Biases are values and beliefs individuals holds as true, Pullman defines it as “conditional acceptance [provided] at a rate consistent with the validity of evidence” which asserts that the physical evidence can be irrelevant in relation to the occurrence of the evidence. If the math equation “1+1=2” is passed down through generations then the assertion becomes a standard and the standard becomes definite but doesn’t specifically make it true. Universally, there is a understanding that if you put one object with another it becomes 2 of something, although numbers are imaginary and man made. Assertion such as these reaffirms that the popularity of some evidence may outweigh the content. Backtracking to Pullman’s checklist for assessing evidence, determining the validity of evidence requires a lot of questioning. Cognitive biases reaffirms the theory of frequency over content (in frequent cases) because most biases are circumstantial and experiential.
Sunk-cost bias refers to the investment of time as a catalyst of value, for example, spending x amount of time in said activity therefore affirms value and justifies effort. However, Pullman also poses that “only future costs should be considered when making decisions” which prompted this question, “Is our judicial system fair for punishing past offenses?” Our society seems to think so. There are many philosophies and sayings that justifies the principle of cause and effect, King Hammurabi’s “an eye for an eye” philosophy is the most popular basis and is somewhat used as a guideline for the American judicial system. Every action has a reaction and every bad decision has a consequence. If you break the law, you get punished.
Mandatory minimum sentencing is a product of this. According to the Families Against Mandatory Minimums, mandatory minimum sentencing have created a production of “[overpopulation], exorbitant costs to taxpayers and diversion of funds from law enforcement”. The federal government have used mandatory minimums as a guideline to convict offenders that commit similar crimes and serve as an example for citizens to consider the risks before conducting in illegal activities. This list below shows the mandatory federal sentencing for various crimes.
The basis of the American judicial system is to arrest, convict and then condemn (in that order) for previous actions of offenders. However, would sentencing based on the future in contrast to the past/present be a better solution to obtaining a more functional society?
US News, “Get a Little Less Tough on Crime”, states that “nonviolent offenders account for 90% of the federal population” which means that many prisoners are convicted of drug trafficking, immigration, identity theft, fraud, food stamps, obstruction of justice, piracy and miscellaneous crimes.
America’s judicial system seems to promote somewhat of a reverse sunk-cost bias. The mentality is that the more prison time a person serves the less valuable and more harmful they are to society. However, research is proving that is not the time served that is the determinant of whether or not prisoners will be better citizens to society. It is actually that many prisoners need access to better resources than penalties of previous actions.
Well what does sentencing based on the future look like? How can you create a solution for something you are unaware of could happen? Rehabilitation is how.
Rehabilitation is a recent innovative way to decrease imprisonment population and cost significantly. The Open Society Foundation is a organization that focuses on creating a more trustworthy and equal society, their mission is to “build vibrant and tolerant societies whose governments are accountable and open to the participation of all people” and most recently they analyzed the effects of rehabilitation versus imprisonment. Various projects in Maryland offered rehabilitation within the same time as a sentence and noticed significant results, below is an excerpt from The Open Society Foundation policy report of one of the programs.
Works Cited
Benson, Etienne. “Rehabilitate or Punish?” Monitor on Psychology, American Psychological Association, July 2003, www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/rehab.aspx.
“» What Are Mandatory Minimums?” FAMM, famm.org/mandatory-minimums/.
Zuckerman, Mortimer B. “Let’s Get a Little Less Tough on Crime.” U.S. News , 9 May 2014, 1:00 PM, www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/05/09/its-time-for-prison-reform-and-an-end-to-mandatory-minimum-sentences.
Recent Comments