicted individual was sufficiently, in the sense that a normal person would be, responsible for their action. Perhaps the consensus is that a criminal needs to die for what they did and we just don’t care about why. But if we do care about why, if we realize that it could be someone we care about being tried for a crime, then we need to find the correct answers.
The general notion has been that everyone, except for the very obvious exceptions, is responsible for their choices. So what about those with abnormal intelligence or abnormal morality? Should they be held to the same standards as those considered normal (the majority)? Environment, genetics and free will are all variables influencing the problems we must overcome regarding crime, particularly violent crime.
When dealing with criminal behavior, societies have proceeded from the assumption that people are completely responsible for their actions and deserve to pay for their violations of law and morality and thereby, based their penal systems on this assumption. But science seems to be confirming what some have suggested, that some people are incapable of understanding and controlling their horrific behaviors. If this is true we must decide how to deal with those who don’t fit into a reasonable definition of culpable with regards to their actions.
To avoid any misunderstandings about what I am saying, my position is—I want criminals out of society. I am just arguing that we need to change how we deal with them. As more is learned about the factors affecting a person’s ability or inability to discern, or do right or wrong, it is evident the system needs considerable change. In the areas of genetics, environment and free will a lot is being discovered. But it may be a long time before anything definitive can be said about free will. Consequently, being aware that there is real possibility that extended knowledge into these areas will change how the penal system works, we should be convinced to be cautious and to choose the course least likely to produce the undesired result of punishing innocent people. This is certainly our responsibility to the accused.
According to the experts genetics and environment are crucial in the proper development of a child’s brain and personality. Genetics go so far, then, the environment works to shape the child’s mind. It is believed that genetic influence reduces some people’s ability to control their emotions and their behaviors. And studies also seem to prove that what a child sees and hears and learns to believe, will have an effect on their decisions later in life. Weak family bonds, as well as financial instability, abuse and neglect are correlated with the development of aggressive and criminal tendencies. Proper environment is important for a child to develop into a normal adult.
Using four separate measures of antisocial behavior, including convictions for violent crime, the research team found that each measure was significantly increased in the group that had both low MAOA activity and a history of severe maltreatment. In contrast, for participants with high levels of MAOA, no significant increase was found in any of the antisocial measures, even when they had experienced the same level of maltreatment. The overall impact of this gene-environment interaction can be judged from the fact that the 12 percent of the cohort that had both low MAOA and maltreatment accounted for 44 percent of the cohort’s convictions for violent crime. Looked at somewhat differently, 85 percent of the males with both risk factors developed some form of antisocial behavior. ~Psychiatry Serv 56:25-27, January 2005
© 2005 American Psychiatric Association
From this research it is obvious that genetics and environment are important components in any argument about punishment. This notion has received attention from thinkers in history at least as far back as Aristotle, but seems to have had little impact on any penal system prior to the modern era. In fact it is only recently that the Supreme Court has taken action that provides some protection for the retarded.
No person shall be convicted, sentenced, or otherwise punished for any crime committed while suffering from a physical or mental disease, disorder or defect such that the disease, disorder or defect prevented that person from knowing the nature of the criminal act or that it was wrong.
Thus, the court said, the objectives of capital punishment – deterring murder and exacting retribution for it – do not apply to persons of well-below-average measured intelligence.
Although the notion of free will has been considered since ancient times it is only just becoming amenable to the scientific method—so even science is working on it. As our sciences improve we will be better able to answer such questions. But in the meantime we still need to avoid making irrevocable mistakes.
In criminal law it is presumed that behavior is a consequence of free will. For this reason it is, as a general rule, believed that severe punishment can deter crime.
With the modern day developments in neuroscience the concept of free will and responsibility for one’s actions have become real variables in the discussion about the death penalty, and punishment in general. It’s only within the last generation that states began to make laws prohibiting the execution of retarded people. Currently the decision on whether a person is retarded is based on I.Q. tests. Evidently it has been decided that a person’s ability to discern right from wrong is proportional to their ability to figure out puzzles in a test. It does raise a question though. Are there factors which adversely affect a person’s moral fitness without affecting their intelligence? There are terms in this argument which may not be familiar, such as moral retardation or moral imbecile, which figure prominently in what is important to this part of our understanding of what’s going on. Is it possible for a person to be intellectually normal and morally retarded? If so testing for intelligence alone isn’t sufficient.
On her view, an agent acts freely only if he had the ability to choose the True and the Good. For an agent who does so choose, the requisite ability is automatically implied. But those who reject the Good choose freely only if they could have acted differently. ~ Susan Wolf 1990
As I stated it may be a long time yet before the notion of free will is understood and we are able to determine whether or not a person acted of their own volition. To compare another’s actions to our own to determine if they are responsible for what they have done is not sufficient. Admittedly, this may have been the only metric available in the past; but now it is understood by science that there are things going on at the level of the mind which dictate different realities for some than for the ‘majority.’ The fact is another person may not understand that torturing someone is wrong or that it is hurtful. Or they may know it is wrong intellectually, but not know it is wrong emotionally. And tests have shown that when brain scans show specific activity for empathy in a normal person, the same test may reveal deficient activity in the brain of a convicted criminal. It seems apparent that the facts reveal an important point; some people may not get as much feedback from their brain regarding incorrect behavior as an animal may get. If some people are devoid of relevant brain functions how can we punish them? Perhaps they don’t know and can’t know—just as a shark can’t know. They absolutely need to be removed from society—permanently, but how can we justify making their life miserable, let alone killing them? This would seem to be the reasonable, rational position for a sophisticated society to take—until we know for sure.
WHAT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO SOCIETY?
The reality is that we have to deal with crime and criminals. But while dealing with this reality it is our responsibility to protect the good citizens of our communities as much as possible. So throughout the process of apprehending, convicting and punishing criminals we need a process that gives us a high level of assurance we have done what was needed to eliminate the threat to society and deter future crime. And we need to do this without damaging the good citizens of our communities so we can live with a clear conscience.
In all of the cases in which the condemned is to be punished for a crime, someone must apply the punishment. In our society those persons are not the people who are directly affected by the crime. In fact the law does everything it can to keep people who have a direct emotional attachment to the crime uninvolved. So people who are not affected directly by the crime make the decisions and apply the punishment. Ultimately, innocent people are drawn into the world and behaviors of criminals; and paradoxically, if you don’t go willingly, you may find yourself in contempt . . . then prosecuted—as a criminal!
What do these experiences do to us? What happens to a juror when they stand up in court and set the condemned on the path to their execution? What happens to an individual when they slip a noose over another’s head and pull the lever or push a button to deliver a dose of poison or thousands of volts of electricity? Some can’t forget the smell of burning flesh or the sounds of death. Do these individuals deserve this for some reason? What happens in the minds of police officers who line up five in a row and, from 25 feet away, shoot a condemned person who is securely strapped in a chair? I suspect something happens.
It’s long been accepted that military personnel returning from battle have been negatively altered by the experience of killing and seeing others killed—in fact, to the point that they take their own lives. There is every reason to suspect that normal people required to condemn others to death, and for some, to actually kill them, there is going to be a change—for the worse.
Psychologists offer an explanation for how humans try to deal with this.
The gravest moral predicament if faced by executioners who have to kill. Unless they suspend moral self-sanction for the intentional taking of a human life they would be burdened by a troublesome legacy. Zimbardo, Bandura and Osofsky examined, in three penitentiaries, the pattern of moral disengagement in three subgroups of prison personnel. Prison guards who had no involvement in the execution process exhibited little moral disengagement. Members of the execution team enlisted all the modes of moral disengagement.
‘People ordinarily refrain from behaving in ways that violate their core moral standards because such conduct will bring self-censure. In some institutional role functions, such as military combat and state executions, the taking of human life presents a grave moral predicament. Moral sanctions do not come into play unless activated, and there are a variety of psychosocial mechanisms by which such sanctions can be selectively disengaged from lethal conduct. Psychological mechanisms which allow us to suspend moral sanctions include; biblical imperatives, the notion of deterrence and protecting society. Euphemistic language sanitizes taking life as simply a legal penalty and comparison renders execution merciful when contrasted with heinous crimes.’ ~From Moral Disengagements in Executions, Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law.
I think we have to ask where the immorality is in the death penalty. Is it in putting criminals to death—or is it in requiring non-criminals to participate in the death penalty process? Perhaps both, but for me it is more important to consider the implications to the innocent people in our society. From the language used in the previous statements about moral disengagement it becomes evident that capital punishment is though by some to be immoral.
If in fact we are scarred by interacting with the violent criminal element in our society we must curtail this activity. Do we want bad people out of society? Yes! Do we want the memories and nightmares associated with killing someone? No! At least I don’t. So the only reasonable answer seems to be to remove the violent criminal from society permanently—without behaving in the way they do. Psychologists have determined that our behaviors modify our attitudes just as our attitudes modify our behaviors. So, if we accept this we don’t want to behave violently as we will be inclined then to think violently.
As Mahatma Gandhi said, “All crime is a kind of disease and should be treated as such.” Crime is a cancer. Increasingly research points to brain disorders in offenders. For instance, Dr. Stuart Yudofsky, Chairman, Department of Psychiatry, Baylor College of Medicine writes, “We view people who are violent in the same way we used to view people who were mentally ill. In the old days, schizophrenics, manic-depressives and others were thought to be bad people who had to be punished. When we reconceptualize violence as involving the brain, then we are really going to start making progress. The brain is left out of the whole paradigm in the criminal justice system. We got nowhere punishing mentally ill people and we’re getting nowhere with our population of criminals. We’re just building more prisons.”
DOES SOCIETY HAVE ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OCCURRENCE OF CRIME?
Finally, we have to ask if society has any responsibility for the behaviors of these criminals—and if so what do we need to change. The United States is at the top of the list for homicides in the world. Here is a sampling of some of the many factors that when combined can lead to criminal behavior: poverty, lack of education, genetic deficiencies, the desire for attention and recognition, a society that stresses consumerism and materialism, lack of values, sense of entitlement, lack of empathy and conscience, negative role models, availability of drugs and handguns, childhood neglect and abuse, unemployment, thrill-seeking to numb the pain caused by hopelessness, alienation, single parent home, neurochemical imbalances, physical and head injuries, toxic environment, pesticides in food, heavy metals and bacteria in water, food allergies and intolerances, birth trauma, mental illness, low I.Q., hormonal problems, peer pressure, victim of bullying, mineral and vitamin deficiencies, maternal smoking and drinking, alcohol and drug abuse, paranoia, premature birth, memory and behavior problems, learning disabilities, attention deficits, poor language skills, compulsions, speech and vision problems. If these factors can contribute to crime how many of them can we change? How many should we change? There is little doubt, we have a lot to do, because these are all factors we have to take responsibility for. To add to this list I should mention violent media and in particular violent games.
PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) seldom results in violent criminal acts, and US Bureau of Justice Statistics research indicates that veterans, including Vietnam veterans, are statistically less likely to be incarcerated than a nonveteran of the same age. The key safeguard in this process appears to be the deeply ingrained discipline which the soldier internalizes with military training. However, with the advent of interactive “point-and-shoot” arcade and video games there is significant concern that society is aping military conditioning, but without the vital safeguard of discipline. There is strong evidence to indicate that the indiscriminate civilian application of combat conditioning techniques as entertainment may be a key factor in worldwide, skyrocketing violent crime rates, including a sevenfold increase in per capita aggravated assaults in America since 1956. Thus, the psychological effects of combat can increasingly be observed on the streets of nations around the world.
In conclusion, this subject is considerably more nuanced and complex than I imagined when I started this essay. And it is obvious that today’s sciences dealing with the mind are insufficient to answer some of the questions which need to be answered, but our knowledge is significantly improved in the last century. Hopefully some day we will have the answers and the wisdom to effect meaningful change. But there is no doubt that we could make vast improvements with the knowledge we have now, if we want to.
I know I haven’t touched on all the important questions, to do so would fill a book. But for the purpose of determining and expressing my position on this matter I think I have broached some of the more obvious points to consider.
Again, I think it is important to reiterate, our lack of change or lack of ability to implement the right solutions will continue to cost people too much—both those falsely accused and those required to participate in an unnecessary part of the legal system.