Why do we still put people in prison?

[PyramidHead]

Incapacitation: Justifications based on incapacitation claim that while prisoners are incarcerated, they will be unable to commit crimes, thus keeping communities safer. Critics point out that this is based on a false distinction between "inside" and "outside", and that the prisoners will simply continue to victimize people inside of the prison (and in the community once they are released), and that the harm done by these actions has real impacts on the society outside of the prison walls.[96]

Couldn't that be fixed by making prisons safer, rather than getting rid of them altogether? If we could minimize the bad behavior of inmates, would incarceration become a valid reason for imprisonment?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Incapacitation: Justifications based on incapacitation claim that while prisoners are incarcerated, they will be unable to commit crimes, thus keeping communities safer. Critics point out that this is based on a false distinction between "inside" and "outside", and that the prisoners will simply continue to victimize people inside of the prison (and in the community once they are released), and that the harm done by these actions has real impacts on the society outside of the prison walls.[96]

Couldn't that be fixed by making prisons safer, rather than getting rid of them altogether? If we could minimize the bad behavior of inmates, would incarceration become a valid reason for imprisonment?

The problem is pretty basic. It has to do with marginalisation and alienation. There are many motives for committing crime. But they all require the view that it isn´t worth the effort to play by the rules. Whatever society we create it has to be an inclusive society. Any stratified society will create a criminally minded lower classes. That´s why equality is a worthwhile goal in itself. Even though it doesn´t make the society richer overall. It does cut crime. The society also has to be forgiving of criminals who have taken their punishment. If a criminal is forever marked as such he/she has zero incentive to quit their criminal lifestyle.

Sure we could put everybody in isolation for their entire terms. But that would make them all psychotic. We don´t want that. Then most of them would be super dangerous when they get out.

 

[dystopian]

It doesn´t have to be fool proof. We have an excellent method of figuring out who is a risk. We can simply look at the type of crime they have been convicted for.

That's not actually as excellent a method as you may think. Criminals are not convicted for the crimes they've committed... they're convicted for the crimes they've been *caught* for. How many countless criminals have gone to prison for a minor crime while their more heinous crimes go unknown? Seperating the wheat from the chaff by looking at what they were convicted for is not a method that's going to work very well except for those offenders where it is part of a clearly identifiable pattern of behavior.

Also... there´s violent crime and violent crime. Most women in for murder have murdered an abusive husband, and they felt they had no alternative. It was him or them. These women are most likely harmless to everybody else... ie men who systematically beats them. So even if they´re in for violent crime, we have no reason to treat them as if they are dangerous to other people.

A problematic argument at best. We could say the same about many male murderers. "Well, he only killed white women with blonde hair in their twenties, so if we just send him somewhere without those kind of women it should be fine."

It's also simply not true that most women in for murder or violent crime are in for things like doing something to an abusive husband; and that's in fact a rather sexist stereotype. In 1999, in the US, three out of four victims of violent female offenders were themselves female. Of those 1 in 4 female offenders who attacked men, only 35% attacked someone they were intimate with or a relative of; which while much higher than for men attacking women is clearly not a high enough number to claim that 'most women are in for murdering an abusive husband' even ignoring the fact that that 35% is only 35% out of a group that is itself only 25% of the total violent female offenders.

'Now wait a minute', you might say, 'you're talking about violent female offenders and I was talking about female *murderers* specifically, what about them?'

Nope. According to the same study, spouses represent only 28,3% of victims for female murderers (29,8 if we include ex-husbands). Which yes, is far higher than the same figure for male murders (6.8%) but by no stretch of the imagination does it count as "most".

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/wo.pdf

Since you don´t seem to care about science I see no point arguing the rest

You mean like the science that shows you you're wrong about basic things like what "most" female murderers are in for?

Or do you think I don't care about science because I didn't just accept your totally unsubstantiated declaration that "science" determined prisons are counter-productive in the 1930's (as if science were some monolithic entity that can actually declare such things)?

 

[DrZoidberg]

That's not actually as excellent a method as you may think. Criminals are not convicted for the crimes they've committed... they're convicted for the crimes they've been *caught* for. How many countless criminals have gone to prison for a minor crime while their more heinous crimes go unknown? Seperating the wheat from the chaff by looking at what they were convicted for is not a method that's going to work very well except for those offenders where it is part of a clearly identifiable pattern of behavior.

Are you familiar with due process? It´s not cool to punish somebody for something they maybe didn´t do. We need evidence. It doesn´t matter how violent somebody may be. If nobody caught them being violent it would be immoral to punish them for it. So again... not a problem.

Also... there´s violent crime and violent crime. Most women in for murder have murdered an abusive husband, and they felt they had no alternative. It was him or them. These women are most likely harmless to everybody else... ie men who systematically beats them. So even if they´re in for violent crime, we have no reason to treat them as if they are dangerous to other people.

A problematic argument at best. We could say the same about many male murderers. "Well, he only killed white women with blonde hair in their twenties, so if we just send him somewhere without those kind of women it should be fine."

It's also simply not true that most women in for murder or violent crime are in for things like doing something to an abusive husband; and that's in fact a rather sexist stereotype. In 1999, in the US, three out of four victims of violent female offenders were themselves female. Of those 1 in 4 female offenders who attacked men, only 35% attacked someone they were intimate with or a relative of; which while much higher than for men attacking women is clearly not a high enough number to claim that 'most women are in for murdering an abusive husband' even ignoring the fact that that 35% is only 35% out of a group that is itself only 25% of the total violent female offenders.

'Now wait a minute', you might say, 'you're talking about violent female offenders and I was talking about female *murderers* specifically, what about them?'

Nope. According to the same study, spouses represent only 28,3% of victims for female murderers (29,8 if we include ex-husbands). Which yes, is far higher than the same figure for male murders (6.8%) but by no stretch of the imagination does it count as "most".

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/wo.pdf

Interesting. I must have remembered an old statistic. Still, that 28% are still women who I´d say shouldn´t count as violent offenders. Still a big percentage. The goal is to identify as many as possible who it would be unarguably counter-productive to lock up.

You still haven´t been able to show any research to back your side up. Hint: there aren´t any.

 

[dystopian]

Are you familiar with due process? It´s not cool to punish somebody for something they maybe didn´t do. We need evidence. It doesn´t matter how violent somebody may be. If nobody caught them being violent it would be immoral to punish them for it. So again... not a problem.

Yes. I don't agree with punishing someone for something they didn't do. However, to say that because it'd be immoral to punish someone if they weren't caught being violent, that therefore it's not a problem is insane.

Why? Because you're proposing that we remove let's say 50% of the inmates from prison on the basis that they've not been convicted for violent crimes when in a fact a significant percentage of that 50% may very well in fact be violent. This may not be a problem when one's looking purely at the moral dimensions; but it very much *is* a problem if you're trying to be pragmatic and want to minimize harm to society as a whole. If you're going to come up with a system to decide who'se potentially dangerous if removed from prison and who'se not... then going with nothing more then looking at what people were convicted for is a horribly naive one.

I'm not saying that we should punish people for shit they didn't do... I'm saying that your metric for determing who'se a danger is naive.

Interesting. I must have remembered an old statistic. Still, that 28% are still women who I´d say shouldn´t count as violent offenders.

Ah ah ah. It doesn't work that way. There is no way that 100% of that 28% were abused wifes who killed their husbands purely because of it. In fact, it's been shown that women are actually MORE likely than men to be the ones to engage in violent aggression towards their partner, which certainly destroys any notion than all or most of the men killed by their wifes were killed because it was the men who were the abusive ones. In cases of mutual violence, women are somewhat more likely to be injured; but women appear to initiate violence more often and are about as likely to escalate it to serious levels as men are. The idea that women who hurt/kill their husbands are all really just poor battered housewifes who finally fought back is an outdated sexist notion that's insulting to both women and men.

http://lab.drdondutton.com/wp-conte...07-Women-who-perpetrate-intimate-violence.pdf

You still haven´t been able to show any research to back your side up. Hint: there aren´t any.

...

I literally just linked you to research in the previous post, you even accepted this as valid. It's not like you've done anything more than link to a generalized wikipedia page which doesn't actually demonstrate anything by itself.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Yes. I don't agree with punishing someone for something they didn't do. However, to say that because it'd be immoral to punish someone if they weren't caught being violent, that therefore it's not a problem is insane.

Why? Because you're proposing that we remove let's say 50% of the inmates from prison on the basis that they've not been convicted for violent crimes when in a fact a significant percentage of that 50% may very well in fact be violent. This may not be a problem when one's looking purely at the moral dimensions; but it very much *is* a problem if you're trying to be pragmatic and want to minimize harm to society as a whole. If you're going to come up with a system to decide who'se potentially dangerous if removed from prison and who'se not... then going with nothing more then looking at what people were convicted for is a horribly naive one.

I'm not saying that we should punish people for shit they didn't do... I'm saying that your metric for determing who'se a danger is naive.

Why? Why do you assume that all criminals will be more violent than the general population? I can´t follow your logic?

Interesting. I must have remembered an old statistic. Still, that 28% are still women who I´d say shouldn´t count as violent offenders.

Ah ah ah. It doesn't work that way. There is no way that 100% of that 28% were abused wifes who killed their husbands purely because of it. In fact, it's been shown that women are actually MORE likely than men to be the ones to engage in violent aggression towards their partner, which certainly destroys any notion than all or most of the men killed by their wifes were killed because it was the men who were the abusive ones. In cases of mutual violence, women are somewhat more likely to be injured; but women appear to initiate violence more often and are about as likely to escalate it to serious levels as men are. The idea that women who hurt/kill their husbands are all really just poor battered housewifes who finally fought back is an outdated sexist notion that's insulting to both women and men.

http://lab.drdondutton.com/wp-conte...07-Women-who-perpetrate-intimate-violence.pdf

I´ll buy that. You convinced me.

You still haven´t been able to show any research to back your side up. Hint: there aren´t any.

I literally just linked you to research in the previous post, you even accepted this as valid. It's not like you've done anything more than link to a generalized wikipedia page which doesn't actually demonstrate anything by itself.

The Wiki page has all the research at the bottom.

 

[Cerberus]

Get rid of the scum and the world becomes a better place, QED.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Get rid of the scum and the world becomes a better place, QED.

So execute all criminals, no matter the infraction, Islamic style?

 

[Cerberus]

Get rid of the scum and the world becomes a better place, QED.

So execute all criminals, no matter the infraction, Islamic style?

Mete out a reasonable sanction for the crime, that's all I'm saying. After all, it's very easy to lead a law-abiding life - probably easier than leading a criminal one - and to not make the lives of others a misery at best, or a lifetime of trauma at worst.

 

[dystopian]

So execute all criminals, no matter the infraction, Islamic style?

Mete out a reasonable sanction for the crime, that's all I'm saying. After all, it's very easy to lead a law-abiding life - probably easier than leading a criminal one - and to not make the lives of others a misery at best, or a lifetime of trauma at worst.

Another person who doesn't know the law books or doesn't understand how unintended consequences in our modern interconnected world work.

In point of fact it is almost impossible to lead a law-abiding life in most societies today. Have you actually taken a look at the legal code of the average developed country? The average person regularly violates numerous laws without realizing it. It is by no means easier to lead a law-abiding life than a criminal one. In many cases it's far easier to break the law than to follow it. For example, it's easier for me to download music illegally then it is to acquire it legally. It's also not really remotely easy to not make the lives of others a misery. In fact, simply by being a citizen of the developed world you're party to the act of exploiting others, inducing misery in the process. The quality of living you enjoy comes at the expense of others. Indeed, it comes at the expense of actual *lives*. So then, what should be the collective punishment of the west?

 

[dystopian]

Why? Why do you assume that all criminals will be more violent than the general population? I can´t follow your logic?

I don't. I'm just pointing out that it isn't as simplistic a picture as you're painting. You categorically overestimate the ease with which your suggestions could be implemented, and underestimate the potential pitfalls.

I´ll buy that. You convinced me.

I should you're not being sarcastic; the numbers are pretty clear.

The Wiki page has all the research at the bottom.

No, what it has is a bunch of references at the bottom; far too many for me to sift through without knowing exactly which ones you think support which specific claims you're making. You can't make a specific claim like for example "Prisons are only counterproductive!" and then link to a general wikipedia article on prisons which doesn't specifically deal with the effectiveness of prisons as if you've provided evidence by doing so. That's like me claiming that snow owls can rotate their heads a 180 degrees, and then giving you a copy of the encyclopedia brittannica without a page reference.

 

[ronburgundy]

Couldn't that be fixed by making prisons safer, rather than getting rid of them altogether? If we could minimize the bad behavior of inmates, would incarceration become a valid reason for imprisonment?

The problem is pretty basic. It has to do with marginalisation and alienation. There are many motives for committing crime. But they all require the view that it isn´t worth the effort to play by the rules. Whatever society we create it has to be an inclusive society. Any stratified society will create a criminally minded lower classes. That´s why equality is a worthwhile goal in itself. Even though it doesn´t make the society richer overall. It does cut crime. The society also has to be forgiving of criminals who have taken their punishment. If a criminal is forever marked as such he/she has zero incentive to quit their criminal lifestyle.

Sure we could put everybody in isolation for their entire terms. But that would make them all psychotic. We don´t want that. Then most of them would be super dangerous when they get out.

I still think PyramidHead has a valid point. Prisons are only as violent as they are because we intentionally allow them to be. Those most directly in charge tend to be rather ignorant authoritarian pricks (e.g., as those who seek careers in law enforcement and the military so often are). They have a punishment mindset and view the prisoner on prisoner brutality a form of justice, so they do nothing to curb it.

We don't need to put them all in isolation. The first step is to reserve prison for only violent crimes, decriminalize all drug use, and have property crime offenders serve home arrests combined with daily work-camps in which they must work long enough to repay the property, all costs to the legal system, plus some extra toward crime prevention programs. The violent criminals should be strictly separated by both severity of offense and number of priors. Plus, no more than a handful of people together at any time in any public space. There should be zero privacy, with cameras everywhere in all cells, bathrooms, etc. The recordings should be kept secure and reviewed an independent panel completely outside of the prisons with people that get bonuses for finding verified infractions.

This is just some off-the-cuff changes that would greatly reduce victimization in prison by both other prisoners and guards, and thus reduce its effects of increasing criminality upon release.

Oh, and all Wardens and senior officials in charge of guards should be Ph.Ds in the behavioral sciences, reviewed every few years for evidence of reductions in incidents

 

[Cerberus]

Incapacitation: Justifications based on incapacitation claim that while prisoners are incarcerated, they will be unable to commit crimes, thus keeping communities safer. Critics point out that this is based on a false distinction between "inside" and "outside", and that the prisoners will simply continue to victimize people inside of the prison (and in the community once they are released), and that the harm done by these actions has real impacts on the society outside of the prison walls.[96]

Couldn't that be fixed by making prisons safer, rather than getting rid of them altogether? If we could minimize the bad behavior of inmates, would incarceration become a valid reason for imprisonment?

It's discipline that's needed, not liberal touchy-feely 'understanding'.

 

[dystopian]

It's discipline that's needed, not liberal touchy-feely 'understanding'.

Said no objective study's results ever.

 

[Cerberus]

It's discipline that's needed, not liberal touchy-feely 'understanding'.

Said no objective study's results ever.

There's rampant anarchy in our prisons - haven't you noticed? I'd guess you think they should be holidays camps!

 

[Togo]

Said no objective study's results ever.

There's rampant anarchy in our prisons - haven't you noticed? I'd guess you think they should be holidays camps!

Holiday camps produce better results, and are cheaper for the same level of security.

It comes down to what you want. Do you want to have better outcomes, or punish wrong-doers?

 

[dystopian]

Said no objective study's results ever.

There's rampant anarchy in our prisons - haven't you noticed? I'd guess you think they should be holidays camps!

RAMPANT ANARCHY! CATS AND DOGS LIVING TOGETHER!


Well, in actual reality our prisons aren't undergoing rampant anarchy, and even if that were true it wouldn't negate the fact that study after study shows that the "liberal touchy-feely understanding" kind of approach actually produces results whereas the hard disciplined rod of justice approach does not. On that, at least, I have to agree with the lobster.

 

[bilby]

Said no objective study's results ever.

There's rampant anarchy in our prisons - haven't you noticed? I'd guess you think they should be holidays camps!

Perhaps you would benefit from consulting sources other than the Daily Mail for information on this subject.

 

[Cerberus]

There's rampant anarchy in our prisons - haven't you noticed? I'd guess you think they should be holidays camps!

Perhaps you would benefit from consulting sources other than the Daily Mail for information on this subject.

I don't reach my conclusions from gutter press reports or from any other news organisation, I reach them by drawing information from respected sources and official reports. If you have a salient comment to make then feel free to do so.

 

[Cerberus]

There's rampant anarchy in our prisons - haven't you noticed? I'd guess you think they should be holidays camps!

Holiday camps produce better results, and are cheaper for the same level of security.

It comes down to what you want. Do you want to have better outcomes, or punish wrong-doers?

I want it where ex-cons fear going back into prison. I realise this doesn't sit well with you bleeding-heart liberals but it would empty the prisons virtually over night and virtually eliminate reoffending, which of course is what most thinking (emphasis on that word?) individuals want to see. As things are, the criminal fraternity don't care if they're caught because they don't fear the consequences of it. That rationale is something you'll never understand. Why the hell do you weep for them fcs? It's bizzare! The bottom line is that they don't have to be in prison in the first place????