Post No.: 0996
Furrywisepuppy says:
Many people have served time despite being innocent, or for what would be regarded as legal actions in other countries like speaking against an oppressive government. Some innocent people have given false confessions in return for lighter sentences. We cannot truly know how many false convictions or acquittals there have ever been. But, arguably, most verdicts can be deemed to be reasonable under the circumstances because those cases with very weak evidence tend to be quickly dropped and those with very strong evidence tend to be plea-bargained.
The hindsight bias may goad us into believing that a judge or jury had acted negligently if it was later proven that a faulty verdict was dealt. (Post No.: 0989 compared bench and jury trials.) But almost everything appears obvious with hindsight. Visual reconstructions (e.g. an animation of a vehicle crash presented in the media) can increase this bias. We’re inclined to overestimate how much we thought we knew what the right answer was before we knew what the right answer was, but only once we’ve been told what the right answer was! Everyone likes to think they knew the correct prediction to something beforehand – at least somewhere deep within their intuitions – but only once the outcome has been confirmed. And not only does knowing the actual outcome increase people’s beliefs about the inevitability of that outcome, they’re unaware that their judgements are being affected by this bias.
Thinking through the counterfactuals (all the other probable ways that the events could’ve played out, or the alternative hypotheses) might help reduce this bias – such as by imagining that the accused was guilty and then considering any reasons why this might be true, and then imagining that the accused was not guilty and then considering any reasons why that might be true.
The hindsight bias is notoriously difficult to overcome even when it’s explained to us but ruminating over some counterfactuals whenever we make an important judgement can help us make better decisions. We need to question our own beliefs and conclusions. Woof!
…Sentencing a convicted criminal serves to protect the public, rehabilitate the offender, administer accountability, amongst other aims. And the judge takes into account the facts established by the jury, as well as the offender’s history, mental state, prospects for rehabilitation, character evidence, any remorse, the nature of the crime committed, any aggravating or mitigating factors, the maximum penalty and guidelines, any sentencing precedents, and whether the punishment fits the crime and is consistent with the verdict.
Sentencing can come in the form of imprisonment, followed by a period of parole or supervised release, or probation like house arrest or community service. There could also be fines and/or any collateral consequences of criminal conviction and losses of privileges or rights (e.g. driving, voting, government benefits, being put on a sex offenders register) depending on the jurisdiction and crime.
For murder, a ‘life sentence’ has a chance of parole after a minimum term has been served. A ‘whole life order’ does not, unless the appropriate Secretary of State grants a ‘pardon’ on compassionate grounds.
The public typically perceives that the sentences dealt for crimes are too lenient. Moreover, the less information people are given or know about an offence, the more severe they think the sentence should’ve been – possibly due to relying on stereotypes; along with recalling the most common cases reported in the media, which tend to over-report and over-represent, especially on television, particularly violent and therefore attention-grabbing ‘newsworthy’ crimes. This makes violent crime and the threat of it towards society seem more commonplace than it actually is (the availability heuristic) hence harsher punishments are deemed necessary to deter it. Also, it’s like in general – the less we know (apart from knowing nothing), the more we tend to possess more forthright and extreme opinions regarding complex and emotive matters i.e. a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing when we aren’t humble enough to be mindful that what we know could be only a fuzzy little, because we don’t know what we don’t know, which could be vast amounts about a particular subject, case or individual.
People also generally have an inaccurate perception of how severe the sentencing decisions imposed by the courts are (e.g. by thinking that prison life is easy). There’s a basic lack of information about the factors that are, and are required to be, considered during sentencing decisions; and since the media seldom reports on all of these types of factors, people reading media reports of sentencing decisions tend to be less satisfied with the sentences dealt. Those who weren’t there for an event can often be the harshest critics of all about that event! Meanwhile, in studies, when people are given access to all of the information that judges have, and have an input into determining sentencing decisions – the public would generally actually award lighter sentences than judges for the same types of crimes.
Whether the sentencing decisions dealt are considered reasonable given the competing goals they aim to satisfy is one thing – but whether these punishments and/or interventions are effective at meeting these goals, and most crucially of all effective in preventing recidivism, along with understanding why people offend in the first place, is another set of considerations. Perhaps a restorative justice approach is the best answer?
One could utilise statistical data and risk assessments to assess the probabilities or risk of an offender towards public safety. Naturally this won’t work 100% of the time because there’ll always be individuals who behave outside of the expected odds, and correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causation – but this should result in a better chance of reducing court non-appearances, recidivism and the risk to public safety compared to guessing or relying on gut instincts by police when detaining suspects before trial, or by judges when handing out sentencing decisions.
So data (e.g. on the current charge, any prior convictions (and what these were), any prior failures to appear in court) could be used to see if the punishment dealt, and the resources spent, on a suspect or lawbreaker are appropriate according to their future risk towards the public. For example, should a homeless person who only stole a few blankets on a cold day or some other low-risk offender be treated the same as a murder suspect or a white collar criminal who has embezzled thousands of dollars on multiple occasions?
Young criminals, in particular, are often victims of something themselves, like broken families, poverty and low employment prospects. Victims of hate crimes can react violently towards their abusers. Radicalism can be in response to experiencing bigotry. Victims can thus turn into offenders hence we might need to account for these kinds of factors.
Laws aren’t ‘mind control mechanisms’ that stop people having criminal thoughts, or ‘force field barriers’ that stop people performing particular actions – so people can still freely commit crimes if they feel compelled or incentivised enough to. It’s like when Lisa Simpson told Homer that he couldn’t drive because he no longer had his driving licence – he said he’d try anyway (to start the car) and discovered, “It worked!”
The classical view in criminology assumes that humans are rational beings with free will who weigh up the benefits of committing a crime versus the costs of getting detected and punished for it – to ultimately maximise their gain and minimise their pain. So people will choose to commit a crime if they believe that the expected value of doing so is positive.
Meanwhile, the positivist stance states that humans aren’t always rational plus may commit crimes due to factors over which they don’t have full control. A wide range of academic disciplines, including biology, psychology and sociology, informs this stance, with theories like ‘social strain theory’ (how social structures may pressure individuals into committing crimes), ‘social disorganisation theory’ (how the weakening of traditional social, community bonds increases the likelihood of crime within a neighbourhood) and ‘labelling theory’ (how just labelling certain groups as more likely to be criminal can increase their subsequent criminal behaviour).
History tells us that economic downturns, in conjunction with failures to provide adequate financial safety nets to vulnerable individuals and families through the welfare system, create a push factor for more youngsters becoming drawn to criminal careers.
Therefore stripping those who commit crimes like theft down to absolute poverty (i.e. leaving them with no home or even money for food) would not help to ‘teach them a lesson’. It’d only make them ever more desperate to steal. It would not be the kind of humane society we would want to live in anyway. There’s less need and thus desire to commit crime in general if one feels financially secure and content in other ways. That’s one reason why socio-economic factors correlate strongly with crime rates. The poor, stressed and desperate are more likely to commit crimes. Therefore if we reduce inequality and increase well-being, we can reduce crime.
If poverty, stress, a lack of social cohesion, and anger, can increase incidences of crime then perhaps the good feelings after a well-supported local sports team winning a trophy will reduce crime rates a little in that town/city? When people feel happy, there’s less need to feel aggrieved or seek ways to fulfil instant gratifications. This could be an interesting hypothesis to explore; albeit it’d only provide a fleeting effect even if true hence we’d still need more systemic improvements to reduce socio-economic inequality.
Therefore should everyone who breaks the law be treated as mere grubby criminals, or as criminals who are also victims of something unfortunate themselves, like exploitation when it comes to children being used as drug and money-laundering mules? Gangs often get these young people hooked on drugs or threaten their families with violence as a way to exert control over them, for instance. The extent to which an individual is recognised as being a victim, as well as an offender, can impact upon how they fare in the criminal justice system (e.g. regarding their sentencing, rehabilitation) and leave their criminal past behind them.
Shouldn’t politicians be tackling, at a policy and funding level, the socio-economic deprivation that statistically leads to why some neighbourhoods are more prone to lawbreaking activity than others? Shouldn’t the police be engaging within communities to try to intervene before those deemed most likely to get involved in crime do so (e.g. via life coaching)? How much power should the authorities have in ensuring people aren’t engaging in criminal activities too (e.g. by snooping into our private messages)?
We must naturally always consider and care for the victims of crime above all. However, a question is – why are some people more likely to become victims of crime than others?
‘Positivist victimology’ focuses on interpersonal crimes of violence and how victims may have contributed towards their own victimisation. It could be things that someone cannot really help, like their age, gender, ethnicity, loneliness and vulnerabilities; or things that they can, like their acquisitiveness.
‘Victim precipitation’ seeks to examine what specific victim actions or characteristics increase the risk of victimisation, like leaving valuables on display, quarrelsome proclivities, being inebriated or walking alone in the dark. Sometimes the victim is the first to show a deadly weapon or attempt to strike a blow during an altercation.
Even though one is better off being streetwise, and the statistics may indicate patterns of differences between victims and non-victims and this data can be evaluated to help prevent future occurrences of victimisation in a practical sense – this is hugely controversial due to the notion of ‘victim blaming’ i.e. perceiving that the victim is partly culpable for the crime too because of acts of commission/omission on their own part, be it regarding a homicide, rape or con for instance.
Woof. This topic presents a very juicy bone of contention thus you can reply to the tweet linked to the Twitter comment button below to elucidate your own opinions?
Comment on this post by replying to this tweet:
