What are prisons for?

[DrZoidberg]

This is a London school of economics seminar. Britain's foremost experts on prisons are on the panel. The LSE recorded it and made it available online. I recommend it. It's sobering.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/publicEvents/events/2016/03/20160315t1830vSZT.aspx

They run through all the various aspects. The history. I didn't know that prisons as punishment was a new thing. Before the 19'th century prisons were just holding cells were criminals were kept awaiting trial or punishment. Nobody was kept locked up as punishment. When prisons were introduced they were billed as reform institutions. Prisoners were supposed to be taught to be good citizens. The goal was to reduce recidivism. Quite quickly we found that it had the opposite effect. Putting people in prisons just make them more criminally inclined. It's just counter productive.

They also talked about the psychological impact. Apparently extremely psychologically destructive. It really destroys people in every way. Kills there motivation to improve their lives. Kills their dreams. Just makes them passive. Making them prime targets to pick up addictive behaviours. Pushing them further into the criminal lifestyle. Corporal punishment isn't nearly as psychologically destructive.

The discussion about why we still have prisons in spite of them being pointless is interesting. One speculation was that it keeps the punishing out of the public eye. It's a "clean" way of punishing to the public. Simply because it's hidden away. We don't see the mess we create. So we like to tell ourselves that prisons are good.

I recommend listening to it. Very interesting.

Thoughts?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Here in Texas, over the years, as suggestions were made to help with some of these problems, for instance allowing prisoners to obtain schooling to aid them getting work after they had served their time, the far right shrieked and howled that the liberals were rewarding prisoners. I see little hope with thinking like that that anything will really be done in the near future.

Naturally, levelling the playing field by offering free education to all that want it and are willing to actually study at school, as per Bernie Sanders, is not popular with the right either.

Notoriously, many prisoners have mental illnesses, low IQs, drug or alcohol dependencies that are usually not really treated in prison, or dealt with in any realistic manner. Its "too expensive" and hard for society to accept this as a smart thing to do.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Prisons aren't pointless. They make good money for prison management corporations. Those make good retirement nest eggs for corrupt judges.

Everybody wins. By everybody, I do of course mean rich white people.

 

[credoconsolans]

Notoriously, many prisoners have mental illnesses, low IQs, drug or alcohol dependencies that are usually not really treated in prison, or dealt with in any realistic manner. Its "too expensive" and hard for society to accept this as a smart thing to do.

Lot of people have these problems. Not all of them become criminals. So obviously, in many cases these criminals broke the law because they chose to. Hence the lack of sympathy for them.

 

[Speakpigeon]

This is a London school of economics seminar. Britain's foremost experts on prisons are on the panel. The LSE recorded it and made it available online. I recommend it. It's sobering.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/publicEvents/events/2016/03/20160315t1830vSZT.aspx

They run through all the various aspects. The history. I didn't know that prisons as punishment was a new thing. Before the 19'th century prisons were just holding cells were criminals were kept awaiting trial or punishment. Nobody was kept locked up as punishment. When prisons were introduced they were billed as reform institutions. Prisoners were supposed to be taught to be good citizens. The goal was to reduce recidivism. Quite quickly we found that it had the opposite effect. Putting people in prisons just make them more criminally inclined. It's just counter productive.

They also talked about the psychological impact. Apparently extremely psychologically destructive. It really destroys people in every way. Kills there motivation to improve their lives. Kills their dreams. Just makes them passive. Making them prime targets to pick up addictive behaviours. Pushing them further into the criminal lifestyle. Corporal punishment isn't nearly as psychologically destructive.

The discussion about why we still have prisons in spite of them being pointless is interesting. One speculation was that it keeps the punishing out of the public eye. It's a "clean" way of punishing to the public. Simply because it's hidden away. We don't see the mess we create. So we like to tell ourselves that prisons are good.

I recommend listening to it. Very interesting.

Thoughts?

First, I can see how locking up a criminal offers a level of relief for society and for now I don't know of any credible alternative. Second, it's not inherent to this principle of locking people up for safe keeping that the prisonners should suffer any particular hardship on top of being locked up. So the reality of the prison systems, in any country I'm somewhat familiar with, where prisonners always have to suffer extraneous, needless and often horrendous harsdship, is all down to the practicallity of things. For instance, I don't know of many smart person who would think of serving as prison staff as more rewarding than working in a hospital, or children education, or politics etc. Motivation for working there must be very low or possibly somehow perverted. Not good. Ideally, we should want to offer prisonners a nice environment where they could reform and hope for freedom. In pratice, nearly everything about prisons is about ensuring a really, really bad environment, not least the promiscuity with other prisonners, many of them guilty of serious crimes.

Some prisonners do change. Reforming a prison system should aim at maximizing the rate at which this occurs. However, the bottom line will always be the cost of doing that and the availability of experienced prison staff for the money society is prepared to pay them. A convincing argument should show how to maximize change for less money overall than it currently costs society. Looking at how we do things in other areas of society, I'm not optimistic, at least for the short term.
EB

 

[DrZoidberg]

This is a London school of economics seminar. Britain's foremost experts on prisons are on the panel. The LSE recorded it and made it available online. I recommend it. It's sobering.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/publicEvents/events/2016/03/20160315t1830vSZT.aspx

They run through all the various aspects. The history. I didn't know that prisons as punishment was a new thing. Before the 19'th century prisons were just holding cells were criminals were kept awaiting trial or punishment. Nobody was kept locked up as punishment. When prisons were introduced they were billed as reform institutions. Prisoners were supposed to be taught to be good citizens. The goal was to reduce recidivism. Quite quickly we found that it had the opposite effect. Putting people in prisons just make them more criminally inclined. It's just counter productive.

They also talked about the psychological impact. Apparently extremely psychologically destructive. It really destroys people in every way. Kills there motivation to improve their lives. Kills their dreams. Just makes them passive. Making them prime targets to pick up addictive behaviours. Pushing them further into the criminal lifestyle. Corporal punishment isn't nearly as psychologically destructive.

The discussion about why we still have prisons in spite of them being pointless is interesting. One speculation was that it keeps the punishing out of the public eye. It's a "clean" way of punishing to the public. Simply because it's hidden away. We don't see the mess we create. So we like to tell ourselves that prisons are good.

I recommend listening to it. Very interesting.

Thoughts?

First, I can see how locking up a criminal offers a level of relief for society and for now I don't know of any credible alternative. Second, it's not inherent to this principle of locking people up for safe keeping that the prisonners should suffer any particular hardship on top of being locked up. So the reality of the prison systems, in any country I'm somewhat familiar with, where prisonners always have to suffer extraneous, needless and often horrendous harsdship, is all down to the practicallity of things. For instance, I don't know of many smart person who would think of serving as prison staff as more rewarding than working in a hospital, or children education, or politics etc. Motivation for working there must be very low or possibly somehow perverted. Not good. Ideally, we should want to offer prisonners a nice environment where they could reform and hope for freedom. In pratice, nearly everything about prisons is about ensuring a really, really bad environment, not least the promiscuity with other prisonners, many of them guilty of serious crimes.

Some prisonners do change. Reforming a prison system should aim at maximizing the rate at which this occurs. However, the bottom line will always be the cost of doing that and the availability of experienced prison staff for the money society is prepared to pay them. A convincing argument should show how to maximize change for less money overall than it currently costs society. Looking at how we do things in other areas of society, I'm not optimistic, at least for the short term.
EB

I suggest listening to the seminar. They plow through all of this. I thought they had pretty powerful arguments. And I'm sure they can express themselves better than I could. There is no way of reforming prison to make it a positive experience. Just the fact that you're isolated from your social circle does enough damage to negate any positive effects. Add to that family or a job. Most prisoners have a job that they have to give up once they go in. When they come out they have no job and a criminal record, making it very hard to get hired. Prison severs all the factors necessary for people to reform. They talk a lot about how humans are social animals. The last people criminals should be locked up with are other criminals. If the goal is to create re-offending career criminals then prisons are great

 

[J842P]

This is a London school of economics seminar. Britain's foremost experts on prisons are on the panel. The LSE recorded it and made it available online. I recommend it. It's sobering.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/publicEvents/events/2016/03/20160315t1830vSZT.aspx

They run through all the various aspects. The history. I didn't know that prisons as punishment was a new thing. Before the 19'th century prisons were just holding cells were criminals were kept awaiting trial or punishment. Nobody was kept locked up as punishment. When prisons were introduced they were billed as reform institutions. Prisoners were supposed to be taught to be good citizens. The goal was to reduce recidivism. Quite quickly we found that it had the opposite effect. Putting people in prisons just make them more criminally inclined. It's just counter productive.

They also talked about the psychological impact. Apparently extremely psychologically destructive. It really destroys people in every way. Kills there motivation to improve their lives. Kills their dreams. Just makes them passive. Making them prime targets to pick up addictive behaviours. Pushing them further into the criminal lifestyle. Corporal punishment isn't nearly as psychologically destructive.

The discussion about why we still have prisons in spite of them being pointless is interesting. One speculation was that it keeps the punishing out of the public eye. It's a "clean" way of punishing to the public. Simply because it's hidden away. We don't see the mess we create. So we like to tell ourselves that prisons are good.

I recommend listening to it. Very interesting.

Thoughts?

In America, I see very little chance that much is going to change.

 

[Trausti]

There is no way of reforming prison to make it a positive experience. Just the fact that you're isolated from your social circle does enough damage to negate any positive effects. Add to that family or a job. Most prisoners have a job that they have to give up once they go in. When they come out they have no job and a criminal record, making it very hard to get hired. Prison severs all the factors necessary for people to reform. They talk a lot about how humans are social animals. The last people criminals should be locked up with are other criminals. If the goal is to create re-offending career criminals then prisons are great

If you can't do the time . . .

 

[OLDMAN]

I wonder what would happen to crime rates if, instead of prison sentences, victims were allowed to get revenge. It would be totally up to the victim to punish the guilty. I think crime would go way down....I mean, would you steal something from someone if they could chop of your hand or bend you over a desk? I would keep my life sqeaky clean.

 

[Trausti]

I wonder what would happen to crime rates if, instead of prison sentences, victims were allowed to get revenge. It would be totally up to the victim to punish the guilty. I think crime would go way down....I mean, would you steal something from someone if they could chop of your hand or bend you over a desk? I would keep my life sqeaky clean.

We (humanity) used to have that, and it still occurs in some places. What the "why do we need prisons" position misses is that prisons are very necessary to have a civil society. Before the state began to manage crime, people were left with self help. You harm me, I harm you. You kill my brother, I kill your brother. In Albania this is called "Gjakmarrja," and persists, arguably, because the criminal justice system in Albania is so ineffective. This also occurs in Africa and Central and South America, where an offender risks being summarily lynched for crime because confidence in state justice is so low. In the West, we've developed to look to the state to catch criminals, put them on trial, and punish them. And punishment is key, not rehabilitation. Before the modern prison system, punishment typically meant death. Prisons are a reform of that. Yet, if the state began treating criminals with kid gloves, the state's authority as exclusive manager of criminal wrongs would erode. If the consequence of committing murder, rape, or theft is for the state to let the offender free, lest the offender have an unpleasant time in prison, society will devolve to earlier forms of justice - after all, the state would have signaled that it is disinterested in addressing the harm caused to you or your family. This is not to say that rehabilitation is not a laudable goal; it certainly is. But it is best a measure that comes after punishment.

 

[DrZoidberg]

There is no way of reforming prison to make it a positive experience. Just the fact that you're isolated from your social circle does enough damage to negate any positive effects. Add to that family or a job. Most prisoners have a job that they have to give up once they go in. When they come out they have no job and a criminal record, making it very hard to get hired. Prison severs all the factors necessary for people to reform. They talk a lot about how humans are social animals. The last people criminals should be locked up with are other criminals. If the goal is to create re-offending career criminals then prisons are great

If you can't do the time . . .

But people are anyway. So obviously it isn't working. How do you reconcile that?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I wonder what would happen to crime rates if, instead of prison sentences, victims were allowed to get revenge. It would be totally up to the victim to punish the guilty. I think crime would go way down....I mean, would you steal something from someone if they could chop of your hand or bend you over a desk? I would keep my life sqeaky clean.

We know what would happen. Punishments don't deter people. It's only the risk of getting caught that is a deterrent. Nothing will happen to the crime rate.

They talk about that to in the seminar

 

[DrZoidberg]

I wonder what would happen to crime rates if, instead of prison sentences, victims were allowed to get revenge. It would be totally up to the victim to punish the guilty. I think crime would go way down....I mean, would you steal something from someone if they could chop of your hand or bend you over a desk? I would keep my life sqeaky clean.

We (humanity) used to have that, and it still occurs in some places. What the "why do we need prisons" position misses is that prisons are very necessary to have a civil society. Before the state began to manage crime, people were left with self help. You harm me, I harm you. You kill my brother, I kill your brother. In Albania this is called "Gjakmarrja," and persists, arguably, because the criminal justice system in Albania is so ineffective. This also occurs in Africa and Central and South America, where an offender risks being summarily lynched for crime because confidence in state justice is so low. In the West, we've developed to look to the state to catch criminals, put them on trial, and punish them. And punishment is key, not rehabilitation. Before the modern prison system, punishment typically meant death. Prisons are a reform of that. Yet, if the state began treating criminals with kid gloves, the state's authority as exclusive manager of criminal wrongs would erode. If the consequence of committing murder, rape, or theft is for the state to let the offender free, lest the offender have an unpleasant time in prison, society will devolve to earlier forms of justice - after all, the state would have signaled that it is disinterested in addressing the harm caused to you or your family. This is not to say that rehabilitation is not a laudable goal; it certainly is. But it is best a measure that comes after punishment.

False dichotomy. There are methods of punishment other than death or prison. You're just arguing between the two as if there aren't any alternatives. There are lots of alternatives.

 

[fast]

Prisons serve to protect the bad people from the victims families who like the movie "Law Abiding Citizen" way too much.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Notoriously, many prisoners have mental illnesses, low IQs, drug or alcohol dependencies that are usually not really treated in prison, or dealt with in any realistic manner. Its "too expensive" and hard for society to accept this as a smart thing to do.

Lot of people have these problems. Not all of them become criminals. So obviously, in many cases these criminals broke the law because they chose to. Hence the lack of sympathy for them.

Don't you believe that laws are designed around protecting rich white people's property and the laws are designed around redefining their stealing so that it's legal, while poor people crime is judged as harshly as possible. What is known as security theatre. The goal isn't to protect people, it's to make people feel safe, in spite of not being protected at all?

 

[iolo]

Prisons are the universities of crime, or at least the appropriate places for criminal apprenticeships. They also teach heterosexuals to understand certain forms of homosexuality, give many the drug experience for the first time and force the state to spend very large sums on maintaining the poor, uneducated and mentally disturbed. Without them, where would we be!

 

[Bomb#20]

False dichotomy. There are methods of punishment other than death or prison. You're just arguing between the two as if there aren't any alternatives. There are lots of alternatives.

Good lord, man! When you write something like that, it makes it sound like you intend for this thread to be a substantive discussion of public policy in which we analyze one another's arguments using logic. I mean, come on! Seriously?

Don't you believe that laws are designed around protecting rich white people's property and the laws are designed around redefining their stealing so that it's legal, while poor people crime is judged as harshly as possible. What is known as security theatre. The goal isn't to protect people, it's to make people feel safe, in spite of not being protected at all?

Okay, back to stupid strawmen and proof-by-vilification. My faith in an orderly universe is restored.

 

[skepticalbip]

Lot of people have these problems. Not all of them become criminals. So obviously, in many cases these criminals broke the law because they chose to. Hence the lack of sympathy for them.

Don't you believe that laws are designed around protecting rich white people's property and the laws are designed around redefining their stealing so that it's legal, while poor people crime is judged as harshly as possible. What is known as security theatre. The goal isn't to protect people, it's to make people feel safe, in spite of not being protected at all?

WTF?

The overwhelming percentage of people in prison are not there for violating "rich white people's" person or property. Other than for drug crimes (drug use mostly harms poorer people) the overwhelming majority are there for crimes against the poor and middle class - crimes like murder, rape, robbery, theft, fraud, assault, battery, etc. (with primarily poor and middle class as victims). There just isn't that many in jail for defrauding the wealthy or for breaking into and robbing luxurious estates.

The idea of prisons for many crimes like rape, theft, etc. was a reform from the old physical punishment or death. Prison sentences may not be as great a deterrent that it was assumed but it does, at least, separate potential victims from those who think nothing of victimizing them for a time (most of both poor).

 

[DrZoidberg]

Don't you believe that laws are designed around protecting rich white people's property and the laws are designed around redefining their stealing so that it's legal, while poor people crime is judged as harshly as possible. What is known as security theatre. The goal isn't to protect people, it's to make people feel safe, in spite of not being protected at all?

WTF?

The overwhelming percentage of people in prison are not there for violating "rich white people's" person or property. Other than for drug crimes (drug use mostly harms poorer people) the overwhelming majority are there for crimes against the poor and middle class - crimes like murder, rape, robbery, theft, fraud, assault, battery, etc. (with primarily poor and middle class as victims). There just isn't that many in jail for defrauding the wealthy or for breaking into and robbing luxurious estates.

The idea of prisons for many crimes like rape, theft, etc. was a reform from the old physical punishment or death. Prison sentences may not be as great a deterrent that it was assumed but it does, at least, separate potential victims from those who think nothing of victimizing them for a time (most of both poor).

I was being facetious since it's so obviously true. My argument is that the system is stacked against poor people. That's why there are more poor people in jail than rich people. I'm a bit taken aback since the thought never occurred to me that I'd have to argue for it. It's... you know... obviously true. Isn't it? You are aware life isn't as easy for poor people as it is for the rich?

Of course the poor will more often target other poor people. That's the people they tend to hang out with, and there are more of them. It's just statistics.

 

[skepticalbip]

WTF?

The overwhelming percentage of people in prison are not there for violating "rich white people's" person or property. Other than for drug crimes (drug use mostly harms poorer people) the overwhelming majority are there for crimes against the poor and middle class - crimes like murder, rape, robbery, theft, fraud, assault, battery, etc. (with primarily poor and middle class as victims). There just isn't that many in jail for defrauding the wealthy or for breaking into and robbing luxurious estates.

The idea of prisons for many crimes like rape, theft, etc. was a reform from the old physical punishment or death. Prison sentences may not be as great a deterrent that it was assumed but it does, at least, separate potential victims from those who think nothing of victimizing them for a time (most of both poor).

I was being facetious since it's so obviously true. My argument is that the system is stacked against poor people. That's why there are more poor people in jail than rich people. I'm a bit taken aback since the thought never occurred to me that I'd have to argue for it. It's... you know... obviously true. Isn't it? You are aware life isn't as easy for poor people as it is for the rich?

Of course the poor will more often target other poor people. That's the people they tend to hang out with, and there are more of them. It's just statistics.

No it isn't "obviously true". The intent of criminal laws are to protect people from other people's actions, not to protect the rich from the poor - or more accurately, to allow the state to punish people who abuse other people. And yes, poor people have a more difficult time in life than the wealthy but that does not excuse them for abusing others - the overwhelming percentage of poor respect others and other's rights. It is those who do not, whether rich or poor, that is the target of criminal laws.