Rehabilitation v. Retribution in Criminal Justice (REVISED)
Note: If you have been keeping up with my recent blog posts, I have been revising several of them due to blatantly wrong statements or misinterpreted information. This is one of these blogs; however, this is unique, as the blog was especially problematic before this revision. While there may be certain logical errors in this blog, I concede to the ideas I state in this version of the blog and not the old version.
While not a novel idea, punishment is an increasingly complex one; as an idea, it weighs heavily on both moral and societal levels, thus retribution for crimes must be thoroughly thought out before being dealt. Modern cases such as the Lancey Clancy trial here in the United States make these ideas all the more essential to understand. This blog will use Clancy as an example; I advise the public to take my opinion on the matter with a grain of salt, as I will never justify murder.
In the United States, there are two roads a convict can go down after being tried as guilty: retribution or rehabilitation. Retribution is an attempt to remove danger from the public and punish the crime. If, for example, someone is tried guilty of petty theft, they are not as much of a danger to society as someone tried for first-degree murder; thus, retribution is given fitting to the crime. Immanuel Kant wrote in his Philosophy of Law the idea of pœna forensi,s or Punishment that is Judicial. He claims that this type of crime is “imposed on one because…(they)...have committed a crime.” I bring this up as it relates directly to retribution. One is not dealt retribution because a court of law wants it; they are dealt retribution because their crime had: a, they had done it through culpa eorum(their fault); b, they pose a direct danger to society; and c, the public must understand that no crime is worth it as they will get punished. In several ways, it is fitting that precision systems be poor, as the lack of safety makes the fear of committing a crime even greater, thus negating it.
Rehabilitation only focuses on b, the person poses a danger to society. Rehabilitation “seeks to reform the individual…to stay within the bounds of the law,” as Congress.gov explains it. The essential idea is that the person has the ability to be reformed. A 16-year-old who was born unfortunate, committing a minor crime such as petty theft, is able to be reformed through the system. However, a fully grown adult having committedmurderr of passion deserves to be in a prison system outside of capable reform. A system that rules otherwise, in my opinion, is morally corrupt.
This brings me to the Clancy trial. Lancey Clancy, mother to Cora, Dawson, and Callan Clancy, all below the age of six, had killed her children. Before I mention how this ties into rehabilitation and Retribution I would be remiss not to mention all the facts of the case. The facts of this case are taken from Pattrick Clancey's case against the medical companies that tried to help Lindsy Clancy, but the facts remain true.
After having her third child in May of 2024, her life was “idyllic,” as the file states it. Around four months later Clancy had begun suffering from the beginnings of postpartum depression. She had begun to take care of all of her three children by herself as her husband had been elsewhere for work; later, when she too had begun to work, the stress had ‘accumulated’. She had sought professional help for her issues. As time went on, she began to get fewer hours of sleep, and her condition got worse. On January 24, 2023, while her husband was out for a short amount of time, she began to hear a voice in her head telling her she should kill her children and herself. She killed her children. The DA’s office of Plymouth County had sued her for the wrongful death of her three young children.
What is most unique about this case is the defense that she was in a poor mental state. She attempts to remove herself from the issue, for a crime of passion is a crime of passion regardless of the factors involved. While I understand that postpartum depression is a real thing, not all hardworking mothers of three get help or kill their children. This is an obvious instance in which rehabilitation is too far. No amount of doctors could have helped a mind that told her to kill her kids.
(Time Crunch could not do full citation; here are links)
Comments