Radar,
A very nice and thoughtful response. I even agree with most of what you write. Ill go over our points of general agreement first and get to the spear-chucking at the end of my post. I will also get to the other respondants in a later post. All three raise some interesting issues that I need to think a bit more about.
First, I agree that our DEFINITION of crime needs to be addressed as a first step toward reducing the problem. I have argued for more years than most readers of the Archives have been alive that a victimless crime is, by definition, not a crime. Hurting oneself is not criminal behavior. Stupid maybe, but not criminal.
Prohibition led to the rise of organized crime and an increase in violence in American life. Drug laws have led to a dramatic increase in organized crime and a quantum jump in the violence involved. I have lobbied for years for change in our drug laws. They should not be illegal, but need to be regulated to keep them out of the hands of children who are not yet capable of making decisions on their use. I would also argue that tobacco and alcohol are very much over-regulated. And I do this despite being highly allergic to tobacco and marijuana smoke. Enough so that as a student in the 1960s I was unable to attend concerts or large parties because of my allergies. With modern antihistamines I still need to choose my venues carefully.
We have known how dangerous tobacco is for over a century. If anyone chooses to use it for the pleasure it brings, that is his or her own choice and, if old enough to make a reasoned decision, should not be regulated. I believe in the Darwin Awards. If someone makes a stupid decision that removes him or her from the gene pool, that is probably a benefit for all of humanity.
I generally agree, too, with your analysis of the social production of much of criminal behavior. Ive been actively lobbying on this for over 30 years. (Less time than Ive spent on drug and alcohol legislation.) If we can ever get a concerted action by society to work on education, family life, values, etc. we will be able to make a serious dent in criminal behavior. Optimistically, it will take at least a couple of generations, however, to make a real difference.
You mention matriarchal culture, welfare society, and lack of fathering as major vectors. There are certainly others which are important as well. Certainly an income structure which leaves some who are employed full-time in poverty needs to be addressed. The educational system needs serious revision. I would argue that over-population has already become a problem, and it likely to get far worse. Im sure that we could both come up with a number of other areas which need to be addressed if we are to reduce criminal behavior.
We will, however, still be faced with some criminal behavior. No matter what we do, there will still be embezzlement, burglary, and murder. For the generations required to eliminate most socially produced crime, we will still need to deal with criminals. How are we to handle this problem?
Removal from society is the only 100% certain way to eliminate recidivism. Life imprisonment and execution are the only sure ways to prevent criminals from more crime. Ive worked for years against the death penalty. I consider it to be state-sponsored murder. It is inhumane and is irreversible in case of error. (And there have certainly been many more errors than the state is willing to admit!)
If life imprisonment is the only 100% sure thing, what alternatives are statistically strong enough to be considered?
Rehabilitation works for some. The statistics are not encouraging but, then again, it has never been done to the extent possible. We have never been willing to put the time or resources really needed into any rehabilitation program. However, it probably only potentially works WELL for the same group that would be prevented from criminal behavior by social efforts. There will be an irreducible core, increasing in percentage (though falling in absolute numbers) were we to actually begin the social efforts which we agree are needed, which will not be amenable to rehabilitation.
Cross-cultural studies demonstrate that MOST crime (and especially most violent crime) is committed by males. Experiments show that females are more likely to respond well to rehabilitation. I believe that an all-out effort to reduce crime through social and education means would eliminate most female crime and the remaining female criminals would mostly be amenable to rehabilitation. This would leave us with a small, but mostly irreducible, core of mostly male offenders. What else do we experiment with?
This is where castration was proposed as a possibility. I agree that, for those capable of producing testosterone, the level changes according to social situation. Testosterone is not the ONLY factor involved in aggressive behavior, but it is certainly an important factor. This is most clearly shown through animal analogues, but there is ample anecdotal evidence for humans as well. The eunuchs famed for military prowess (such as Narses) were strategists, not involved in hand-to-hand combat.
We certainly need to improve efforts at rehabilitation. Should we ALSO allow convicted criminals to elect castration as a way to obtain release from prison?
California already allows convicted pedophiles to elect castration (at their own expense and not using a surgeon connected with the prison system) and to consider that, together with rehabilitation efforts, in determining parole. Because of the difficulties imposed, I know of only two men who have managed to obtain castration. Only one has been released so far. This is far too small a sample to provide any evidence of success or failure of the program.
Should the experiment be continued? Should it be made simpler for convicted pedophiles to elect castration? Should choice to elect castration be expanded to those convicted of other crimes? Is it more or less humane to allow someone to chose to be castrated in hopes of being released from prison?
Your turn for spear-throwing
.
