Curtis George C, Nygaard Richard L
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2008;36(3):385-7.
Dysfunctional features of American penology are mitigated somewhat by the application (though uneven) of modern science. Unfortunately, these advances do not address major flaws in the ideas on which the system is erected. These include retribution, proportional punishment, and all-or-none notions of criminal responsibility. We propose abandoning retribution for its own sake; making punishment proportional to its effectiveness for behavior change rather than to the indignation evoked by the offense; and incorporating punishment into sentences based on the clinical and behavioral characteristics of the offender, including containment as necessary for public safety. Every offender would be held responsible, but the meaning and consequences thereof would change. The proposed changes could only occur incrementally. New systems of oversight and accountability would be required. Legislative bodies could provide guidelines, and courts could oversee, but neither could micromanage. Few are better qualified to work toward these goals than readers of this journal.
美国刑罚学的功能失调特征在一定程度上因现代科学的应用（尽管并不均衡）而有所缓解。不幸的是，这些进展并未解决该体系所基于的理念中的主要缺陷。这些缺陷包括报应、相称惩罚以及关于刑事责任的全有或全无观念。我们提议摒弃纯粹的报应观念；使惩罚与行为改变的效果成比例，而非与罪行引发的愤慨成比例；并根据罪犯的临床和行为特征将惩罚纳入量刑之中，包括出于公共安全必要时的监禁。每个罪犯都将被追究责任，但其含义和后果将会改变。提议的变革只能逐步实现。将需要新的监督和问责制度。立法机构可以提供指导方针，法院可以进行监督，但两者都无法事无巨细地管理。很少有人比本期刊的读者更有资格朝着这些目标努力。
