The Noninterventionist Perspective, Essay Example

The noninterventionist perspective is, if nothing else, truly fascinating as psychosocial commentary: the basic premise is that government intervention is ultimately harmful. Institutions, such as courts and prisons, are not to be trusted, because their interference in the lives of individual offenders will lead to those individuals being stigmatized. From the noninterventionist perspective, this is problematic not simply because of how it will make offenders feel about themselves (although there is that too), but because of how it will inform their subsequent activities, and possibilities of recidivism. The idea is that stigmatization as a result of an ‘offender’ label (fraud, thief, even murderer or rapist) will lead to the offender adopting that as a part of their identity and status, effectively channeling them into a subculture of criminality where these behaviors are not only accepted but even encouraged.

This perspective was actually put on display quite dramatically this election, with the successful ballot measures in Washington state and Colorado to legalize marijuana, albeit within certain strictures. This is a very important noninterventionist idea: whenever possible, reduce the number of crimes, thereby reducing the number of “offenders”. A few counties in Nevada allow legalized prostitution, though it is illegal everywhere else in the country. The use of informal, community-based, non-residential programs is another good example of the noninterventionist approach in action: relying on rehab, for example, to help drug addicts, as opposed to incarcerating them.

An advocate of the noninterventionist perspective would probably not be concerned with punishing Pickens for his substance abuse, or even intervening in any way. At the most, they might advise that Pickens continue his rehabilitation efforts at the treatment facility. With regards to the securities fraud, a far more serious matter, the advocate of noninterventionist policies might advise something similar to what the restorative justice advocate would argue for: a program designed to help the victims of Pickens’s fraud, and Pickens himself, to come to terms and solve the matter at hand in a way that does not require any more government intervention and stigmatization of Pickens than necessary.

In particular, the noninterventionist would probably point to the offer made by Pickens’s father, T. Boone Pickens, to make full restitution as evidence that absolutely no government intervention is needed. Even if no such offer was forthcoming from T. Boone, the noninterventionist would probably favor Michael himself making the restitution as much as possible, or otherwise working out a way to satisfy his victims in consultation with them. Again, the aim is to keep the government out of the process as much as possible: fundamentally, this is between Michael Pickens and the people he hurt, not the United States government.

Personally, I find this perspective troubling, inasmuch as it seems to prioritize concern for the stigmatization of the offender over justice for the victims. While I agree that with regard to victimless “crimes”, such as marijuana, prostitution, etc., the government should stay out of things, most types of crime do involve real victims in need of justice. As such, I think that the noninterventionist approach is an invitation for society to divest the government of its cardinal purpose: the protection of the citizenry from malefactors.