the lawless by sticking them in little rooms all by themselves—non this point they were in complete agreement. We have Godnto thank that philosophers are only rarely kings, since Bentham’snplan for a totally controlled prison, his famous panopticon, wasna nightmarish model for the total state.nThe term penitentiary is no euphemism, for it was notndesigned as a house of punishment but as a place where prisonersnwould be compelled to brood upon their transgressions.nSolitary confinement was the key to the early penitentiary;nat the English Pentonville, prisoners upon admittance werenimmediately dispatched to a solitary cell for a period, originally,nof 18 months, although as more and more prisoners went insane,nthis was reduced to nine months. Once out of solitary, the prisonersnwere still deprived of human contact: they worked alonenat their tasks and had to wear hooded masks whenever theynassembled—to prevent the formation of any social relationships.nThe mle was simple: no communication of any kind wasntolerated.nSuch coldly inhuman treatment aroused the ire of radicalsnand reactionaries alike. Even the Utopian liberal, WilliamnGodwin, realized that human character, which, is formed bynsociety, could only be degraded under such conditions. Everyngeneration since Godwin has called for prison reform. Tocqueville’snvisit to America was occasioned in part by his desire tonstudy the new-model prisons, and he records the observationnthat criminals came out of these prisons more hardened andnvicious than they went in. After two centuries of reform efforts,nthe same complaints are being made. Prisons are inhumanenand overcrowded graduate schools in felony, which degrade theninmates without deterring crime.nThings are, of course, worse in our own day. By the end ofnthe century, the inmate population (including prisoners on furlough,nparole, etc.) of the United States will surpass fournmillion, and the annual cost for the corrections apparatus willnreach $40 billion. They could all be sent to a state universitynfor that figure. No one is happy with the system. Liberals complainnthat it is bmtal and inhumane—^and they are right—^whilenconservatives insist that liberal remedies, such as furloughs andnwork-release, are turning vicious criminals loose upon thenpublic—and they are also right.nWe all know the system doesn’t work, but the only alternativesnare, on the one hand, more prisons and longer sentences,nor on the other, more coddling of murderers, armed robbers,nand rapists. The public debate over the Jeffrey Dahmerncase in Milwaukee is a perfect illustration. One side insists Dahmernknew what he was doing and ought to be put away for life;nthe other declares he is insane and ought to be put in an asylumnfor at least a year until he straightens out.nBut aren’t most criminals at least a little bit crazy? A stockbroker,nwho can honestly cam a hundred thousand (or manyntimes that) a year must be unbalanced to jeopardize his careernby engaging in insider trading, and the same argument couldnbe applied to virtually everyone except dmg dealers, whose costbenefitncalculation strikes me as entirely rational: let’s see, fournbucks an hour at McDonald’s or fifty grand for a few days’nwork. Even at the risk of a few years on the inside, it is an easyndecision.nOf course a homosexual cannibal who designs a temple ofndeath is crazy, crazier than a mad dog that we would unhesitatinglynput to sleep. Execution is the mildest punishment Mr.nDahmer deserves, and anything less is an outrage againstnour sense of justice. But Wisconsin gave up the death penal­nty, and the best the citizens of that state can hope for is a verdictnthat will give them the privilege of supporting Mr. Dahmernfor the rest of his life. I say, tum him loose with a ten-secondnhead start in front of his victims’ relatives.nThe usual conservative remedy for the problem of crime isnmore police, but what good can the police do in Milwaukee,nwhere they are ordered to protect the life of Mr. Dahmer? Innmost cities now, the primary function of the police is that ofnprotecting violent felons from the just revenge of their victimsnand their kindred. The vast police network of the UnitednStates only exists, it sometimes seems, to check drivers’ licensesnor arrest good parents who love their kids enough to spanknthem. I am not blaming the police officers themselves; theynare only carrying out laws made by judges and legislators, innthat order. What we don’t need is more police but morenexecutions.nMutilation, it will be said, is barbaric, but hownmany men would not give up a hand or evennan arm in preference to spending seven years inna state prison as the wife of Mike Tyson?nThe sterility of most “thinking about crime” is revealed bynthe hostile refusal to consider any but the narrowest range ofnoptions. In the exclusive concentration on the merits and defectsnof the present system, the whole point of the system hasnbeen lost sight of. There are a number of different ways of breakingndown and classifying the objectives of criminal justice, butnthe primary categories would seem to be: retribution, compensation,nprotection, and humanity. None of these is securednunder the current regime. Five to ten years of imprisonmentnfor murder or three years for rape is simply not satisfactory asnretribution. It is possible to work out a loftier scheme than thenlex talionis according to which the man who accidentallynputs out another’s eye must lose his own, but it is not for nothingnthat we imagine justice to be weighed out on a balance. Thenseverity of the crime must be matched by the severity ofnthe punishment; otherwise the victim and his family cannnever be satisfied.nVictim compensation was all the rage in the 1980’s, but verynlittle was actually done to compensate either victims or theirnfamilies for the wrongs that had been done. No compensationnhas been proposed for the investors who lost out because ofninsider trading, for the old ladies who paid a band of gypsiesnto resurface their driveways or repair their roofs, for the parentsnwhose children were murdered iri school because the principalsnand superintendents refuse to protect the studentsnfrom violence, or for the women whose lives have been tumedninto an unending nightmare by a generous parole board collaboratingnwith an AlDS-infected rapist who had a string of previousnconvictions.nTlie truth is that we are not free to walk our own streets innsafety; large numbers of students now carry guns and knivesnto school; rape has become so prevalent that it is treated as annnMAY 1992 /11n