Alden Farrar Argument Paper #1 PAR 101-002 Humanitarian Cruelty There is little dispute about the ineffectiveness of the

current system of punishment in our country. We have extremely high incidents of repeat offenders while still spending billions of dollars yearly to put these criminals away time after time to no avail. Clearly, something needs to be done, but what? Karl Menninger has proposed the humanitarian theory of punishment, in which crime is treated as a curable disease, as a possible solution. This theory however could prove disastrous if put into effect. C.S. Lewis succeeds in demonstrating the detrimental effects of the humanitarian theory of punishment by pointing out its lack of boundaries and the dangers to individual liberties. The humanitarian theory of punishment proposes that criminals are held and treated against their will indefinitely until subject matter experts deem them cured and ready to be reintroduced into society. The danger in this idea is clear. With no boundaries on treatments or time in confinement, criminals will be subject to all sorts of cruel and unusual treatments some of which may be very unsuccessful and dangerous to the patient. Menninger implies that these doctors and psychologists will not stop working until the patient is cured of their crimes. This essentially means that doctors and psychologists will have free reign in alterations of not just the body as is in our current system but of personality and mental capabilities as well. If given the choice, I would much rather be locked away for 10 or 20 years than have doctors performing experiments

on my emotions, brain, and personality against my will. If doctors want to cure crimes an effective way to do so would be to erase the memories and feelings that caused the crime in the first place. A lobotomy and electro-shock therapy would certainly straighten up criminals in a hurry as well. Humans should never be subjected to this kind of treatment however. To take away someones memories and emotions is to remove that which makes them who they are. Boundaries must be set on punishment and criminals have the right to know their sentence and what they are to be subjected to as punishment. Furthermore, the humanitarian theory of punishment infringes on the ideals of personal liberty this country is founded on. For this theory to be put into action, vast amounts of control would be put in the hands of the government. No longer would a jury of peers decide on appropriate punishment for crimes. We would have little say in our own judicial system. Our government would employ an army of psychologists and doctors for the sole purpose of treating criminals and determining their sentence. What would prevent government leaders from subjecting political enemies or even unruly citizens to indefinite amounts of treatment on the premise of a minute infraction? If the wrong person, or even a well-intentioned leader, is in power the humanitarian theory could have effects reminiscent of Nazi Germany where people were subjected to extremely unethical and inhumane experiments and treatments. It could all be easily defended by the phrase we are curing them of their criminal disease. C.S. Lewis realized this and argued fervently that although there may be good intentions behind the humanitarian theory it has the potential to lead us into a hellish society with no regard for human rights.

Karl Menninger would argue that the humanitarian theory effectively makes criminals into model citizens that are functional productive members of society. He feels that criminals are helpless victims of a debilitating disease known as crime and that with treatment by trained professionals this disease can be eradicated. This seems like a plausible and effective solution upon first glance. This theory is well intentioned and seeks to help the criminal as well as society. However, the problem with this view is that committing a crime is a choice made by the criminal not some uncontrollable disease contracted from society. There are countless instances of upstanding citizens who were raised in conditions very similar if not identical to the most violent and destructive criminals. Somewhere along the line, the choice was made by that criminal to commit a crime. This in turn, lead to a series of events and decisions that put him or her on a fast track to judicial punishment. Poor decision-making is not a disease. It cannot be cured through therapy or drugs. The only effective cure to this kind of behavior is education and personal resistance to negative influence. Treating criminals as victims is absurd. It undermines the very definition of criminal. The person the criminal robbed or killed is the victim. The criminal is responsible for his disregard of the law as well as the damage caused to any victim. Obviously, he or she should be punished according to this accountability, not on an inflated sense of the word disease. The humanitarian theory of punishment is a dangerous concept that puts our rights as citizens in jeopardy and has no regard for boundaries of punishment. The idea of doing whatever is necessary to cure a criminal could conceivably lead to terrible atrocities and the destruction of the foundations of this country. Instead I propose the adoption of a retributive form of punishment. I think retribution is the most fair and upfront form of

punishment. Not only is it fair to the criminal whos punishment directly fits the crime they committed, it also is fair to the victims who get some form of payment or validation about the crime committed against him or her. To sum it up, an eye for an eye makes the whole world kind. Criminals learn from their mistakes and pay the price for them but in theory, are much less likely to repeat them. Crime would plummet and our country would become exponentially safer as well as prosperous. For this reason, the retributive theory of punishment merits heavy consideration in the overhaul of this countrys judicial and prison system.