I'm not pretending white-collar crime is victimless, but I'm also not at all comfortable with the bias of "remove the consequences of crime for people perceived to be disadvantaged."
The issue of treating drug addiction as a health issue instead of a crime is a tangential topic, but enforcing the law when a drug addict commits a crime is not (e.g. mugging, theft, assault).
I am not sure where you got "remove all consequences" from.
I said "increasing enforcement of existing laws, might not be good policy for the people who will suffer from this enforcement as well as not resulting in the decrease in crime rates that you might think"
> The issue of treating drug addiction as a health issue instead of a crime is a tangential topic, but enforcing the law when a drug addict commits a crime is not (e.g. mugging, theft, assault).
To me it's not tangential, but rather the core of the issue.
Let's take the druggie. I agree with you that 'removing consequences' of crime committed to acquire more drugs is a terrible idea. Justice to the people affected is important.
However, if this consequence is jail time, a criminal record, or any other form of punishment that doesn't benefit both the addict and those affected by him, we're only sweeping the problem under the rug, and we're not acknowledging the complexities of addiction and the dignity of the human behind the 'druggie'. Furthermore, it's likely that said addict will become a worse problem for society down the road. It's lose-lose.
There are plenty of solutions where the addict's crime have consequences other than simply punishing them that are more effective, less dehumanizing, and ultimately better for society as a whole.
On a more... ethical level, I feel that where we fundamentally go wrong in these situations is that we forget that being poor, being an addict, and even to a degree being a criminal is not just a simple matter of choice. I've personally known many addicts, criminals and poor people, and I can say with full conviction that the vast majority of them were good people who made mistakes that were not 100% their responsibility. Instead of bickering over how much responsible they are, accepting this reality and trying to approach it with compassion for all sides should already improve many things. Hell, if more people would just go a bit below 100% it'd be a good start.
I think I'm a pretty good person, but putting myself in the position of my addict, poor, or criminal friends, with the same environment, parents, friends, and choices available, all of them mostly out of their control, well, I'd likely make those same choices.
And applying everything I've learned about willpower, group dynamics (groupthink), peer pressure, and whatnot, makes me even more convinced that punishment is not only a solution that doesn't work, but morally wrong and detrimental to society as a whole.
If I understand you, you're suggesting a course of corrective action that doesn't simply look at a given event (e.g. robbing a woman at knifepoint) when suggesting punishment for a crime. This is already the case in US courts, wherein judges are allowed to know prior convictions and extenuating circumstances. Counseling and treatment is already a part of the legal process.
More contentiously, there's always a sob story that can be spun for any given criminal, but ultimately, I believe it dangerous to hand-wave away the role of personal agency. Being born poor is obviously not a personal choice, but actions taken along the way (having a child when young), taking the risk with illegal and highly addictive drugs, committing violent crime, are conscious acts that unsurprisingly make it harder to get out of poverty. The consequences of those actions is likely particularly known in lower income areas.
You're thinking about this from the position of a logical person who cares about the welfare of others. Decriminalizing assault and theft is asking victims to take part in a system in which they pay money to support people who are causing harm.
> Being born poor is obviously not a personal choice, but actions taken along the way (having a child when young), taking the risk with illegal and highly addictive drugs, committing violent crime, are conscious acts that unsurprisingly make it harder to get out of poverty. The consequences of those actions is likely particularly known in lower income areas.
I was raised with the same belief, however I have learned through broader experience that people from varying backgrounds have vastly different ways of perceiving and evaluating the information in front of them. I do not mean this to indicate, for example, that people in poverty are inferior and incapable of logically assessing the consequences of a teen pregnancy.
Rather, I would suggest that you and I were likely privy to a myriad of small, incremental and beneficial teachings and experiences that led to our view of teen pregnancy. As a result I believe it unwise to judge others, who did not have the privilege of those same teachings, based on the assumption that they knew the "unsurprising" "consequences" of their actions.
I'm not judging -- I'm stating facts. Also, I was hoping to hint at that policing crime isn't the same as criminalizing being poor. It's possible to be flat out broke and not commit crimes.
Having grown up in a town where the high school graduation rate was below 80%, I can assure you that it's not unfair to expect people from low-income families to know the consequences of their actions.
This is pretty far from my statement of not excusing or ignoring crimes committed by those in poverty, especially violent crimes.
The issue of treating drug addiction as a health issue instead of a crime is a tangential topic, but enforcing the law when a drug addict commits a crime is not (e.g. mugging, theft, assault).
reply