Many people (myself included) are highly critical of imprisonment as a punishment. It's expensive, it transforms petty criminals into serious criminals, it encourages the growth of organized crime, and it's simultaneously too lenient for some convicts and inhumane for others. If you share that view, what do you think should replace imprisonment?
The normal libertarian position (which is also my own) is that restitution should be the basis for punishment: i.e. the criminal ought to be forced to make the victim whole through financial compensation, with an additional premium for deterrence (e.g. Rothbard's "two teeth for a tooth" formula, where the first "tooth" makes the victim whole and the second provides deterrence). Restitution ensures that crime is not profitable (for those criminals who get caught, anyway).
However, not all crimes are motivated by profit. There are people who enjoy crime (esp. violent crime) for its own sake: from guys who like to start bar fights to serial killers. On a Rothbardian restitution model, these people would only have to pay monetary compensation, such that, if they had enough money, they could effectively buy the right to commit violent crimes. If you think that's a problem, as I do, then there must be some other deterrent, such as some form of corporal punishment (but not imprisonment). I think Singapore's solution (public whipping) is a sensible one for violent crimes which fall short of warranting the death penalty.
I'll stop there, as I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Connect With Us