Prisoners With Dementia

[pearl]

Once

 

[Alien826]

Why do we "punish" at all? What are we trying to achieve? Isn't punishment for children too young to develop the moral principles to regulate their own actions?

I believe it's simple vengeance, the satisfaction of hurting those who have hurt or annoyed us.
If we really wanted to reduce crime we'd reëducate/rehabilitate the criminals. We'd address the causes of crime, rather than just striking back at the criminals, however satisfying that may be.

If "correctional" institutions were really correctional, we'd have a lot less crime to be incensed about.

I was going to post something similar. Good thing I read on before I did.

In my view there are the following reasons for incarceration of criminals.

Protection of society.
Rehabilitation.
Deterrence of other would be offenders.

None of these involves revenge. Unfortunately, some offenders are so far gone, or so naturally aberrant that permanent confinement is (currently) the only option. That should not include deliberate abuse by the staff or other prisoners. If that is what prison is about, what kind of society are we?

Rehabilitation doesn't seem to have as much emphasis here (USA) as in some other countries, for example in Scandinavia.

As far as serial killers are concerned, it's difficult not to see them as mentally ill. What to do with that remains outside our current capabilities.

Something that has always bothered me and I'd appreciate comment, is the way sentencing involves the victim and/or his relatives testifying to how much they were affected by the crime. With full sympathy for the victims of crime, I fail to see how the punishment for say murder should be based on how many relatives the victim has. It seems that it would make sense for a murderer to seek out unmarried orphans as victims.

 

[John53]

Who else will care for them?

I don't know. Family or aged care facilities like we do for most people with dementia?

I think we took on that responsibility as a society when we decided to imprison them for life. A sort of weird twist on, "you break it you own it".

Yes, it's a little ironic. Or maybe it should go into the "seemed like a good idea at the time" category.

 

[John53]

Why do we "punish" at all? What are we trying to achieve? Isn't punishment for children too young to develop the moral principles to regulate their own actions?

I believe it's simple vengeance, the satisfaction of hurting those who have hurt or annoyed us.
If we really wanted to reduce crime we'd reëducate/rehabilitate the criminals. We'd address the causes of crime, rather than just striking back at the criminals, however satisfying that may be.

If "correctional" institutions were really correctional, we'd have a lot less crime to be incensed about.

I agree with everything you say but it doesn't solve the issue of how to handle ageing prisoners in the system we have.

 

[John53]

Something that has always bothered me and I'd appreciate comment, is the way sentencing involves the victim and/or his relatives testifying to how much they were affected by the crime. With full sympathy for the victims of crime, I fail to see how the punishment for say murder should be based on how many relatives the victim has. It seems that it would make sense for a murderer to seek out unmarried orphans as victims.

I can only go on what I've seen on TV but it seems to me the victim impact statements only use is to allow people to vent at the criminal. Or maybe a bit of public shaming.

 

[Valjean]

I was going to post something similar. Good thing I read on before I did.

In my view there are the following reasons for incarceration of criminals.

Protection of society.
Rehabilitation.
Deterrence of other would be offenders.

I think you left out #4: Assuage public ire -- to deter individual reprisals, vigilantes, and vendetta.
#1 & 2 are secondary concerns, IMHO.

The police/prison system is Big Business. It's about jobs and money. If it actually managed to rehabilitate, they'd have to start shutting down prisons, and that would never fly. In fact, with privatized prisons, the contract with the state always includes an occupancy percentage guarantee, usually ~95%. To avoid penalties, the state keeps those prisons filled -- by any means necessary.

As for protection, Authoritarian states, parties and and leaders probably prefer keeping the public a little nervous. A nervous public is infantalized, attracted to Strong Leadership and to simplistic explanations and solutions -- usually involving blaming an unpopular minority.
A nervous public is willing to cede power, accept "emergency measures," and uncritically follow.

None of these involves revenge. Unfortunately, some offenders are so far gone, or so naturally aberrant that permanent confinement is (currently) the only option.

Revenge, at least here in the US, is synonymous with justice.
Barely a day goes by that I don't see or hear something about "justice for" some aggrieved party.
Justice is an abstraction. You don't get justice, and there is no justice for a particular individual. Justice here has come to mean vengeance.

That should not include deliberate abuse by the staff or other prisoners. If that is what prison is about, what kind of society are we?

I worked for several years as an RN in the Jessup, Maryland prison system. We were taught that the punishment was the denial of freedom, and that staff were there to maintain order, not to inflict further punishment.

Rehabilitation doesn't seem to have as much emphasis here (USA) as in some other countries, for example in Scandinavia.

As far as serial killers are concerned, it's difficult not to see them as mentally ill. What to do with that remains outside our current capabilities.

Even if not technically "mentally ill," many offenders still exhibit contributory features like impulsiveness, high stimulus need, anger control issues, &c. Often these could be significantly reduced, with psychotherapy or surgery. For various economic and political reasons, though, this is rarely undertaken.

Something that has always bothered me and I'd appreciate comment, is the way sentencing involves the victim and/or his relatives testifying to how much they were affected by the crime. With full sympathy for the victims of crime, I fail to see how the punishment for say murder should be based on how many relatives the victim has. It seems that it would make sense for a murderer to seek out unmarried orphans as victims.

I agree. Same crime, different consequences. It's not just, but since when was justice the goal?
The goal is maintaining order and control by assuaging public outrage, and to maintain public willingness to cede coercive and retaliatory authority to a third party.

 

[pearl]

Once in a nursing home I saw two old guys almost go at it. Neither one could even walk decently. If they got in a fight both of them would have been seriously injured.

Having once worked in a nursing home, I have witnessed the same. There was a patient, the former owner of a Las Vegas hotel. Used to sit by the nursing station and if a nurse walked by he'd yell, 'get that bimbo out of my lobby.' One night he walked into the wrong room, and threw the patient out of his bed killing him.

My thoughts. If it gets to the point that he/she does not know why they are being punished it would seem pointless to keep them locked up. If the dementia had progressed enough it is unlikely they would even know they were being punished.

Their health does not excuse their past crimes.