Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece From: preece@uicsl.UUCP Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: 60 Minutes on Rape - (nf) Message-ID: <5352@uiucdcs.UUCP> Date: Fri, 3-Feb-84 23:16:47 EST Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.5352 Posted: Fri Feb 3 23:16:47 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 8-Feb-84 05:39:59 EST Lines: 67 #R:houxu:-28800:uicsl:16400038:000:3649 uicsl!preece Feb 3 14:05:00 1984 There has be a personal price to pay for this and other criminal acts. People who rape should pay for it. Giving them drugs for their crime is a reward, not a punishment. ---------- I can't agree. In an ideal world there would be no punishment, only adjustment. The problem is making the adjustment without otherwise changing the person. If it were possible to magically adjust the rapist's mind so that he or she recognized the horror of the act and acquired society's view of it, then there would be no point to punishment. If the anti-social person could be made pro-social, punishment would be simple revenge and unworthy of society. Unfortunately, we cannot make such adjustments without drastic alteration of other aspects of the individual criminal's personality. Our respect for the individual prohibits such changes (at least on an involuntary basis) as cruel and inhuman punishment. If someone raped my daughter, I would probably want to kill him, whether or not he could be socialized. On the other hand, if an elephant stepped on her, I would probably want to kill the elephant. If it were possible to cure the anti-social parts of the criminal's personality, then my response in either case is irrational and unjustified. The rape is an accident and not the 'fault' of anyone. [Yes, Laura, I know we should make people more responsible; what I'm saying is that if someone is NOT responsible, and could be made to be so, that would be better for society than punishing him for his prior actions. I don't pretend we have the ability to do this today, and I don't think the testosterone business is proven. I don't think it unreasonable to say that someone's anti-social behavior represents society's failure rather than his own; in the current world that may not mean anything -- we may need to isolate such persons from society for the safety of the rest -- but if it were possible to provably and accurately eliminate the anti-social aspects of the person, the view that society is responsible for the irresponsible would mandate a significant change in treatment.] I don't claim I could be rational in the event, but I do believe strongly that society should be rational beyond the ability of its individual members. Society doesn't let me shoot someone as revenge and it shouldn't seek vengeance itself. {Please, people, don't write and tell me that I'm urging 1984 or Brave New World on us. I'm speaking of ideals and underlying assumptions, not of anything remotely possible today. I realize the danger of changing individuals to avoid the anti-social; sometimes we need the anti-social. On the other hand, prison seems barbaric and counter-productive. I just don't believe in vengeance, whether on the individual or societal level.] Consider, in closing, an analogy. Suppose it became possible to fix near-sightedness. You would not expect the cured patient to go on wearing glasses. Yet those who support the verdict "guilty but mentally ill" say that we should first cure the subject and then punish him or her for what was done before. That's dumb and spiteful, ASSUMING that we can accurately say that the suspect (1) was not responsible for the act and (2) is cured. I don't think we can say the latter with any assurance in most cases, and the former makes me nervous. That's the framework I want to be interpreted in: the assumption that we can really and truly fix the criminal's behavior. I'm not sure that will ever be generally possible, it's just the basis for my response to the notion that the criminal should be punished even if a cure is possible. scott preece ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece