Assorted Ideas About Things That May Make The World A Somewhat Better Place
Sounds too idealistic already, doesn't it? Just to let you know, I don't know that any of these ideas could or would ever work. But if we aim high and fall short, we at least got somewhere -- if we aim low, then even 100% success means we barely accomplished anything.
If you have any ideas on how to make any of these ideas better or if you would like to work on any ideas with me or if you have any other comments or questions, etc., please email me at lincoln_trudeau@hotmail.com. Without further ado, here are the actual ideas (I will update this as I come up with more ideas). Click on any button below to skip to that particular idea or to vote on your favourite idea, click on the "IDEAS VOTE" button in the upper left corner.
One of my basic problems with the attitude of many when it comes to criminal justice has to do with what I feel the goal should be. The knee-jerk reaction people tend to have regarding criminals is to just lock them up. That keeps the criminal away from us, at least for a while. But what is our goal with this? If our goal is just to keep the criminal from harming us for a specified period of time, we've succeeded. If our goal is something more useful -- such as convincing a criminal to change the type of person they are by the time they are re-introduced to regular society -- our success rate is not that great.
Prison itself, as many of us could guess, does not necessarily change a person. Or if it changes them, it just makes the person more bitter and angry and now they are in a place with other criminals so they have a chance to be friends with other criminals. By the time a lot of these people leave prison, their families, girlfriends, boyfriends, husbands, wives, etc. have given up on them. So they're almost totally isolated from "normal" people and the only family and friends they have left are other criminals. With that in mind, why do we expect them to stop being criminals? What freedom are they being rewarded with when they get out? They will have trouble getting all but the most demeaning and low-paying jobs, they're entering a world that has seen a great deal of technological advances and all these things may only serve to antagonize them and make them want to go back to the only place that seems comfortable to them now: prison.
Now that I've established the not-totally-realistic goal I have in mind, I should add that I don't expect that my idea below will solve the problem; at least not all of it. Some might argue it may make the problem worse. So why, you might ask, should you read it then, knowing that even I have my doubts? Well, you've made it this far, right?
So here's the idea. It starts with having each criminal work in a specific field, which, as I understand it, is how a lot of prisons operate already. Every two weeks, the criminal will be issued a paycheque. It will display the hourly rate, which would be whatever that job would make in the "real world". It will add up to their gross pay. So far, this is the same kind of thing many of us would get.
The deductions are what makes this difference. Besides the usual taxes, the criminal was also see deductions for the cost of keeping them in prison (food, "accommodation") and things like therapy for their victims, time missed from work for their victims, etc. A victim of a crime may be happy that the criminal is behind bars, but that fact does them little good if they still have all kinds of bills to pay as a result of their victimization. So if they know that the criminal will be working and will be indirectly paying them to help alleviate the trouble they've caused, perhaps that would help. Also, the victim can always opt-out of this. That is, they can choose to not have the criminal pay for any expenses. In that case, the criminal would still receive deductions, but the money would go into the Victims Pool (an idea I mentioned further up the page).
Would this actually be of help? Would the criminals just get angrier at the victim because they're being constantly reminded of their past mistakes? It's hard to say. If this idea were ever to be put into practise, it would need fine-tuning at the very least. But I just wanted to throw the idea out there and see what people think.
Punishment for Sexual Offenders
We've all heard of cases of brutal rapes, molestation, etc. And these types of crimes are among the worst considering how inadequate the justice system is at dealing with such crimes. Let's face it: justice in most countries relies on evidence and sexual crimes don't always leave evidence plus victims are often embarrassed or ashamed and will not report them.
And many people I know have said they believe that sexual offenders ought to be castrated. At times, I have felt this is a good idea as well. Now, I disagree with that idea. The main reason I disagree is in general, I do prefer rehabilitation (yes, I know, some people can't be rehabilitated, I've heard that before and that is probably true also). The other reason I disagree is that while castration is symbolic, it doesn't solve the problem. Rape and molestation do not tend to be about sex, they tend to be about power and control. Removing the penis does not prevent the rapist from raping again -- the next time, they could use a broom handle or a bottle and they'll be pissed off to boot. The most important body parts for a rapist are his hands.
Hands hold knives to a victim's throat, they press guns against a victim's head, they clasp over a victim's mouth, they punch a victim who does not co-operate. Remove the hands and sexual crimes are much more difficult to perform. How many times have you heard of a manhunt for a handless rapist? As I said, I don't condone the severing of body parts in general. But if you have a case where there's videotaped evidence of the crime and there's no doubt that the person is guilty and you do decide that chopping is the best, let the guy keep his penis. See how much good that is to him without any hands.
Note: the above idea refers to rapists and molesters as "he". I do not mean to imply that all sexual offenders are male though unless I'm mistaken, the majority of them -- the most dangerous ones, at least -- are.
Victims Pool
The "Victims Pool" concept is based on the principle that justice should not be determined by how much money the criminal has. Just to illustrate what I mean, here's an example of how things are now (at least in Canada, and likely other countries with comparable laws, such as the U.S.).
If someone is drunk and beats you and you end up in the hospital and miss work, what happens next may depend on that person's income. If it's a very poor person who attacked you, they'll likely go to prison but how does that pay for your time missed from work? But let's say instead your attacker is a rich, high-profile person (judge, political figure, etc.) with a reputation to protect. They might offer you a large settlement just to keep the heat off them. Why should a victim be penalized because their attacker is poor or rewarded because their attacker is rich?
The Victims Pool concept is designed to fix this problem. It works something like this. A judge and/or jury will look at a case and if they decide the defendant is guilty, they have a few factors to consider:
1) How much the victim deserves to get, based on the severity of the crime
2) How much the defendant needs to pay so that the fine will have the appropriate impact
Remember that case from the early 90s where that old woman spilled hot coffee on her lap? She won something like $600,000 from McDonalds. Now if she had spilled coffee from some mom & pop coffee shop, there's no way in hell she would get that kind of money.
Did that woman deserve so much money? Probably not. Not even close, in my opinion. But if the judge had fined McDonalds $5,000, that's peanuts to them and they have no incentive to make their coffee less hot in future. Hell, for $5,000 they could throw coffee in the face of 10 customers a day just for kicks.
So getting back to those two factors, here's what should happen. First, the judge and/or jury decide what the defendant owes. Then, there will be one of two scenarios:
1) If the amount the defendant will pay is more than the victim deserves, the extra money is dropped into a Victims Pool bank account
2) If the amount the defendant will pay is less than the victim deserves, the victim gets all the money from the defendant as usual plus a little extra from the Victims Pool
This is just a very basic presentation of this idea. I don't know what obstacles would stand in the way of it in practise but if you like it, please pass it along to your government. I would appreciate credit just for the idea but any work you do beyond this is completely yours to claim and I wish you luck.
