Skip to content

我们该如何对待罪犯

我们该如何对待罪犯

我们翻译这篇文章的理由

刑事司法系统的目标应当是改善未来的状况,而不是对已经发生无可挽回的犯罪行为的报复。对与犯罪行为相关联的物质和文化条件的改善,才是相对于有时显得并不人道的粗暴刑罚来说更值得关注的事情。

——金殊羽

👇

我们该如何对待罪犯

作者:RAOUL MARTINEZ

译者:王宇琪 &李蕾

校对:张松

策划:金殊羽& 郭嘉宁

What would a rational criminal justice system look like?

一个合理的刑事司法系统应该是什么样的?

The American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr wrote in 1925: ‘If I were having a philosophical talk with a man I was going to have hanged (or electrocuted) I should say, I don’t doubt that your act was inevitable for you, but to make it more avoidable by others we propose to sacrifice you to the common good. You may regard yourself as a soldier dying for your country if you like.’
美国法学家小奥利弗·温德尔·福尔摩斯(Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr)在1925年写道:“如果我要和一个本将被绞死(或电死)的人进行一场哲学对话,我会说,我知道你所做的事对你来说是不可避免的,但为了更多的人能避免它,我们打算为了普遍利益而牺牲你。如果愿意,你可以把自己看作是为国家献身的战士。”
He was right that lawbreakers are not truly responsible for their actions. We make choices with a brain we didn’t choose, one constructed by a process beyond our control. However, executing or harming people to dissuade others from emulating their behaviour is a crude application of utilitarian logic. The same logic could be used to justify killing one healthy person and harvesting his organs to save five sick people. It might maximise ‘wellbeing’ but it’s an abuse of human rights. The benefit to society must be balanced against the fundamental right of the individual not to be harmed.
他说得没错,违法者对他们的行为并没有真正的责任。我们无法选择一个大脑,我们无法控制我们大脑的构建过程;然而,我们又要用这个大脑来做出决定。但是,通过处决或惩罚违法者来阻止他人效仿违法行为,是功利主义逻辑的一种粗糙应用。同样的逻辑也可以用来为杀死一个健康人然后摘取他的器官来拯救五个病人的例子辩护。它可能会使“幸福”最大化,但这是对人权的侵犯,我们必须平衡社会利益的保障和个人基本权利不受损害。
The effectiveness of punishment as a deterrent is often misunderstood. Those who fill our prisons are clearly undeterred by society’s punishments. The fact that rates of recidivism in the UK and US hover between 60 and 65 per cent only underscores the point that incarceration routinely fails to deter repeat offending. It might seem that more severe punishments would be more effective deterrents, but often the opposite is true. In a number of cases, the death penalty appears to have produced an anti-deterrent effect, increasing rather than reducing crime rates. And it’s telling that Europe’s lowest reoffending rate is in Norway’s humane prison island of Bastoy. Contrary to popular intuitions, what matters most in deterring criminal behaviour is not so much the severity of punishment but the likelihood of getting caught.
作为一种威慑,惩罚的有效性常常受到误解。监狱里的人显然没有被社会惩罚吓住。英美两国的累犯率徘徊在60%至65%之间,这一数字只能说明监禁通常无法阻止再犯。我们通常认为更严厉的惩罚能带来更有效的威慑,但事实往往是相反的。在一些案件中,死刑似乎产生了一种反威慑作用,导致犯罪率不减反增。同时,欧洲最低的再犯罪率是在挪威的人性化监狱岛Bastoy。与通常的直觉相反,在威慑犯罪行为方面最重要的因素不是惩罚的严厉程度,而是被捕的可能性。
None of this means that we should let violent criminals or corrupt bankers walk free. We have the right to defend society from those who pose a threat, and create incentives for socially beneficial behaviour. But if society were to reject notions of blame and responsibility, we’d see a profound shift in how we think about punishment. The sole aim of the criminal justice system would then be to improve the future, not exact revenge for the past.
这些都不意味着我们应该让暴力罪犯或腐败银行家逍遥法外。我们有权去保护社会不受那些构成威胁的人的侵害,同时奖励有益社会的行为。但是,如果社会拒绝谴责和责任的概念,我们将看到我们对惩罚的深刻认知转变。刑事司法系统的唯一目标将是改善未来,而不是为过去实施报复。
If people aren’t ultimately responsible for their actions, then there is no justification for retribution. Broadly speaking, on finding someone guilty of a crime, we have three ways of responding: punishment to deter; rehabilitation to heal; or incarceration to protect. These responses are not mutually exclusive and often overlap. For each, there are two questions to answer: will it be effective and can it be ethically justified? The answers depend on whom we’re talking about – each brain is unique. A ‘one size fits all’ approach is inefficient and unethical.
如果人们最终不对自己的行为负责,那么就惩罚就失去了正当性。一般来说,当认定某人有罪时,我们有三种应对方式:惩罚威慑,康复治疗,或者监禁保护。这些方式并不相互排斥,而且常常重叠。对于每种方式,都有两个问题需要回答:它会有效吗?它在道德上是合理的吗?答案取决于我们谈论的对象——每个大脑都是独一无二的,而“一刀切”的方法是低效且不道德的。
In the US, 10 times more people with serious mental illnesses are in prison than in state hospitals. In the UK, roughly 90 per cent of offenders suffer from psychiatric disorders. Harming a lawbreaker with severe mental-health problems is itself a form of injustice. Punishing an addict with little self-control creates more problems than it solves. Addicts and people with severe mental-health issues need therapeutic help, not brutal, threatening incarceration. As the prison psychiatrist James Gilligan put it in 2000, ‘one of the most effective ways to turn a non-violent person into a violent one is to send him to prison’.
在美国,监狱中患有严重精神疾病的人数是州立医院的10倍;在英国,大约90%的罪犯患有精神疾病。伤害一个有着严重心理健康问题的违法者本身就是一种不公,惩罚一个缺乏自制力的瘾君子会产生而非解决更多的问题。瘾君子和严重精神疾病患者需要的是治疗性帮助,而不是残酷的监禁。正如监狱精神病学家詹姆斯·吉利根(James Gilligan)在2000年所说,“将一个非暴力的人转变为暴力的最有效方式之一就是把他送进监狱。”
The idea that the punishment should ‘fit the crime’ has little place in a rational criminal justice system. A pragmatic response would depend less on the crime and more on the specific criminal. Does an act reflect a person’s character, or is it the product of disease, addiction, exhaustion, desperation or disability? Establishing mens rea, the extent to which a crime is the result of a ‘guilty mind’, is not the test of moral responsibility, but a crucial step towards establishing the threat posed by a person, and the most constructive response to his or her actions.
在合理的刑事司法系统中,“罪罚相适”是不存在的。务实的回应应该是更多地关注具体的罪犯而不是犯罪本身。行为究竟是一个人的性格的反映,还是说只是疾病、成瘾、疲惫、绝望或者无能为力的产物?确立犯罪意图,犯罪在多大程度上 是“犯罪心理”的结果,并不是对道德责任的检验,而是判断一个人构成威胁大小的关键步骤,也是对他/她的行为作出的最具建设性的回应。
Poor impulse control is common in prisoners. The neuroscientist David Eagleman and colleagues have pioneered an approach dubbed the ‘prefrontal workout’. Since a choice is the outcome of competing drives, self-control training can help tip the balance in the desired direction, enhancing the ability to resist a temptation or suppress a violent response. The prefrontal workout presents participants with a familiar provocation and shows them, visually, the competing impulses in their brain. As different mental strategies are employed, participants learn what works and what doesn’t.
罪犯通常冲动能力较差。神经学家大卫·依格曼和他的同事开创了一种被称为“前额叶锻炼”的方法。由于选择都是竞争驱动的产物,自控训练可以帮助人们在预期方向上打破平衡,从而增强抵制诱惑或者抑制暴力反应的能力。前额叶训练方法给参与者们提供了一套熟悉的刺激机制,并且以可视化的方法向他们展示了大脑中的竞争冲动。通过采取不同的心理策略,参与者们可以学习到行之有效的策略。
Attention to individual needs can determine the appropriate rehabilitation in a given situation. For instance, restorative justice, which brings together criminals and their victims for mediated discussion, reaps a range of benefits, especially for victims, many of whom say they felt empowered, with a greater sense of closure, after taking part. Studies into restorative justice also testify to its financial and crime-reducing value. Prison-education programmes are another option that correlates with a reduction in prison violence and reoffending rates.
在既定的情境中,对个性化需求的关注决定了合适的改过自新的方法。例如,促进悔过的司法体系通过将罪犯和他们的受害者聚集在一起进行调解讨论的方式,创造了诸多益处。特别是对受害者而言,很多人声称,通过参加讨论,他们感到被重新赋予了能量和更强的解脱感。同时,针对促进悔过的司法体系的深入研究也证实了它在经济效益和降低犯罪方面具备的价值。此外,监狱教育项目也是减少监狱暴力,降低重犯率的另一种选择。
When the potential for modifying behaviour is slim, as with serial killers and serial rapists, extended incarceration might well be necessary. But although a psychopath makes many morally horrendous choices, they don’t include choosing the brain of a psychopath. Elementary ethical principles therefore demand that offenders be provided with humane conditions geared to facilitating a meaningful existence.
当行为改变的可能性很低的时候,例如针对连环杀手和连环强奸犯,延长监禁时间就很有必要。但是尽管一个精神病患者做出了很多违背道德的可怕选择,但他们的精神变态的大脑并不是自己选来的。因此基于基本的道德原则,我们应该提供给罪犯人道的条件来帮助他们活得更有意义。
And how do we know who is most likely to reoffend? In one study, psychiatrists and parole-board members were asked to assess the likelihood of individual sex offenders reoffending. Their predictions bore almost no correlation with the outcomes. A far more successful alternative, now used by many courts, is based on algorithms that make use of detailed personal histories: drug use, childhood trauma, capacity for remorse and other such factors. Analysis shows that certain combinations of these traits and experiences dramatically increase the likelihood of reoffending. As the quality and range of criminological data improves, our predictive powers will only increase.
那么,我们从何知晓谁将再次犯罪?在一项研究中,精神病学家和假释委员会成员被要求评估性犯罪者再次犯罪的可能性,而他们的预测却和结果几乎毫无关联。现在被很多法庭采用的一种更加有效的替代方法是基于个人详细简历形成的算法机制,其中包括:吸毒,童年创伤,自控能力和其他类似因素。分析表明,这些特征和经历的某些组合极大地增加了再次犯罪的可能性。而随着犯罪数据的质量和范围的不断完善,我们的预测能力也会不断提升。
To improve the future rather than exact revenge for the past, a criminal justice system would deliver shorter sentences; create safer, more humane prisons; and invest in a range of rehabilitation programmes to meet the needs of those who pass through it. To think rationally about socially harmful behaviour, we need to stop seeing it as the outcome of the mystical ‘free will’ of the individual and view it instead as the product of natural causes, as a doctor views the symptoms of a disease.
为了不断改善未来状况而不是报复过去,刑事司法系统应该缩短刑期,建设更加安全和人性化的监狱,并且对一系列改过自新的项目进行投资以满足那些需要这些项目的人的需求。为了更加理性地看待对社会有害的行为,我们就需要像医生看待疾病的症状一样,将其归结为自然原因的产物,而不是个人神秘的“自由意志”的结果。
Like someone afflicted with a contagious virus, the threat a criminal poses is not ultimately of his making. Exposed to the same genetic and social conditions, each of us would exhibit similar symptoms. Focusing on punishment alone does little to prevent further outbreaks. Instead, it distracts from addressing the material and cultural conditions ­– from inequality to racism – that breed those symptoms. Perpetuating these conditions is always the greater crime.
就像感染了传染性病毒的人一样,犯罪带来的威胁并不是罪犯本身造成的。在同样的基因和社会条件下,我们每一个人都会表现出相似的症状。仅仅着眼于惩罚本身并不能阻止犯罪未来的爆发。相反,它只是将注意力从解决孕育这些症状的从不平等到种族主义的物质和文化条件中转移了,而维系这些条件往往意味着更严重的犯罪。

我们该如何对待罪犯

  • 本文原载于 AEON

  • 原文链接:https://aeon.co/ideas/what-would-a-rational-criminal-justice-system-look-like

一、了解取经号 |我们是谁,在做什么,如何加入
二、学习贴士|如何打印输出PDF如何使用微信读书订阅取经号
三、翻译服务| 咨询邮箱:[email protected]
四、社交媒体 |微信公众号:取经号;微博:取经号JTW
五、译文归档 | 访问网站:qujinghao.com
六、学习社群 |翻译社(暂停中)

我们该如何对待罪犯

Be First to Comment

发表评论

电子邮件地址不会被公开。 必填项已用*标注