Prisons work, benefit sanctions work
A reality check for liberals in New Zealand
Do benefit sanctions work? Does prison work? These are questions that cannot be answered because it has become clear that there is no consensus on what constitutes a working system.
Let’s take prison as the example. Why do we have a criminal justice system at all? Is it to deter wrongdoing, rehabilitate offenders, protect the public from criminals or punish the guilty? All of those answers have been put forward in the past and present.
Prison is bad at lots of things
There are many people on the left who say that the only purpose of prison should be rehabilitative, though some of these people also allow that public protection is a legitimate interest at least in some cases.
If you take the rehabilitation-only attitude, it would be hard to see prison as anything other than a moral and fiscal failure. It is worth noting, of course, that we don’t really know how to reliably rehabilitate criminals through alternative measures either. But prison is not a place to which people go to become better people.
In terms of public protection, there are obviously alternatives to prison such as some kind of more secure form of home detention.
As far as deterrence goes the evidence on this is and always will be contested ground. The causes of human behaviour are complex and hard to pin down. There are, accordingly, significant limitations in our ability to consistently test the effects of deterrent measures on decision making and this complicates the isolation of any single factor’s impact.
But what about retribution?
This concept harks back to one of the oldest justifications for punishment. It is grounded in the idea that those who commit wrongdoing should suffer in return. This idea is deeply rooted in our human intuition and therefore finds expression legal traditions across cultures.
In short, retributive justice is seen by most people as a necessary response to crime. It provides a measure of moral balance and social closure to our broken world. Assuming, that is, that the retribution meted out is proportional, fair and applied in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
If we accept that retribution is a proper goal of the criminal justice system, then how do we know if it is working? It is simply this: if the people consider that the punishment is a just response to a criminal action then it has worked. If the people think the punishment is too lenient or harsh then it is not working.
End of story.
Talking past one another
It is important to note that this line is completely perplexing to those who completely reject the desirability or necessity of retributive justice. If a rehabilitative model is the only one you consider valid an emphasis on punishment for its own sake - without a direct aim to reform or reconcile - may appear incomprehensible other than as a savage thirst for vengeance.
A good question is why people have these differing views on how the system is meant to work.
The sources of morality
I think the answer lies somewhere in the moral foundations theory of psychologist Jonathan Haidt. He argues that human beings have different intuitions about what constitutes morality arising from six innate and universal sources. These are:
Care versus harm: This foundation focuses on our natural empathy for others, driving us to care for them and avoid causing harm. It’s about protecting and nurturing individuals, especially those who are vulnerable or in need.
Fairness versus cheating: This foundation revolves around the idea of justice, equality and reciprocity. It emphasises treating others with fairness, ensuring that everyone gets what they deserve, and avoiding cheating or taking unfair advantage.
Loyalty versus betrayal: This foundation highlights the importance of solidarity, allegiance, and loyalty to our group, from family to country. It values standing by one’s group and considers betrayal as one of the worst offences.
Authority versus subversion: This foundation concerns respect for hierarchy, leadership and social order. It involves recognising and respecting the roles of authority figures while viewing acts that undermine or challenge these figures as wrong.
Sanctity versus degradation: This foundation is about the feeling that some things are sacred, pure, and should be protected from degradation. It covers values and beliefs that are considered inviolable or taboo, often related to the body or religious beliefs.
Liberty versus oppression: This foundation is centred on the desire for freedom and autonomy, opposing tyranny, oppression and undue restrictions. It values individual liberty and is wary of anything that threatens to dominate or control individuals unfairly.
While these foundations are universally present among almost all people, there are differences in how much we emphasise each foundation. This affects their political and social views.
Cons have a more complex morality than libs
Haidt found that liberals tend to focus on the first two foundations, (care and fairness) and accordingly see morality as a matter of protecting the rights and welfare of individuals, especially the vulnerable and oppressed. The remaining four foundations are underdeveloped in comparison.
Conservatives, on the other hand, try to harmonise all six foundations.
Accordingly, they combine concern for care and fairness with a need to preserve the order and harmony of the group, especially the family, the nation, and to uphold those things that are sacred. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that this means conservatives have a more sophisticated understanding of morality, but it certainly more balanced.
It is a more holistic approach to morality that incorporates a wider range of ethical considerations, leading to more comprehensive (though not necessarily superior) moral reasoning.
Why prison works
