Gary Watson presents a moral predicament currently in the social justice system, particularly relating to social injustice. On one hand, if the state unjustly treats the dispossessed, then this would undermine the justice of punishing criminals. On the other hand, if the state fails to convict and punish criminals among the dispossessed, then the peoples’ rights to self-protection wouldn’t be valid. Furthermore, to add on to the predicament, Watson shares that “those who are victims of severe social injustice are understandably alienated from the dominant political institutions, and, not unreasonably, disrespect their authority, including that of the criminal law”(168 Watson). Ultimately, the lack of equal treatment for the dispossessed, like less protection and absence of growing opportunities, makes them dislike and lose trust in the social justice system.
Watson offers various ideas to solve the predicament at hand. Some of these solutions include: modifying sentencing policies so the dispossessed are less likely to be constantly cycled through the social justice system, provide poverty defenses, provide disincentives to employers for automatically disqualifying ex-felons, and providing consistent and trustworthy counsel for the poor(186 Watson). Overall, Watson believes the best way to treat criminals under conditions of structural injustice is to be aware of the social injustice that occurred, and to develop healthier relations with those treated unjustly by implementing poverty defenses and modifying sentences.
Shelby offers the idea that the state could work on “decoupling condemnation from penalties”(1 Shelby). In other words, the state should discipline and punish criminals that perform more serious acts, like murder, rape, or robbery, whether or not structural injustice is present in the situation. At the same time, the state should also be aware that they are not allowed to punish criminals that perform disobedient crimes, like possession of drugs, or trespassing, when structural injustice is present.
Unlike Watson, Warren Quinn believes the state should “create threats of evil to precede or accompany an offense”(335 Quinn). In Quinn’s, “The Right to Threaten and the Right to Punish,” she uses an analogy involving tire spikes and the immediate threat of popping one’s tires. In her analogy she states that tire spikes aren’t guaranteed to stop people from going over them, but it does help with making people think before deciding to trespass because of the instant punishment that would occur. So, in social justice, Quinn is saying that the state should create threats where the punishment is nearly immediate. She argues that it wouldn’t completely stop people from committing crimes, but it would definitely make people think twice before committing one.
Pereboom’s view on the treatment of criminals is more focused on assisting them instead of using punishment to scare them from committing crimes. Pereboom believes the state should try to be involved in the rehabilitation process as much as possible until criminals are safe enough to return to society. He continues on and says they would stay at newly constructed facilities, where they would get professional help and learn how to positively affect society. This process would involve increased taxes and much effort from the state, but for the betterment of society, he believes it could be worth the resources.
Pereboom also supports the quarantine treatment of criminals. To support this, he refers to Ferdinand Schoeman’s argument. Which basically states that if we can quarantine someone with a deadly disease, then we should be able to justify the quarantine of a criminal who has committed a malicious crime(156 Pereboom). Since they’re both harmful to society, and can be “healed” over time, I can understand why he would believe this. Ironically, although quarantine is already an unusual punishment, Pereboom actually stated that it’s unjust to treat criminals poorly while in quarantine. Just like it’s unjust to treat carriers of a disease poorly, the same level of treatment and care should be given to a criminal. Even though quarantine is an option, Pereboom is only trying to help criminals function normally after they return to society.
With that, Pereboom supports quarantine even more because he considers it to be fair. Once again, by comparing criminals to people with diseases, he states that it wouldn’t be fair for people with diseases to be treated unfairly just because they have a disease they cannot treat on their own. In the same way, criminals cannot treat themselves on their own. They need rehabilitation and fair treatment to get back on their feet.
I believe Pereboom’s account to be the strongest in handling the predicament. It offers the idea that getting convicted isn’t completely negative, as it would allow criminals to seek help and improve themselves. It is clear that he would object to the 1st thesis because he supports the rehabilitation and quarantine of criminals, which can only be effective if they are rightfully convicted of their crimes.
