Human dignity and incarceration
What’s the difference between torture and thirty years behind bars?
The vagueness of the term “human dignity” is matched only by its importance. It serves, in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and many national constitutions, as the source or justification of individual rights. Dignity, at its core, relates to the notion that humans are incredibly special creatures, such that they must be treated with a certain (high) amount of respect and concern. From carbon, dust, etc. emerge these conscious, wondrous beings. Jeremy Waldron, political philosopher at NYU Law, has argued that dignity entails granting each person a very high social status or standing, along the lines of that accorded to European nobility in earlier centuries.
The content and details of this respect and concern will depend upon how a community fills in the details of the concept of dignity. That is, what the community believes it owes its members will depend upon why they believe people are special and worthy. So, in a liberal society, we think that one especially value-laden facet of people is their autonomy, their ability to make moral choices, their ability to make life-plans and carry them out, etc. To respect someone’s dignity, then, means enabling their autonomy or possibly not infringing it to some unspecified degree.
For dignity to gain analytical traction it has to mean something more than autonomy-and I think that is the case. Many people think, for instance, that one should not be able to freely choose slavery, since slavery compromises one’s dignity. In that case, free choice (autonomy) is at odds with dignity. There is also a famous French and European case where a judge ruled that dwarf tossing (exactly what it sounds like) was illegal because it infringed upon the dignity of the dwarf, even though the dwarf consented to (and was paid for) the experience. The slavery example is better.
How young is too young for a life sentence?
We’ve addressed the issue of punishment and imprisonment numerous times, for example here. The focus, however, has tended to be on punishment and the old or terminally ill. The Washington Post has an article today on the Supreme Court’s decision to consider the constitutionality of sending youth to prison for life. Huge moral questions here about the age at which humans become morally responsible (we’ve addressed this in the past too). The Supreme Court has already ruled that kids cannot get the death penalty. Is a life sentence much different? What do you think? Assuming life sentences are justified, how old is old enough to be sentenced to life in prison?
-Marc
School daze
Zero-tolerance, zero clarity
Last week, I wrote about the battle between local and federal control over schools when it comes to reform. Another related issue recently in the limelight has been the rise of zero-tolerance weapon policies in schools and their unintended consequences. After the rash of school shootings in the late 1990s, many school districts adopted zero-tolerance policies. Irrespective of intent, the possession of weapons such as knives and guns spelled expulsion or suspension.
Today’s New York Times tells the story of Zachary Christie. Only six years old, he brought a “3-in-one” fork, knife, and spoon silverware set used for camping to school. Now he faces a disciplinary hearing that could result in a 45 day suspension.
The current debate has focused on the practical consequences of zero-tolerance policies. At a time when school violence has dropped across the board, expulsions and suspensions are way up all over the country–leading many to suggest that the most at-risk students are put at even greater risk as they exit the system. African-American students have been hit especially hard.
Whether or not they work, are zero-tolerance policies ethical?
Coates on capital punishment
In his Atlantic blog, Ta-Neishi Coates offers a thought-provoking take on the death penalty. He argues that the behavior of criminals illustrates how mankind and human nature is far from perfect; and only underscores how misguided it is to think humans can be trusted to handle the awesome responsibilities that are intrinsic in capital punishment.
I think there’s this presumption that people who are anti-death penalty get their out of some sympathy for criminals, or some wide-eye naivete. Maybe some people get there that way. I came up in an era where young boys thought nothing of killing each other over cheap Starter jackets. I don’t have any illusions about the criminal mind. I don’t believe in the essential goodness of man–which is exactly why I oppose the death penalty.
–Luke
Skirting the real question
David Broder writes out against individual accountability for potential Bush-era abuses. He’s not standing with those who defend the alleged practices, just worried the costs are too high:
In times like these, the understandable desire to enforce individual accountability must be weighed against the consequences. This country is facing so many huge challenges at home and abroad that the president cannot afford to be drawn into what would undoubtedly be a major, bitter partisan battle over prosecution of Bush-era officials. The cost to the country would simply be too great.
The problem with Broder’s reasoning is that’s it’s purely question begging. What, exactly, are the consequences? We didn’t drop the atomic bomb or intern Japanese-Americans during moments of leisure. Morally questionable actions usually take place because we’re facing challenges on multiple fronts.
That’s not to say Broder is wrong. The consequences of investigation and prosection of Bush-era authorizations may well outweigh the benefits. But that’s a conclusion, not a starting place.
–Sam
Lockerbie continued…
The Lede Blog reports that Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the man convicted in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing who was released by the Scottish government last week on “compassionate grounds”, was rushed to a Tripoli hospital on Sunday. Jake and I have written on punishment, the various arguments for releasing people from jail and, more recently, the al-Megrahi case. Sunday’s developments further underscore the considerations I raised.
-Marc
Releasing the terminally ill from prison
Last Thursday, the Scottish government released Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the only person convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, on “compassionate grounds.” El-Megrahi is terminally ill with prostate cancer and has only a few months to live. His release has created an international uproar, especially following the hero’s reception he received upon return to Tripoli. His situation raises an interesting normative question: should the terminally ill (or the very old) be released from prison in order to die at home? Read more
More on Michael Vick
The New York Times blog The Conversation has a thought provoking piece by Gail Collins and Ross Douthat about our attitudes towards Michael Vick. Collins mentions that while Michael Vick’s actions were certainly deplorable, we are less concerned over cruelty towards other types of animals. Read more
Should the NFL give Michael Vick a second chance?
Life, learning and football
Since we’ve been writing a lot about punishment lately, it’s worth taking up the case of former Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick. Recently released after an 18-month stay in federal prison for operating a dogfighting ring in his own home, Vick signed a contract last week with the Philadelphia Eagles.
Should Vick have the chance to play football again?
A Prisoner Dilemma
The justifications for punishment in California
The California budget crises led the 9th Circuit to order the State to reduce its prison rolls by 40,000 inmates. There are generally four justifications for imprisonment and its interesting to see how this order might mesh with them.
1. Incapacitation. Keep criminals off the streets, thereby lowering crime.
2. Retribution. Criminals deserve the punishment.
3. Rehabilitation. Doing time can reform the criminal mind.
4. Deterrence. Imprisonment deters future criminals.
Looking at each category individually might reveal certain groups of prisoners especially eligible for release.
Share us