I don't think the first is a rationale in and of itself, only when combined with the second. I don't think anyone disagrees with the first except perhaps criminals themselves, but I certainly don't think disagreement with the first has much to do with the Norwegian system. Norwegians obviously think that people should not benefit from acts of evil; I mean, they do have laws after all.
Anyway, you are missing a third option. Imprisonment does not have to be about either rehabilitation or punishment. It could also, or even instead, be about detainment and isolation. In other words, you can imprison somebody not out of some sort of desire to "get back at them", and not with any hope of correcting their behavior, but merely to make sure they cannot injure people again.
Consider the case of Charles Manson: That guy is way too far gone to ever really hope that he can be rehabilitated. There is no fixing that guy; the US prison system couldn't do it, the Norwegian system couldn't do it, no "Manhattan Project of Psychiatry" could do it. Even so, that doesn't mean that the only option left is to ensure that he lives in relative misery the rest of his nature life. We could allow him to live the rest of his life out in relative comfort, so long as we never allow him to be free to harm others again.
Where we cannot 'fix', we obviously need to detain and isolate, but doing that for the safety of the public is sufficient motivation. We don't need to do that out of a desire to 'punish'. (Unless you buy into "such punishments act as a deterrent")
In other words, you can imprison somebody not out of some sort of desire to "get back at them", and not with any hope of correcting their behavior, but merely to make sure they cannot injure people again.
This is the only truly just reason for impeding anyone's freedoms. Rehabilitation is certainly a noble end, but anything else seems to be disastrously misguided, as is evidenced by the modern situation we live in. Deterrence? How do you deter someone who has no other avenue to make a living, as we have done to felons? Retribution is also a truly vulgar line of thinking, appealing to our basest instincts, and we need to grow out of it as soon as possible.
"This is the only truly just reason for impeding anyone's freedoms. Rehabilitation is certainly a noble end"
Yes, that makes sense. Rehabilitation is something that you might as well attempt while detaining somebody dangerous, but detainment is obviously the priority.
Consider a non-violent, white collar crime. Bernie Madoff for instance. He bilked billions from people. Say instead of being sentenced to jail, he was merely barred from any type of financial dealings, and forced to repay his victims. Would justice have been served?
The issue then would be deterrence, it would you could try your luck, in which case you could win really big, but if it didn't work out it wouldn't really matter because you wouldn't have lost anything that you had in the first place.
We could allow him to live the rest of his life out in relative comfort
I agree that proactively making his life miserable is silly, but the question becomes "how much comfort do we provide". Different people have different ideas of how much they are willing to pay to fund this man's life in "relative comfort", and of course only naturally their desire to channel their dollars towards his comfort is lower than it probably would be for an individual who is not a convicted criminal...
Consider Bernie Madoff. If ever there was a guy in jail solely for punishment, it is he. Prison is doing nothing to rehabilitate him, "so he can function in society" when he gets out. And his lifetime ban from the security industry incapacitates him from further crimes.
Why on earth is he being locked up. Pissing away the life savings of thousands of people? Water under the bridge. Stop being so vengeful -- it's childish and unbecoming!
Deterrence is the only reason. His punishment must at least negate the years of luxury he got from is scam. Nobody should be tempted to repeat it for a few great years at the prize of prison afterwards.
Frankly, that is impossible to do humanly. How old is he now, and how many years did he live in luxury? You'd need to be waterboarding him or something to strive for some sort of "eye for an eye" equilibrium.
I think Bernie Madoff is an interesting example. He doesn't represent a threat to anybody (he is not a violent man. Furthermore we should be able to make sure he doesn't start running another scam again, even if he is free, since we know he is a con-man now), and if we discard vengeance as a legitimate reason to detain somebody, we then need to consider the value of detaining him as a deterrent to others.
If we are worried about psychopathic con-men who are incapable of experiencing fear, then detainment probably doesn't do much to deter similar crimes. I am not convinced that is an accurate representation of psychopaths though, and I certainly don't think all con-men are psychopaths anyway. Detaining Madoff probably does serve to deter similar crimes.
The question I have is if there are other punishments besides imprisonment that could fill that roll.
Bernie is an interesting example for a number of reasons.
The likelihood of being caught is probably a bigger factor in deterrence than the severity of the punishment itself. White collar criminals probably get away with a lot of small crimes (I am guessing).
Madoff is a very extreme example because he was doomed to eventually be caught. But we can look at it the other direction and consider how many hundreds(?!?) of small and large crimes did he get away with before it all collapsed on him?
He was most certainly not "doomed to be caught" in his lifetime. As you say, he's probably been crooked his entire working life, yet enjoyed a very successful and lucrative career, and was busted only at the age of 70. Plenty of "lucky" criminals die of natural causes before being busted.
I'm sure there would still be people who would give him their money (likely less-than-honest people themselves, knowing he was a con-man and hoping to get in on the game). What I mean though is that obviously all of his finances would be closely monitored (you could probably forbid him from actually being in charge of them), everything would be constantly audited. If he so much as bought a new Honda Accord, it would be taken, sold, and the proceeds would go to pay back his debts.
Basically, just like he isn't allowed to run a business or manage his own finances now, when he is in prison, he wouldn't be able to while outside either. Literal prison walls don't really add that much to our ability to control those things.
I think the only reason of the three that anybody here opposes is the "punishment" reason. I oppose it so far as we cannot demonstrate that it will decrease the number of offenders.
I suspect that in some cases it does. Fear of the law probably does a decent job of keeping most people from enjoying alcoholic beverages on sidewalks for instance. (but I also suspect that in many cases (if not all cases) the imprisonment could be replaced with other punishments. Punitive damages are one obvious example of non-imprisonment punishment.)
In cases like Charles Manson, I doubt punishment is valuable. Crazy people aren't exactly known for their fear of consequences. If this is the case, then punishment of Charles Manson would be pointless and frankly verging on barbaric (though detainment of Charles Manson would of course be absolutely essential).
I don't really know how to effectively comment on this. I raised a son for whom punishment would absolutely not have worked. I know there is a place for it in the world but most of the time it comes from a place of a) spite and b) not knowing how to get good results. Those are usually poor reasons to do a thing.
I was something of a pain in the ass as a kid. Attempts to punish me would typically embolden me and either make me act even worse in the future or merely work harder to not get caught. My parents found that talking to me (aka, 'reform') was more effective.
At the same time, the reason why I do not currently break the speed limit (to an excessive degree) when I feel that it is safe is that I am not keen on being slapped with a fine. Speeding fines are a punishment that seems effective at discouraging me from speeding.
I don't think speeding fines are really punishment. It is a cost that you are not willing to pay without good reason. If you had sufficient reason to be in a rush, you might decide it was an acceptable cost. But the occasional fine doesn't really have pain and suffering attached, like loss of your license, damage to your reputation, jail time, etc.
Cost benefit analysis makes sense. "I am going to hurt you and make you suffer" rarely does. There are exceptions but it is generally a desperate ploy, not one focused on a goal. It is generally an admission that we don't know how to accomplish a civilized environment. We don't know how to design an effective society. We are too stupid, collectively, as Americans to achieve civil solutions. So we are sfimply going to hurt you.
> I don't think speeding fines are really punishment. It is a cost that you are not willing to pay without good reason.
I think that it would be fair to say that this sort of imposed cost is a punishment. It seems to meet definition 2b here (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/punishment). That cost/punishment/whatever isn't worth the reward, so I don't do it.
I mean, it isn't a "speeding tax" or "speeding fee" that you pay for the retroactive right to speed for a while.
As another example, the fine here for violating open container laws in a public park is something like $25, which I would gladly pay on some nice summer days for a personal permit to drink in the park. I don't drink in the park and accept the possibility of that fine though, despite the naive cost/benefit ratio working out. It isn't just about the $25, I also don't want to be fined. The "fine" part I don't like; the "$25" part is okay.
(Repeat offense will of course result in the loss of your license, a penalty that acts as a more severe punishment but also a form of detainment. When your license is taken the idea is that you cannot endanger the public until you prove yourself capable of driving safely (prove yourself rehabilitated))
Speeding fee or speeding tax or speeding fine is kind of a matter of semantics. Some people would view it exactly that way. I knew a doctor who got three speeding tickets in one month and thus had to go traffic school, which he viewed as ridicilously stupid stuff. He had nothing but contempt for the entire thing, tickets, class, all of it. So I guess you and I shall continue to disagree.
I guess we disagree on terminology but don't actually disagree in practice. I think that punishment is okay only so far as fines are punishment, while you think that fines are not punishment, but that fines are okay and punishment is not. Basically the same thing. :)
Anyway, you are missing a third option. Imprisonment does not have to be about either rehabilitation or punishment. It could also, or even instead, be about detainment and isolation. In other words, you can imprison somebody not out of some sort of desire to "get back at them", and not with any hope of correcting their behavior, but merely to make sure they cannot injure people again.
Consider the case of Charles Manson: That guy is way too far gone to ever really hope that he can be rehabilitated. There is no fixing that guy; the US prison system couldn't do it, the Norwegian system couldn't do it, no "Manhattan Project of Psychiatry" could do it. Even so, that doesn't mean that the only option left is to ensure that he lives in relative misery the rest of his nature life. We could allow him to live the rest of his life out in relative comfort, so long as we never allow him to be free to harm others again.
Where we cannot 'fix', we obviously need to detain and isolate, but doing that for the safety of the public is sufficient motivation. We don't need to do that out of a desire to 'punish'. (Unless you buy into "such punishments act as a deterrent")