I realize I’m jumping the gun a little, being that we haven’t talked about the Guantanamo readings yet but hopefully you’ve at least read the articles by now. This morning in my Philosophy of Law class we were talking about crime and punishment, which I thought was pretty ironic in light our current readings. More often than not we assume crime and punishment go together, with the idea that whoever commits a crime deserves a punishment. But this morning we asked what the point of punishment even was. Some, like Utilitarians, understand punishment as helpful to the good of the community, in that it deters further crime (this can be thought of as forward looking). Retributivism is backward looking in that it deems punishment necessary to those who deserve it, and the punishment must fit the crime. Basically, there were many different theories on how to justify punishment, and it must be justified because in punishing someone, you are infringing upon their human rights. I obviously began to think about the articles I had read last night in relation to the class’s discussion. Could the punishment of solitary confinement at Guantanamo Bay honestly be justified for a teenage boy?
Looking at it through a utilitarian perspective, one could argue that action should be taken when a teenager throws a grenade at military men, because it is only hurting the community’s welfare. However, this still doesn’t imply that six years in solitary confinement is the appropriate action to promote the common good. The retributivism theory does agree that this teenager should be punished. However, the punishment should fit the crime. Being sent to Guantanamo for throwing a grenade as a twelve-year-old clearly does not fit the crime. I cannot possibly understand how imposing violence upon a boy during his formative years will help him be a model citizen and respect the United States upon being released from prison. As one of the more influential countries of the world, one would hope that our legal system would be able to distribute punishment appropriately and justly. However it seems that the military has abused the power of punishment as a result of their fear of terrorism. It is not just the action of one boy throwing a grenade that they want to put on trial. They want to put terrorism on trial. But like Eichmann we have to remember one person, especially a twelve-year-old, cannot be responsible for all of the evils of the world.
Ps. I saw this in the news today, you know in case you feel like reading more depressing articles on Guantanamo. I found it interesting. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/07/law-school-study-finds-ev_n_382085.html
Firstly, I would like to say that jumping the gun in itself sounds like a horrible new form of torture, not to give those madmen any ideas. But more seriously, no I don't think there is anything that could justify putting a human being in solitary confinement for 6 years, especially a teenager. The most insane serial killers, those who aren't sentenced to death, wouldn't even be put in solitary for that long. If anything, spending that much time in a locked room alone, would only enhance this child's problems. Serious psychological traumas would arise, and this teenager will never go back to normal, whatever that is, for the rest of his life.
ReplyDeleteThe craziest part of all this is that even if we capture someone who is totally innocent, after years of solitary confinement anyone would hate the United States. I wonder what the ratio is of people who were actually terrorists and people who became terrorists because of the United States illegally holding people.
ReplyDeleteNot only is it wrong, many would argue it's unconstitutional. After September 11th, Bush was able to take too much power and was able to bypass our sixth amendment.
ReplyDeleteHistory has shown that during wartime many people are willing to give up their rights and beliefs to 'protect' their country.
It seems as if no rules apply during war. Killing becomes legal and giving other basic human rights seems to be thrown out the window. They had no right to hold that kid in there for so long. Not only was he innocent but I imagine the child growth and development have suffered. He was unable to learn crucial things that most kids learn during that time. Thus he was not able to grow up properly and will not be educated in the way he could have been.
ReplyDeleteIt is also insane how no one will sign to release him because they don't want to loose their job by admitting they had made a mistake. It is amazing what measures people will go to to save their own ass. Even if it means taking away the life of another. It makes you wonder what other mistakes the US have made and refused to admit.
Ben thats really interesting about the ratio thing. I'm sure if those who are innocent and are released dont become terrorists, they certainly are mentally insane. I also thought it was really crazy how people refuse to release the innocent in order to "save their own ass" as elise said. I can't ever imagine living with the fact that I kept an innocent person in a jail to and ruined his life to keep my career. I feel like that person ( if they aren't already crazy) will go crazy. Actually after reading these articles Im beginning to think the world is run by crazies.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to reiterate something Professor Harwood touched on in class - prisons are supposed to be rehabilitation centers. Putting someone in solitary confinement for six years is the opposite of rehabilitation, especially if they're innocent (in which case, they wouldn't need rehabilitation). I was thinking about what Steven said about how even the most insane serial killers aren't put in solitary for that long. This made me think of Charles Manson, who was sentenced to death until California abolished the death penalty. Now he's just serving life in prison. Can you imagine putting a psycho like Manson in solitary for six years? That would be one of the most dangerous things to do with him or any other nutjob like that. They would retreat into themselves and be alone with their disturbed thoughts for six years. Although I don't believe he deserves rehabilitation after the atrocities he committed/brainwashed people into committing, but solitary confinement just doesn't seem like a good idea for any long extent of time for anyone.
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering about one thing, nearly every comment has made mention of the fact that these things were done to an innocent twelve year old. I think that pairing is very interesting, it seems to repeat itself too much to be a coincidence. I agree that these things were completely wrong to have done but I am left with one question. Is it the fact that he was twelve or the fact that he was innocent that offends people more? If the twelve year old was guilty would it change anyone's mind?
ReplyDeleteNick I think what you brought up is something interesting.. I've heard arguments like that before such as at what age can we hold someone responsible for what they're doing, like a crime as such. I think if he was guilty than it probably would change people's minds - not saying that 6 years of solitary confinement would be correct to do in such case - but by the time you're 12 years old you know right from wrong, my little sister is 12 and she definitely knows what she should and shouldn't do.
ReplyDeleteSo as an answer I think it is the fact he is innocent that probably offends people more.. but also I think that 6 years of solitary confinement would be totally different for a 12 year old as opposed to a 50 year old. At that age, as you all have said, children are going through times that will shape them into the adults they will become and that time would impact them much more than it would an adult.
Rachel, I think that's probably a fair way of putting it. I agree that its probably the innocence that animates people more about this. I agree with your comment that 6 years of solitary confinement isn't appropriate for a 12 year old but I would go a little further and say that its not appropriate for a 50 year old either. If a person is so dangerous that for them even to have even basic human contact constitutes a threat then that person should be isolated forever as opposed to 6 years. Solitary confinement doesn't make someone any more sane and in quite a few cases makes a person a good deal less sane. If a person isn't that dangerous then there is no justification for solitary confinement besides a desire to punish which isn't the purpose of rehabilitation in the first place and makes solitary confinement analogous to torture.
ReplyDeleteThe entire idea is retarded. The punishment obviously isn't a deterrent because your talking about people who aren't even afraid of death. (throwing grenades at soldiers is a quick way to become dead). Also is obviously isn't to rehabilitate the 12 year old. So its just stupid. I think the best thing would have been to detain the 12 year old and rehabilitate/educate him. Let him become friends with the westerners he hate so much, then throw him back into the wild. I've always thought that the war should be more of a war on "hating of western ideals" or a "war on ignorance" than a war on terrorism. And doing what we did to that boy certainly hurts a war on hating America thus hurts the war on terror. What are the thoughts on this?
ReplyDelete