Chris W. Surprenant - Rethinking Punishment in the Era of Mass Incarceration

CHRIS W. SURPRENANT

JOHN HASNAS

MICHAEL HUEMER

NATHAN GOODMAN

CHRIS BARKER

ROBERT C. HUGHES

BILL WRINGE

DAVID BOONIN

EDDY NAHMIAS AND EYAL AHARONI

KRISTEN BELL

JOHANNA C. LUTTRELL

CARA H. DRINAN

ABIGAIL R. HALL AND VERONICA J. MERCIER

ANDREW COHEN AND WILLIAM GLOD

JOHN F. PFAFF

JOSH DOHMEN

BRIANA MCGINNIS

JASON BRENNAN

DANIEL J. DAMICO

This publication volume would not have been possible without a generous grant from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. I am incredibly thankful for their support of this project and the scholars who have contributed to this volume, as well as their support for other scholars working on a wide range of projects in the area of criminal justice reform.

Chris W. Surprenant

In June 2016, the United States found itself in the middle of a national sentencing controversy. 20-year-old Brock Turner, a star swimmer at Stanford University, was found guilty of sexually assaulting an unconscious 22-year-old woman behind a fraternity house dumpster. Turner was sentenced to six months in prison, three years on probation, and life registration as a sex offender. Public consensus appeared to be that Turners punishment was far too lenient and that justice demands a more severe penalty for such violent and reprehensible acts, both to punish the perpetrator and to send a message generally that this type of behavior will not be tolerated. Around the same time, another sentencing controversy was playing out in New Orleans. There, 34-year-old Jacobia Grimes faced a sentence of 20 years to life for stealing $31 in candy from a convenience store. Having been convicted of petty theft four times previously, the district attorney chose to prosecute Grimes as a repeat offender, subjecting him to certain mandatory minimum sentencing. Twenty years to life for a Snickers bar, or two or three or four, Judge Franz Zibilich wondered aloud during Grimess arraignment. Isnt this a little over the top?

This volume examines what I believe to be the most important topic in applied moral and political philosophy in the US: criminal justice reform, and, specifically, how we should go about addressing our problem of mass incarceration. As I write this introduction in February 2017, the US is second in the world in per capita incarceration, behind only the small island nation of the Seychelles. 2.3 million people currently occupy American prisons and jails, 0.71% of our population or approximately 1 out of every 140 people. This problem extends beyond jails and prisons and to our criminal justice system more generally. 820,000 Americans are currently on parole, which is a conditional release from prison, and another 3.8 million people are on probation, which often serves as an alternative to prison or jail. In total, a staggering 7 million people1 out of every 46 Americansare under the control of the US criminal justice system.

While these numbers seem staggeringly high, it may be the case that this outcome is just and that these individuals are being punished appropriately. But it is difficult to think clearly about just and unjust punishment without considering the question of why we punish, specific examples of punishment, and if those punishments aim at their intended goals. When thinking about justice and punishment our first thoughts likely go to the criminal justice system that we are most familiar with and whether or not we think that certain laws, and the penalties associated with breaking those laws, are fair. We rightly associate justice and fairness, and determining what is fair in any particular situation seems to depend on the circumstances relevant to that case. Factors such as why a person acted contrary to an explicit or understood rule, if the actor intended to violate that rule or cause serious harm, and the likelihood of that person acting badly again in the future all seem as if they should influence what punishment, if any, is the fairest response to undesirable behavior.