So it turns out the Swedes have expelled a student from their premier medical school because (a) he's a Nazi (or at least was one), and (b) he is a convicted murderer, who served six years in prison and was currently serving on parole. Ever since a friend of mine from high school was convicted, I've always been interested about issues of rehabilitation and reincorporation into society. Ostensibly, our system dictates that upon completion of serving a sentence, the individual is considered to have repaid their debt to society, no? Even when we sentence serial murders to 934 years in prison, we maintain an implicit assumption that if they were capable of living that long, they would have paid their due. On those grounds, it would say that, having served his time, and abiding by the terms of his parole murder should not disqualify him from becoming a doctor.
If we're going to assume that even after serving a prison sentence he is still unfit to re-enter society, then that begs two questions: (a) for sufficiently egregious crimes, like murder (let's say first degree) or rape, if we assume they will always be a burden to society in prison and a threat outside, it seems like we could make a strong case for capital punishment. Even though we hope he won't commit another murder, it's better to take the life of one definitely dangerous/unsavory/guilty party than to risk the lives of, at least, another innocent, especially when our lack of forgiveness and reintegration is predicated upon a concern that the probability of a repeat is a better than even chance. Self-defense, both individually and socially, demands no less. So, to say he should not be a doctor because he might kill again is an argument for why we should kill him first, and covers the instances where the risk/fear/likelihood of him killing again are better than even.
This also leads to situations where we think he won't kill again, but we aren't convinced he'll never kill, i.e. we think something like "his murder was really inflamed passions and drinking" (2nd degree or manslaughter). At this point, we are more concerned about issues of justice than self-preservation, which begs the second question (b): if we aren't going to consider serving prison sentences sufficient to re-integrate criminals into society then why lock them away at all? Yes, we say it is to punish the offender and to give them a taste of what they're missing, but that's retributive justice, and flawed justice at that. In theory, retributive justice is to return upon the criminal punishment commensurate to the crime they committed. An-eye-for-an-eye is harsh, but it isn't a-life-for-an-eye. It must be proportional, otherwise the state incurs a debt in reverse. So if we're sending people to prison to compensate for the crime they committed, then retributive justice argues they've paid their dues and they should come back. Our failure to reintegrate them therefore implies either (1) the prison sentence was insufficient if they get out and still have to pay off a public debt by wearing their scarlet letter (meaning our Nazi friend should be a doctor, he just needs more years behind bars first, but how many?), or (2) sending them to prison was never about justice, it was about revenge, hardly an activity suited to a just or advanced civilization, and we want to hound our Nazi for the rest of his life. So if we're left with the idea that our failure to reintegrate them into society means the taxpayers wasted huge sums of money keeping them in prison in the first place (our half measure was worse than no measure) without realizing justice, or we're petty and/or cruel.
My overall point is this: what does our disinclination about accepting this man say about us, about our society, and about our glass house?
1 comment:
Your argument appears to be that X years in prison is sufficient for rehabilitation. That brings up a discussion I remember having with prison officials years ago, as to whether the point of prison is retribution, rehabilitation, or revenge. Some of the heads of prisons called their places country clubs for criminals, as they received, without any effort on their own part, food, shelter, exercise facilities, recreation. Is the focus of prisons supposed to be on them, that is, rehab, or on society, that is, keeping an evil person off the street for a length of time commensurate with his crime, with no assumption that he will have changed his ways before getting out. It has long been proven that adult sex offenders don't change their ways, but if you can get to them while still juveniles, there is hope they will change. Our society can't afford to lock sex offenders away for ever because they can't be rehabilitated; we simply don't have the funds. So, what do we do with these people? Turn all their crimes into capital crimes? Then we're back to my favorite question, who decides who decides?
Josh will have to report, forever and on every job application, credit application, whatever, that he was convicted of a felony. His time in prison is over, but his payment for his crime is not. But why should it be? Time spent in prison is only one method of payment for what he did.
As for the case that prompts your entry, I'm not familiar enough with it to know. I think a larger question here is, if this guy goes through medical school successfully, would he have an obligation to tell future patients of his past, which is, after all, a reality in his life, and let them decide if they want him to be their doctor? Is prison time a just recompense for a crime committed, or does it stay with a person for life? All the former prisoners who get out, having paid their debt, and who can't find jobs because they have to disclose it on their job applications would say it is not fair. But if I am hiring an accountant, don't I have the right to know that this person served time for embezzlement? Interesting questions, as usual. m
Post a Comment