Skip to main content

Is America going to start punishing criminals for crimes they theoretically might commit in the future?

There is an OUTRAGEOUS story at the website , "Should Prison Sentences Be Based On Crimes That Haven’t Been Committed Yet?" that tells us that in Pennsylvania convicted criminals’ sentences will soon, in significant part, be based on an evaluation of what their future likelihood is of committing additional crimes.

On the face of it, the outrageous element of this development may not be obvious. Perhaps everywhere in the United States convicted criminals are evaluated in the sentencing phase based not only on the crime(s) of their current conviction, but on their record of prior crimes.

But sentencing recommendations based on a sense of a man’s future crimes becomes a case of harming him, imprisoning him, for something he hasn’t done.

In Pennsylvania, soon, they hope to essentially live the plotline of the Philip K. Dick short story "The Minority Report," that was made into a Stephen Spielberg movie starring Tom Cruise in 2002. In the movie people were snatched off the street and convicted for crimes an oracle divined that the people would commit in the future.

According to the article, "Pennsylvania is about to take a step most states have until now resisted for adult defendants: using risk assessment in sentencing itself. A state commission is putting the finishing touches on a plan that, if implemented as expected [in January, 2016], could allow some offenders considered low risk to get shorter prison sentences than they would otherwise or avoid incarceration entirely. Those deemed high risk could spend more time behind bars."

The article tells us that states across the country do create "risk assessments" on those convicted of crimes to better understand the criminal as a person who might potentially commit other criminal acts after being released from jail or prison. Conservatives and many liberals are keen on these assessments because (1) they can save taxpayer dollars if the psychology of a criminal is understood; (2) it can provide information about a program of some sort that could aid the offender, putting him on a path toward becoming a wholesome, productive citizen and (3) it can be used as a statistical tool to deter future crime.

An episode titled "When Data tells us to Lock Someone Up" of the FiveThirtyEight podcast series "What's the Point?" gets into some of the hard questions about this development.

We are told that an exquisite amount of past data on criminals has now been amassed to to make these "risk assessment tools" very predictive.of a person's future conduct. One element that the podcast mentions is the gender of the criminal. Since men are significantly more likely to re-offend than women, the tool would require that men be dinged with more-harsh punishment to some degree as a result. Other negative factors on the tool include: if you're under 25 years of age; dropped out of high school; are unemployed; moved recently; or live in a neighborhood that has a high crime rate.

While race isn't explicitly used in these risk assessment tools, it does come into play indirectly as a result of some of the questions asked. For example, blacks are more likely to be stopped by the police; blacks are more likely to live in high-crime neighborhoods; thus, blacks will end up being punished more harshly for theoretical future crimes than white criminals.

Of course, too, many many people have factors about them that might well suggest they will commit crimes in the future, but they are atypical of other people much like themself. Every person is unique, after all, with some folks being completely unpredictable in both good ways and bad ways.

Punishing people for crimes they only, theoretically, might commit would be a gargantuan injustice -- the ultimate injustice -- it seems to me.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder expressed his concern before he left office about six months ago, responding to the increased interest in risk-assessment tools by acknowledging that the "'Big Data' movement" has the potential to "make our system far more effective than it is today." But he also expressed concern that these tools "may exacerbate unwarranted and unjust disparities." Indeed, those who benefit from "low risk" diversion may be disproportionately white white-collar criminals. [Source for Holder's comment comes from the Baltimore Sun.]

There's another element to this story that needs to be mentioned: a class of criminal that already is punished in advance for crimes not yet committed. I'm referring to persons convicted for sexual abuse of children. While it gets scant attention, the number of homeless men in Sacramento with convictions for sexually abusing children is very substantial. Perhaps 1/3rd to 1/2 of men who come to the Union Gospel Mission each evening for some combination of chapel, dinner, a shower, and/or a bed for the night is a convicted pedophile. These fellows, typically, have to wear an ankle bracelet at all times and -- if they are in probation (and sometimes, even when they're not) -- they are very restricted on where they can go, and where they can reside.

For all the many evenings I used the mission's services -- which included attending a chapel service over 1000 different times -- I cannot ever recall a single time when pedophilia was addressed by a preacher. I am told, however, that guys in the mission's rehab program who are pedophiles are confronted with their history as child abusers and are pressured to reform their evil desires and evil ways.

Because protecting children is of incredibly high importance, I understand why there are measures that restrict convicted pedophiles from being near children  Still, I am conflicted on this matter since punishing anyone for something they haven't yet done -- or, maybe, will never do -- seems insane. One guy from the mission told me his conviction for sexual contact with a child was twenty years ago and that he recognizes how terrible and stupid what he did was. Still, he is set to need to register on the sexual-abuse-of-children list for the rest of his life.


Popular posts from this blog

More Homeless Hate from Marcos Breton

There was a long spell a handful of years ago when Marcos Breton said something so fully ridiculous in one of his hateful screeds against homeless folk that it appeared to be very apparent he had been taken off the Homeless Beat by his superiors. Unhappily, after a few months, Breton was again writing disparaging columns about homeless folk

In today's Bee [3/5/17], Breton has written one of his longest columns. Online, it is titled "The price downtown Sacramento is paying for Mayor Steinberg’s homeless crusade
Read more here: It goes on for days. The message, essentially, is this: Homeless people poop; they're getting a great deal of what they want from the overmuch-helpful mayor; and business people proximate to Chavez Park are made miserable by the forever-disgusting homeless that are there in great number.

O.K. Let's get into all this a bit. Except in Breton's mind, homeless pe…

The first-person dimension of homeless Sacramentans suffering from Schizophrenia

"Disabilities and dysfunction process from having been shunned and denied access to needed opportunitites and networks of support."
~ the brothers Lysaker in Schizophrenia and the Fate of the Self What is schizophrenia? How many are homeless Sacramentans?

Perhaps 15% of the Sacramento homeless population suffers from schizophrenia. The percentage is difficult to determine for many reasons that branch from both the fuzzy definition of the malady and that many people within the homeless community who have the illness (1) are in denial and are undiagnosed and (2) have the illness as a diagnosis only – the disability can be faked by people who are successful claimants of social security and other benefits.

What is schizophrenia? One webspace gives us this definition: The most chronic and disabling of the severe mental disorders. Typically develops in the late teens or early twenties. The overt symptoms are hallucinations (hearing voices, seeing visions), delusions (false beliefs ab…

Homelessness and Remembrance

This is a follow-up on the matter of remembering homeless people who have died and the Wall that Libby Fernandez wants to build in remembrance of the deceased. [See earlier blogpost "Tell Libby NOT to build her wall."]

This blogpost is prompted by a Philosophy Bites podcast released in the last couple days -- titled "Cécile Fabre on Remembrance." Fabre's take on why we honor or grieve for certain individuals or certain collections of individuals is not greatly helpful -- since his focus is mainly one of fallen war heroes and war casualties -- but it does open up the issue of why should there be a remembrance effort for deceased homeless people at all. Who is served by it? And has the effort been perverted by the avarice of charities in their insatiable drive for donations.

It is, for starters, a curious thing for "homeless people" to be a collective that is honored. I write that NOT because I don't want the best for homeless people. But, homelessn…