@Frogus: I like your sig
To address Tom's original questions: If all other factors are equal, I don't think a person should be more heavily punished because of good or bad luck. Now, in reality it is of course very difficult to assess what is luck and not luck. IMO luck should be defined as a random element - thus, if a tired person gets behind the wheen, knows he is tired and drives slowly and very carefully, avoiding heavily trafficked routes etc, is it luck or not if he doesn't kill others? How does a court decide what is luck or not? These are problematic questions in reality, but in theory, I think the two men in your example should be equally punished regardless of outcome, and the crime they should be punished for is wrecklesss driving, risking the life of others.
@Fable and Frogus: I think there is a fundamental question that is more important than the issue of whether a criminal should be "punished" or "rehabilitated" (is this the right word?), and that question is: what makes people commit criminal acts, like murder? IMO, nobody is born defective or evil, nobody was born to become a negative element. Sure people are born with different genetic makeup like anxiety levels, aggression levels, impulse control etc, but years and years of forensic research has found no biological or genetic explanations to why some people choose a criminal career or kill another person during certain circumstances. Explanations lie elsewhere, in socioculture factors. This doesn't mean that the individual has no responsibility, of course he or she has, but let's face it: at least in Scandinavia, most people who kill other people share a common, really bad, sociocultural background. Parental abuse, bullying, school problems, etc are factors that consistently appear in the background of people who has committed violent crimes. Now, what can be done about it?
IMO, profylactic treatment, ie addressing the factors that make people become criminals, is totally underestimated in all of the Western society although many such factors are known. Why don't we do anything about it if we know how to prevent people from becoming criminals? The answer lies in the state of our politics. You don't win any elections by suggesting expensive, long term solutions that we might only see the result of in 30 or 40 years time.
Also, for all the people who have already committed crimes like murder or other violent acts, there are several good alternatives, perhaps much better than jail. Pedophilia is often claimed to be incurable - most people think pedophiles are the scum of the earth and should be locked in and the key thrown away. Whereas I share the disgust over an adult exploiting and raping children, often spoiling the kid's possibility for any kind of normal life, I would rather see a long term, permanent cure for pedophilia than simply jailing all new pedophiles. When the crime is committed, it's already too late for the victim. Pedophiles, like many violent offenders, often have a high recurrency rate.
But there are treatment programs that have shown a dramamtic lowering of recurrency, in the US, a program consisting of a combination of individual aversion therapy, group therapy and social adjustment programs, showed a 90% sucesss. So why don't we use this treatment program worldwide? The study was controlled, results were compared to numerous other treatments or jail with no treatment, follow ups has been done several times years later, and the success rate is still way higher than anything else previously tried!?
Well, the program was a research project, and US authorities abandoned the project because it was too expensive. Same thing with an educational program in Sweden, where young criminals got professional training and help with social adjustment - the program was a success and recurrency rates lower than anything tried before, but it was considered too expensive. Hey, people want their tax money to go to education of children, health care, infrastructure etc - they don't want to pay a lot ot money to help somebody who raped 4-year old!
Now, we come to the issue of revenge and punishment. When horrible and cruel acts are committed, we want
justice, and justice is often equal to punishment of the guilty and compensation for the victims. Justice in the form of punishment makes us feel better, but does it create a better society? Rehab is often viewed as a reward, jail is viewed as punishment. Also, there is the view that jail is the only solution to protect society from these people who hurt others.
My solution: Victims should be compensated. Offenders should be given rehabilitation that works, and we should all pay for this with tax money. Goverments and media should clearly present alternatives and results of different treatments, rather than just abandoning successful projects before people even know of their existance. Do we want a society with less pedophiles, less murderer, less violence? No, I don't think so. It's still cheaper to keep people in jail than to invest in large scale prevention and rehab.
