To sum up, history informs us that basic human nature has not changed, and this history
lesson can help us understand and be more tolerant of one another, as well as develop
compassionate responses to the problems and failings of others. Yet, history has other lessons
to offer us as well. It helps us formulate informed values and ideals for ourselves, inspires us to
great achievements, points out mistakes to avoid, and helps us appreciate our cultural
heritage.
Issue 114
"Imprisonment for violent crimes should be made as unpleasant as possible in order to deter
potential offenders from committing such crimes."
The speaker contends that ifprison conditions are made "as unpleasant as possible" then
potential violent criminals would be deterred from committing crimes. I strongly disagree.
History makes dear that so-called "tough-on-crime" approaches are simply not effective crime
deterrents. Moreover, the speaker recommends a policy that would serve to undermine two
other important objectives of incarceration, and that would run contrary to certain
countervailing societal interests.
125
In light of all the conveniences that our society provides its prisoners today, it might be
tempting to agree with the speaker. Violent criminals tend to come from neighborhoods where
drug trafficking, vandalism and burglary, and therefore violent crime are commonplace. For
these individuals prison can be a haven--a comparatively secure place where inmates are
provided with room, board, health care, exercise facilities, and so forth. Accordingly, unless
prison life is made more unpleasant overall than life outside prison walls, individuals will not be
deterred from committing violent crimes.
Conceding this point, I nevertheless find the speaker’s contention dubious at best. Even
assuming that potential criminals are made aware of the unpleasantness that awaits them
behind bars--for example, through the various "scared straight" social programs that are
popular in inner-city schools today--for three reasons the deterrent effect of the speaker’s
proposed policy would be negligible. First, most violent criminals are relatively young; and
young people tend to act impetuously, to lack self-restraint, and to disregard potential adverse
consequences of their actions. Second, recent genetic research reveals that violent behavior
is largely the result of genetic makeup rather than environmental factors; thus attempts to
deter "born criminals" are unlikely to succeed. Third, consider the various means of public
execution used throughout history: crucifixion, burning at the stake, hanging, and so forth.While I have no doubt that these shocking public displays have always deterred crime,
extreme unpleasantness behind modern prison walls would simply not be sufficiently
gruesome or public to effectively deter potential criminals.
Even if I were to concede that severely unpleasant prison conditions would serve to reduce
the incidence of violent crime, following the speaker’s advice would risk thwarting two other
purposes of incarcerating criminals: to reform them and to quarantine them. If prison
conditions are made too severe, then any attempt to reform--whether it be through education,
psychological counseling, or work programs--~ght have little effect on inmates, who upon
release from prison would lash out at the society that subjected them to such severe
conditions. Moreover, the chief reason we imprison dangerous individuals is to quarantine
them--that is, to protect ourselves from them. Thus as long as prisons are secure, living
conditions in those prisons are incidental.
Finally, the speaker overlooks certain competing public-policy considerations. One such
consideration is our constitutional right to due process of law, by which convicted criminals
have the right to appeal their convictions. If prison conditions are made extremely harsh, then
any eventual acquittal might be little consolation for the wrongfully accused inmate who has
already been forced to suffer those harsh conditions. Secondly, the speaker recommends a
course of action that might sanction abuse of inmates by prison officials and guards. Thirdly,
the argument overlooks all the ways in which prison inmates serve society in productive ways
while in prison. For example, many prisons have recently instituted programs by which
inmates refurbish used computers for use in public schools. A prison whose conditions are "as
unpleasant as possible" might consider such programs too pleasant for inmates, and decline
to participate; and society would be worse off as a result.In sum, I find the speaker’s contention indefensible in light of numerous countervailing
considerations. In the final analysis, history informs us that violent crime is a universal and
timeless social problem, and that no manner of punishment can eliminate it.
126
Issue 115
"People often look for similarities, even between very different things, and even when it is
unhelpful or harmful to do so. Instead, a thing should be considered on its own terms; we
should avoid the tendency to compare it to something else."
Do people too often look for similarities between things, regardless of whether it is helpful or
harmful to do so, and not often enough evaluate things on their own individual merits? The
speaker believes so. I agree to an extent, especially when it comes to making determinations
about people. However, the speaker overlooks a fundamental and compelling reason why
people must always try to find similarities between things.
I agree with the speaker insofar as insisting on finding similarities between things can often
result in unfair, and sometimes harmful, comparisons. By focusing on the similarities among all
big cities, for example, we overlook the distinctive character, architecture, ethnic diversity, and
culture of each one. Without evaluating an individual company on its own merits before buying
stock in that company, an investor runs the risk of choosing a poor performer in an otherwise
attractive product sector or geographic region. And schools tend to group students according
to their performance on general intelligence tests and academic exams. By doing so, schools
overlook more specific forms of intelligence which should be identified and nurtured on a more
individualized basis so that each student can fulffil his or her potential.
As the final example above illustrates, we should be especially careful when looking for
similarities between people. We humans have a tendency to draw arbitrary condusions about
one another based on gender, race, and superficial characteristics. Each individual should be
evaluated instead on the basis of his or her own merit in terms of character, accomplishment,
and so forth. Otherwise, we run the risk of unfair bias and even prejudice, which manifest
themselves in various forms of discrimination and oppression. Yet prejudice can result from
looking too hard for differences as well, while overlooking the things that all people share.