What are prisons for?

[DrZoidberg]

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.

You are aware natural rights are just made up rules? They're not sacred. They're just handy rules of thumb good to honour when they work, but can be ignored when they get in the way of a fair and just society. There's no moral obligation to honour property rights. Especially not property that has been inherited. Yet we do. But we don't have to. The 1% does actually exist. It's not a made up thing. And it is a problem for society.

I'm not even a socialist and I know and accept this. It looks to me like you're just blindly accepted the (simplistic) conservative lies they continuously pump out.

I'm not saying I have a solution. But the first step in finding a solution is to agree on what the problem is.

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

You are aware natural rights are just made up rules? They're not sacred. They're just handy rules of thumb good to honour when they work, but can be ignored when they get in the way of a fair and just society. There's no moral obligation to honour property rights. Especially not property that has been inherited. Yet we do. But we don't have to. The 1% does actually exist. It's not a made up thing. And it is a problem for society.

I'm not even a socialist and I know and accept this. It looks to me like you're just blindly accepted the (simplistic) conservative lies they continuously pump out.

I'm not saying I have a solution. But the first step in finding a solution is to agree on what the problem is.

I gotta give you yet another WTF??

How the hell did you shift from imprisoning people who kill, rob, beat, rape, etc. others (generally of the same wealth and race) to a "class struggle"?

The fact that someone in my city has much, much more wealth than I does not grant me the right to rob my neighbor's home, physically assault my neighbor, or rape his daughter.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

My impression of the US criminal justice system is that wealthy criminals are less likely to spend as much time in prison as poor criminals.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You are aware natural rights are just made up rules? They're not sacred. They're just handy rules of thumb good to honour when they work, but can be ignored when they get in the way of a fair and just society. There's no moral obligation to honour property rights. Especially not property that has been inherited. Yet we do. But we don't have to. The 1% does actually exist. It's not a made up thing. And it is a problem for society.

I'm not even a socialist and I know and accept this. It looks to me like you're just blindly accepted the (simplistic) conservative lies they continuously pump out.

I'm not saying I have a solution. But the first step in finding a solution is to agree on what the problem is.

I gotta give you yet another WTF??

How the hell did you shift from imprisoning people who kill, rob, beat, rape, etc. others (generally of the same wealth and race) to a "class struggle"?

The fact that someone in my city has much, much more wealth than I does not grant me the right to rob my neighbor's home, physically assault my neighbor, or rape his daughter.

Because it's the same subject. You can't separate them. Crime is, among other things, a symptom of inequality. Have you never wondered why poor people more often break laws than rich people? Do you think they're morally worse people? There's got to be some explanation?

An explanation isn't the same thing as an excuse. The fact that we can explain a behaviour isn't a free pass to keep doing it nor is it a justification for it.

The war on drugs failed because it focused on the symptom rather than the cause. Drugs don't make addicts. Stress, anxiety and a shitty life creates addicts. Putting an addict in jail solves none of the underlying problems. So it solves nothing. In fact it makes the problem worse. Which is corroborated by the evidence. Social problems from drug use are worse now than when the war on drugs started. But it's not just drugs. The research suggests that the same applies for all crime.

 

[skepticalbip]

I gotta give you yet another WTF??

How the hell did you shift from imprisoning people who kill, rob, beat, rape, etc. others (generally of the same wealth and race) to a "class struggle"?

The fact that someone in my city has much, much more wealth than I does not grant me the right to rob my neighbor's home, physically assault my neighbor, or rape his daughter.

Because it's the same subject. You can't separate them. Crime is, among other things, a symptom of inequality.

That is one hell of an assertion. I would challenge you to show any evidence that spousal abuse, assaults on neighbors, rape of a neighbor, robbing neighbor, killing a neighbor or family member, etc. has anything to do with financial inequality. Most crime that people go to prison for is crimes committed against the perpetrator's peers.

Have you never wondered why poor people more often break laws than rich people? Do you think they're morally worse people? There's got to be some explanation?

I am not a sociologist but would assume that there are a hell of a lot of unrelated causes involved such as mental stability, no respect for others, a sense of entitlement, etc. etc. Also the simple fact that there are a hell of a lot more poor people than rich people would mean that, even with no moral differences in general, there would be a hell of a lot more poor committing crimes.

An explanation isn't the same thing as an excuse. The fact that we can explain a behaviour isn't a free pass to keep doing it nor is it a justification for it.

But it doesn't explain the behavior. Now if some poor guy attacked some super rich guy to take some of his wealth then wealth inequality could be an explanation for the reason for that attack but doesn't explain attacking someone who is in the same financial situation - which is the reality of most crime.

The war on drugs failed because it focused on the symptom rather than the cause. Drugs don't make addicts. Stress, anxiety and a shitty life creates addicts. Putting an addict in jail solves none of the underlying problems. So it solves nothing. In fact it makes the problem worse. Which is corroborated by the evidence. Social problems from drug use are worse now than when the war on drugs started. But it's not just drugs. The research suggests that the same applies for all crime.

I agree that the war on drugs is not only a failure but was and is an absurdity. There should be no laws to regulate "victimless crimes". However, there can be no stable society without laws protecting individuals from the harmful actions of others.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Because it's the same subject. You can't separate them. Crime is, among other things, a symptom of inequality.

That is one hell of an assertion. I would challenge you to show any evidence that spousal abuse, assaults on neighbors, rape of a neighbor, robbing neighbor, killing a neighbor or family member, etc. has anything to do with financial inequality. Most crime that people go to prison for is crimes committed against the perpetrator's peers.

You seem to have trouble grasping how social inequality works. It doesn't lead to poor people targeting rich people. I'm not sure why you brought it up again or what you think it proves? All I need to do to prove that socioeconomic status is relevant is to establish that poor people commit more crime than rich people, regardless who the victim is. In a social hierarchy the lower status somebody has the more of a valid target they are for crime. So they're more likely to be targeted by criminals. The same crime perpetrated towards somebody of a higher social status is typically judged a hell of a lot more seriously than crime against peers. And people respond to incentives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_correlations_of_criminal_behaviour

Here's an article only on the effects of socioeconomic status:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_status

Have you never wondered why poor people more often break laws than rich people? Do you think they're morally worse people? There's got to be some explanation?

I am not a sociologist but would assume that there are a hell of a lot of unrelated causes involved such as mental stability, no respect for others, a sense of entitlement, etc. etc. Also the simple fact that there are a hell of a lot more poor people than rich people would mean that, even with no moral differences in general, there would be a hell of a lot more poor committing crimes.

So poor people are somehow a lesser quality of human somehow? That's quite a statement. Blacks in USA make a hell of a lot less than whites in USA. Are you somehow claiming that blacks are somehow inferior to whites? Physically or mentally? That is what you are saying isn't it?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurash...times-the-wealth-of-a-black-one/#7584e7956c5b

We also need to be careful with how we define poverty. It's a relative term and a term that changes a lot. The last fifty years the richest extreme percentile have gotten way richer. Which means inequality has gone up. But at the same time extreme poverty is rapidly disappearing. The world today is less a pyramid and more of a bell curve.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

I'm active in the world of business. People tend to fail in business the first couple of times. It's normal. There's so much randomness in the market that brains barely enter into it. It's just too difficult to make correct assessments of how the future market will behave. Socioeconomic status comes in when we look at how failing in business effects people. Rich people get a hell of a lot more second chances. Poor people just have one or a couple of goes. Tenacity is also a factor. It's easier being focused if you have a support system taking care of your shit and helping you deal with distractions. As well as access to mentors to whip you in line when you start misbehaving. I think it's pretty obvious how wealth (and poverty) perpetuates itself. Based on how the world of business, over time, the rich should get richer and the poor poorer. Which is exactly what we find in the statistics.

The war on drugs failed because it focused on the symptom rather than the cause. Drugs don't make addicts. Stress, anxiety and a shitty life creates addicts. Putting an addict in jail solves none of the underlying problems. So it solves nothing. In fact it makes the problem worse. Which is corroborated by the evidence. Social problems from drug use are worse now than when the war on drugs started. But it's not just drugs. The research suggests that the same applies for all crime.

I agree that the war on drugs is not only a failure but was and is an absurdity. There should be no laws to regulate "victimless crimes".

You're arguing from an ideological stand-point. I'm arguing from a pragmatic stand-point. So even if we agree we are talking past each other.

However, there can be no stable society without laws protecting individuals from the harmful actions of others.

It's a false dichotomy. I'm not arguing against punishing people. I'm arguing against using prisons as one of those methods. There's a million and one creative ways to punish people. The conclusion of the LSE seminar (my interpretation) is that we should explore alternatives to prison since prisons are having the exact opposite effect than what we want them to have.

 

[skepticalbip]

That is one hell of an assertion. I would challenge you to show any evidence that spousal abuse, assaults on neighbors, rape of a neighbor, robbing neighbor, killing a neighbor or family member, etc. has anything to do with financial inequality. Most crime that people go to prison for is crimes committed against the perpetrator's peers.

You seem to have trouble grasping how social inequality works. It doesn't lead to poor people targeting rich people. I'm not sure why you brought it up again or what you think it proves? All I need to do to prove that socioeconomic status is relevant is to establish that poor people commit more crime than rich people, regardless who the victim is. In a social hierarchy the lower status somebody has the more of a valid target they are for crime. So they're more likely to be targeted by criminals. The same crime perpetrated towards somebody of a higher social status is typically judged a hell of a lot more seriously than crime against peers. And people respond to incentives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_correlations_of_criminal_behaviour

Here's an article only on the effects of socioeconomic status:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_status

I brought it up again because you are arguing from your "idiotic class struggle" point, "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, ...".

Have you never wondered why poor people more often break laws than rich people? Do you think they're morally worse people? There's got to be some explanation?

I am not a sociologist but would assume that there are a hell of a lot of unrelated causes involved such as mental stability, no respect for others, a sense of entitlement, etc. etc. Also the simple fact that there are a hell of a lot more poor people than rich people would mean that, even with no moral differences in general, there would be a hell of a lot more poor committing crimes.

So poor people are somehow a lesser quality of human somehow? That's quite a statement. Blacks in USA make a hell of a lot less than whites in USA. Are you somehow claiming that blacks are somehow inferior to whites? Physically or mentally? That is what you are saying isn't it?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurash...times-the-wealth-of-a-black-one/#7584e7956c5b

What a fucking strawman! ... and a fucking race card too. There was absolutely nothing in my statement that even implied such nonsense.

We also need to be careful with how we define poverty. It's a relative term and a term that changes a lot. The last fifty years the richest extreme percentile have gotten way richer. Which means inequality has gone up. But at the same time extreme poverty is rapidly disappearing. The world today is less a pyramid and more of a bell curve.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

All true but also completely irrelevant.

I'm active in the world of business. People tend to fail in business the first couple of times. It's normal. There's so much randomness in the market that brains barely enter into it. It's just too difficult to make correct assessments of how the future market will behave. Socioeconomic status comes in when we look at how failing in business effects people. Rich people get a hell of a lot more second chances. Poor people just have one or a couple of goes. Tenacity is also a factor. It's easier being focused if you have a support system taking care of your shit and helping you deal with distractions. As well as access to mentors to whip you in line when you start misbehaving. I think it's pretty obvious how wealth (and poverty) perpetuates itself. Based on how the world of business, over time, the rich should get richer and the poor poorer. Which is exactly what we find in the statistics.

Again irrelevant. There are other financial states than abject poverty or extreme wealth.

The war on drugs failed because it focused on the symptom rather than the cause. Drugs don't make addicts. Stress, anxiety and a shitty life creates addicts. Putting an addict in jail solves none of the underlying problems. So it solves nothing. In fact it makes the problem worse. Which is corroborated by the evidence. Social problems from drug use are worse now than when the war on drugs started. But it's not just drugs. The research suggests that the same applies for all crime.

I agree that the war on drugs is not only a failure but was and is an absurdity. There should be no laws to regulate "victimless crimes".

You're arguing from an ideological stand-point. I'm arguing from a pragmatic stand-point. So even if we agree we are talking past each other.

However, there can be no stable society without laws protecting individuals from the harmful actions of others.

It's a false dichotomy. I'm not arguing against punishing people. I'm arguing against using prisons as one of those methods. There's a million and one creative ways to punish people. The conclusion of the LSE seminar (my interpretation) is that we should explore alternatives to prison since prisons are having the exact opposite effect than what we want them to have.

It depends on what effect one wants from prisons whether one gets what one wants from them or not. If one only wants to protect possible victims from those who have no qualms victimizing them by isolating the perpetrators from their victims for a while then they work. However I have no problem with looking into alternatives but keeping prisons until a better, more effective, method is found.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You seem to have trouble grasping how social inequality works. It doesn't lead to poor people targeting rich people. I'm not sure why you brought it up again or what you think it proves? All I need to do to prove that socioeconomic status is relevant is to establish that poor people commit more crime than rich people, regardless who the victim is. In a social hierarchy the lower status somebody has the more of a valid target they are for crime. So they're more likely to be targeted by criminals. The same crime perpetrated towards somebody of a higher social status is typically judged a hell of a lot more seriously than crime against peers. And people respond to incentives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_correlations_of_criminal_behaviour

Here's an article only on the effects of socioeconomic status:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_status

I brought it up again because you are arguing from your "idiotic class struggle" point, "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, ...".

You're not answering my question at all. I've explained myself twice now and you still don't get it. You're insisting that I agree with your straw man description of "idiotic class struggle". Since that's not the argument I'm making I have no reason to defend it.

I assume you mean Marxist analysis here. According to Marxist analysis class struggle isn't rich and poor taking stuff from each other as if it's two armies on a field of battle. All it means is that life is unfair. That different actors in the market operate at different speeds. It's a critique of Smith's free market model. Marx's only point is that the free market isn't free at all. It's such a banal and obviously true observation that it baffles me how anybody can question it? Conservative and Libertarian thinkers don't question it. What they do is put forward various arguments that this unfairness is justifiable. But you're not doing that. You're just straight out denying that life is unfair. Have I understood you correctly?

What a fucking strawman! ... and a fucking race card too. There was absolutely nothing in my statement that even implied such nonsense.

Strawman, how? Isn't this exactly what you are claiming? Isn't that a direct implication of it?

Again irrelevant. There are other financial states than abject poverty or extreme wealth.

Irrelevant. All we need to do is establish that people are born into different degrees of wealth and have different degrees of opportunities in life and class structure is proven. That is what Marxist analysis of class is. I'm only using Marxist terminology because you started using it. I didn't.

It depends on what effect one wants from prisons whether one gets what one wants from them or not. If one only wants to protect possible victims from those who have no qualms victimizing them by isolating the perpetrators from their victims for a while then they work. However I have no problem with looking into alternatives but keeping prisons until a better, more effective, method is found.

They talk about that in the seminar. We have found other more effective methods. That's partly what the seminar was about. It was discussing why we kept using an obsolete and ineffectual method of punishment when there were so many other better methods. What you're referring to is what they call "incapacitation". Prison is just one of many methods with which to incapacitate someone. It's also extremely expensive. Relatively to other methods.

 

[Perspicuo]

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.

"Prisons" is not the unique and necessary solution to "Society needs sanctions for rule violations".

 

[Trausti]

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.

"Prisons" is not the unique and necessary solution to "Society needs sanctions for rule violations".

Maybe not. But if the state desires to stop people from engaging in self help, the state has to demonstrate that offenders will be punished for crime - and not just a slap on the wrist. Otherwise, the state's authority will erode and people will do what they have always done.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d85_1413975796

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c32_1432122919

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=450_1422978466

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e06_1425091467&comments=1

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8a8_1386335323&comments=1

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=131_1408943201

 

[Bomb#20]

I brought it up again because you are arguing from your "idiotic class struggle" point, "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, ...".

You're not answering my question at all. I've explained myself twice now and you still don't get it. You're insisting that I agree with your straw man description of "idiotic class struggle". Since that's not the argument I'm making I have no reason to defend it.

Good god, man, what is wrong with you? Do you even listen to yourself?

Are you somehow claiming that blacks are somehow inferior to whites? Physically or mentally? That is what you are saying isn't it?

... race card too. There was absolutely nothing in my statement that even implied such nonsense.

Strawman, how? Isn't this exactly what you are claiming? Isn't that a direct implication of it?

Strawman by being a strawman. No, that is not exactly what he's claiming. No, that is not anything at all resembling what he's claiming. That is not a direct implication of what he's claiming. That is not an indirect implication of what he's claiming. Your accusation was asinine. You just made it up. You don't have a reason to believe what you wrote. You believe because you want to believe. You wrote it because it fits a narrative about your debate with others on this subject that you've chosen to believe is really what's going on in this thread, a narrative that appeals to you because it casts you in the role of hero and therefore makes you feel good about yourself. You throw around trumped-up accusations of racism like a five-year-old with a can of Silly String because it makes you feel you are a superior life-form. You are the star exhibit for Sowell's description, "Self-congratulation as social policy".

So for you to accuse skepticalbip of a strawman is a sick joke. You are the king of the strawman argument.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Are you somehow claiming that blacks are somehow inferior to whites? Physically or mentally? That is what you are saying isn't it?

... race card too. There was absolutely nothing in my statement that even implied such nonsense.

Strawman, how? Isn't this exactly what you are claiming? Isn't that a direct implication of it?

Strawman by being a strawman. No, that is not exactly what he's claiming. No, that is not anything at all resembling what he's claiming. That is not a direct implication of what he's claiming. That is not an indirect implication of what he's claiming. Your accusation was asinine. You just made it up. You don't have a reason to believe what you wrote. You believe because you want to believe. You wrote it because it fits a narrative about your debate with others on this subject that you've chosen to believe is really what's going on in this thread, a narrative that appeals to you because it casts you in the role of hero and therefore makes you feel good about yourself. You throw around trumped-up accusations of racism like a five-year-old with a can of Silly String because it makes you feel you are a superior life-form. You are the star exhibit for Sowell's description, "Self-congratulation as social policy".

So for you to accuse skepticalbip of a strawman is a sick joke. You are the king of the strawman argument.

I didn't accuse him of racism. I accused him of making a poorly constructed argument. Racism may be the implication of what he wrote. That's why I asked him to clarify. Note that I asked. I didn't say he was a racist.

I am curious as to what your or Scepticalb's theory behind blacks lack of financial success in USA? If there are no class differences, ie everybody has an equal chance to succeed in life, why are there systematic discrepancies? That is what is meant by social class or belonging to a social class.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

"Prisons" is not the unique and necessary solution to "Society needs sanctions for rule violations".

Right. The reason we punish rule violators with prisons -- the actual reason, not the made-up reasons some people make up for the purpose of misrepresenting their political opponent in order to paint him as a classist racist monster so they can feel good about choosing not to come to grips with whatever counterargument he makes -- is that we used to sanction rule violations with the stocks, flogging, branding, cutting off body parts, and hanging, and we decided to stop doing those things because we decided they were barbaric, and as an unintended consequence of that decision, prisons, which we already had for the purpose of holding onto a suspected rule violator while we made up our minds what if anything we were going to do to him, were the only tool in our rule violation sanctioning toolbox that we had left. The reason we continue to use prisons after two hundred-odd years of trying not to be barbaric is simple inertia, combined with inability to identify a new punishment to replace prisons with that we have been able to collectively convince ourselves would be effective.

 

[DrZoidberg]

"Prisons" is not the unique and necessary solution to "Society needs sanctions for rule violations".

Right. The reason we punish rule violators with prisons -- the actual reason, not the made-up reasons some people make up for the purpose of misrepresenting their political opponent in order to paint him as a classist racist monster so they can feel good about choosing not to come to grips with whatever counterargument he makes -- is that we used to sanction rule violations with the stocks, flogging, branding, cutting off body parts, and hanging, and we decided to stop doing those things because we decided they were barbaric, and as an unintended consequence of that decision, prisons, which we already had for the purpose of holding onto a suspected rule violator while we made up our minds what if anything we were going to do to him, were the only tool in our rule violation sanctioning toolbox that we had left. The reason we continue to use prisons after two hundred-odd years of trying not to be barbaric is simple inertia, combined with inability to identify a new punishment to replace prisons with that we have been able to collectively convince ourselves would be effective.

False dichotomy again. The options aren't execution, corporal punishment and prison. There's hundreds of alternative types of punishment. Here's one, ankle monitor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankle_monitor

The seminar went into this at length. To try to explain why we've continued to use prisons as a form of punishment in spite of there existing plenty of more effectual and less barbaric methods. For example, an important factor in preventing re-offending is for the criminal to be a part of a strong social network where people aren't necessarily criminals. What prisons do is act to sever ties to non-criminals and replace them with social ties only to criminals. The opposite of what we want.

edit: They also talked at length about why we think prisons aren't barbaric when they in fact are. The psychological damages from being locked up in jail are much greater than what most people think. Traumatising parts of the population also has a cost. Living with psychological damage is a form of handicap to. It's just that psychological damage is invisible. We can only indirectly count the cost of it. If we'd instead break prisoners legs upon release the tangible costs would be so much more obvious and unacceptable. But no more barbaric or costly than what we are doing now.

 

[Trausti]

False dichotomy again. The options aren't execution, corporal punishment and prison. There's hundreds of alternative types of punishment. Here's one, ankle monitor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankle_monitor

If you want to propose an alternative, you've got to factor in the victim. Otherwise, your alternative will go down in flames. Telling someone that their rapist, assailant, or murderer of their loved one will be punished with an ankle monitor, an ankle monitor, will essentially make the state monopoly on criminal justice disappear. Why bother reporting crime if all the criminal gets is an ankle monitor? As the videos I posted earlier in this thread demonstrate, if people feel that the state sanction for crime is inadequate, they'll ignore the state and return to self help.

 

[DrZoidberg]

False dichotomy again. The options aren't execution, corporal punishment and prison. There's hundreds of alternative types of punishment. Here's one, ankle monitor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankle_monitor

If you want to propose an alternative, you've got to factor in the victim. Otherwise, your alternative will go down in flames. Telling someone that their rapist, assailant, or murderer of their loved one will be punished with an ankle monitor, an ankle monitor, will essentially make the state monopoly on criminal justice disappear. Why bother reporting crime if all the criminal gets is an ankle monitor? As the videos I posted earlier in this thread demonstrate, if people feel that the state sanction for crime is inadequate, they'll ignore the state and return to self help.

Why? Why do you think an ankle monitor is less of a punishment than prison? Being allowed to wear an ankle monitor might come with all manner of restrictions. We can just impose endless restrictions until we think it's cruel enough. An ankle monitor isn't just a bracelet. It's a GPS-tracker. They talked about this to in the seminar. The only thing that prison has going for it is that it is very cruel, ie if retribution is the goal of the punishment then prisons do a splendid job of it. But when it comes to public safety an ankle monitor is just as effective. Prisons are an extraordinarily expensive type of punishments. Ankle monitors are cheap. Also, we don't force the criminals life to fall apart which makes the criminals re-entry into society very smooth indeed. As well as allowing the criminal to continue paying taxes. It might even be a net gain for society instead of a net loss. I don't know about you but I like money. I want to pay is little taxes as possible.

 

[fast]

If you want to propose an alternative, you've got to factor in the victim. Otherwise, your alternative will go down in flames. Telling someone that their rapist, assailant, or murderer of their loved one will be punished with an ankle monitor, an ankle monitor, will essentially make the state monopoly on criminal justice disappear. Why bother reporting crime if all the criminal gets is an ankle monitor? As the videos I posted earlier in this thread demonstrate, if people feel that the state sanction for crime is inadequate, they'll ignore the state and return to self help.

Why? Why do you think an ankle monitor is less of a punishment than prison? Being allowed to wear an ankle monitor might come with all manner of restrictions. We can just impose endless restrictions until we think it's cruel enough. An ankle monitor isn't just a bracelet. It's a GPS-tracker. They talked about this to in the seminar. The only thing that prison has going for it is that it is very cruel, ie if retribution is the goal of the punishment then prisons do a splendid job of it. But when it comes to public safety an ankle monitor is just as effective. Prisons are an extraordinarily expensive type of punishments. Ankle monitors are cheap. Also, we don't force the criminals life to fall apart which makes the criminals re-entry into society very smooth indeed. As well as allowing the criminal to continue paying taxes. It might even be a net gain for society instead of a net loss. I don't know about you but I like money. I want to pay is little taxes as possible.

I like it. This way, the family of the victims don't have to sit on the side of the defense in an effort to keep the criminal out on the streets with them. Plus, the cost of vengeance isn't life in prison. It's a win-win.

 

[Bomb#20]

Are you somehow claiming that blacks are somehow inferior to whites? Physically or mentally? That is what you are saying isn't it?

... race card too. There was absolutely nothing in my statement that even implied such nonsense.

Strawman, how? Isn't this exactly what you are claiming? Isn't that a direct implication of it?

... You believe because you want to believe. ... You throw around trumped-up accusations of racism like a five-year-old with a can of Silly String ...

I didn't accuse him of racism.

Once again you prove your unlimited ability to believe things because you want to believe them. You want to believe you didn't accuse him of racism, so you believe it. The fact that your words are right in front of you, and you can read them, and you can plainly see that that's exactly what you did, is of no importance to you. Only the story you tell yourself, in which you are by definition the good guy, matters to you.

I accused him of making a poorly constructed argument. Racism may be the implication of what he wrote. That's why I asked him to clarify. Note that I asked. I didn't say he was a racist.

Here is what an accusation of a poorly constructed argument and a request for clarification look like:

DZ: Have you never wondered why poor people more often break laws than rich people? Do you think they're morally worse people? There's got to be some explanation?

sb: I am not a sociologist but would assume that there are a hell of a lot of unrelated causes involved such as mental stability, no respect for others, a sense of entitlement, etc. etc.

DZ: That's a poorly constructed argument. If that were the right explanation then it would imply that poor people are a lesser quality of human. (Do you agree that that follows? If not, I'll elaborate.) And if poor people are a lesser quality of human, then, since blacks in USA make a hell of a lot less than whites in USA, it would follow that blacks are physically or mentally inferior to whites. (Do you agree that that follows? If not, again I'll elaborate.) So by reductio ad absurdum your premise must therefore be incorrect. Do you agree that the conclusion I derived from your premise is incorrect?​

Here is what an accusation of a poorly constructed argument and a request for clarification do not look like:

"Are you somehow claiming that blacks are somehow inferior to whites? Physically or mentally? That is what you are saying isn't it?"​

You do not appear to be enough of a newcomer to the English language to be unfamiliar with what the construction "That is what you are saying, isn't it?" means. You might as well claim "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" isn't an accusation of wife-beating because it's phrased as a question.

I am curious as to what your or Scepticalb's theory behind blacks lack of financial success in USA? If there are no class differences, ie everybody has an equal chance to succeed in life, why are there systematic discrepancies? That is what is meant by social class or belonging to a social class.

You say that as though either of us should regard you as a legitimate participant in a substantive discussion. If you want serious answers to serious questions, first give us a reason to think you are emotionally mature enough to be able to respond to another person's posts without fabricating a position and imputing it to him.

...we used to sanction rule violations with the stocks, flogging, branding, cutting off body parts, and hanging, and we decided to stop doing those things because we decided they were barbaric... The reason we continue to use prisons after two hundred-odd years of trying not to be barbaric is simple inertia, combined with inability to identify a new punishment to replace prisons with that we have been able to collectively convince ourselves would be effective.

False dichotomy again. The options aren't execution, corporal punishment and prison. There's hundreds of alternative types of punishment.

Case in point. No, I did not offer a false dichotomy, because I was explaining the historical cause of the present situation; I was not offering an argument in favor of continuing it. You are not illiterate enough to have any imaginable reason to think I was saying the options are execution, corporal punishment and prison. What makes you think suggesting that that's what I was saying is an acceptable way for a civilized person to participate in a conversation?

Here's one, ankle monitor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankle_monitor

The seminar went into this <snip>

Your opinion that this would be an effective replacement is simply irrelevant to the issue in dispute. You know as well as I do that ankle monitors are not, in point of fact, a punishment to replace prisons with "that we have been able to collectively convince ourselves would be effective". You have therefore not produced a substantive counterargument against what I said.

I presented the actual history in order to disprove your libelous contention

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​

First, write a post that shows you know how to refrain from libeling people for not having believed whatever you happen to believe. Then ask people their theory behind whatever you think they need a theory for.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Are you somehow claiming that blacks are somehow inferior to whites? Physically or mentally? That is what you are saying isn't it?

... race card too. There was absolutely nothing in my statement that even implied such nonsense.

Strawman, how? Isn't this exactly what you are claiming? Isn't that a direct implication of it?

... You believe because you want to believe. ... You throw around trumped-up accusations of racism like a five-year-old with a can of Silly String ...

I didn't accuse him of racism.

Once again you prove your unlimited ability to believe things because you want to believe them. You want to believe you didn't accuse him of racism, so you believe it. The fact that your words are right in front of you, and you can read them, and you can plainly see that that's exactly what you did, is of no importance to you. Only the story you tell yourself, in which you are by definition the good guy, matters to you.

I accused him of making a poorly constructed argument. Racism may be the implication of what he wrote. That's why I asked him to clarify. Note that I asked. I didn't say he was a racist.

Here is what an accusation of a poorly constructed argument and a request for clarification look like:

DZ: Have you never wondered why poor people more often break laws than rich people? Do you think they're morally worse people? There's got to be some explanation?

sb: I am not a sociologist but would assume that there are a hell of a lot of unrelated causes involved such as mental stability, no respect for others, a sense of entitlement, etc. etc.

DZ: That's a poorly constructed argument. If that were the right explanation then it would imply that poor people are a lesser quality of human. (Do you agree that that follows? If not, I'll elaborate.) And if poor people are a lesser quality of human, then, since blacks in USA make a hell of a lot less than whites in USA, it would follow that blacks are physically or mentally inferior to whites. (Do you agree that that follows? If not, again I'll elaborate.) So by reductio ad absurdum your premise must therefore be incorrect. Do you agree that the conclusion I derived from your premise is incorrect?​

Here is what an accusation of a poorly constructed argument and a request for clarification do not look like:

"Are you somehow claiming that blacks are somehow inferior to whites? Physically or mentally? That is what you are saying isn't it?"​

You do not appear to be enough of a newcomer to the English language to be unfamiliar with what the construction "That is what you are saying, isn't it?" means. You might as well claim "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" isn't an accusation of wife-beating because it's phrased as a question.

Yes, that is the form of what he was saying. But he said it! He denied class differences being the cause of continued black impoverishment. I'm sorry, but that only leaves race theory as
an option. If a player keeps losing either the game is rigged or there's something wrong with the player. It's either one or the other.

It's NOT a complicated theory. It's also extremely easy to demonstrate. I suggest reading up on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class

Look... there's nothing socialist about accepting class theory. If that's the rub.

Your opinion that this would be an effective replacement is simply irrelevant to the issue in dispute. You know as well as I do that ankle monitors are not, in point of fact, a punishment to replace prisons with "that we have been able to collectively convince ourselves would be effective". You have therefore not produced a substantive counterargument against what I said.

I presented the actual history in order to disprove your libelous contention

What? I haven't argued for ankle monitors specifically. The OP and the seminar was about that we've become so wed to the idea of prisons being the only and best method of punishing that we aren't exploring options other than in the most superficial sense. The ankle monitor is just an example. I also haven't argued for it being a universal punishment for all crimes. Different crimes can be punished differently. We could, for example, reserve prisons for violent offenders. Non-violent offenders we could do other stuff with. Drug offenders we could put in rehab. We could tell them to either stay sober or go to jail. Instead of automatically putting them in jail first. We could fiddle around with the terms until we get the desired outcome. There's literally thousands of alternative options to jail.

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​

First, write a post that shows you know how to refrain from libeling people for not having believed whatever you happen to believe. Then ask people their theory behind whatever you think they need a theory for.

I was being slightly facetious. But only slightly. White collar crimes are judged less harshly than blue collar crimes. Rich people get lighter punishments than poor people. Are you denying this?

 

[ronburgundy]

Prisons do deter crime, despite bullshit claims to the contrary.

The problem is that claims that prisons don't deter crime are only ever supported with data that has no bearing on whether the threat of prison deters most people from doing things that would land them in prison. Instead, the data offered is data on whether the kind of people that wind up in prison the first time are deterred by their prison experience from winding up back in prison. Those are completely separate questions with different answers.

Most criminal acts are never prosecuted, so most people that wind up in prison are chronic repeat offenders before they ever get arrested the first time.
IOW, they are non-representative sub-populations that are disproportionately prone towards the criminal acts that land one in prison. This proneness is for all sorts of reasons, including economic desperation, so don't interpret it as some sort of genetic criminality thesis. Also, they are aware of prison and its unpleasantness, and yet engaged in the crimes anyway. Thus, by definition, their proneness toward the criminal acts is so strong that it already overrode the known threat of something so awful and life ruining as prison. Thus, it is no wonder that this non-representative sub-population winds up back in prison so often, and that being in prison (like the threat of prison) is not a sufficient disincentive to avoid the criminal actions. But that tells us nothing about the impact of prisons on keeping people from doing things than land one in prison in the first place.

Is the threat of prisons is partly responsible for why the people that don't ever wind up there don't wind up there? The can be no direct evidence on this question, so we must look to the indirect evidence and to empirically established principles of human behavior and decision making. All of that evidence suggest an answer of a resounding "Yes, the threat of prison reduces behavior that would land people there."

Ultimately, it comes down to whether you accept that most people will try to avoid outcomes that they find unpleasant, and that most people find the perceived features of prison to be unpleasant. The notion that threat of prison does not deter crime requires the absurd position of rejecting one or both of these undeniable assumptions.

The indirect evidence comes in many forms. One is simply the mountain of experimental evidence that human beings (like all animals) modify their behavior to avoid unpleasant stimuli, combined with the evidence indicating that most people find the idea of being confined to a cage, separated from friends, and being under constant physical threat to be unpleasant. In addition, their is the evidence that humans transfer their negative emotional reactions between associated stimuli, such that this avoidance need not even be a deliberated pragmatic decision, but rather the action associated with prison will in itself automatically trigger negative feelings the prompt avoidance even without any conscious thoughts of consequences.

Other indirect evidence is in the form of looking at patterns of everyday behavior in which people clearly avoid actions associated with unpleasant consequences. These range from kids learning not to touch a hot stove or do other things likely to harm them to the basic process of socialization in which non-stop subtle rewards and punishments in social interactions shape behavior.

A third form of indirect evidence is looking at differences in the frequencies of behaviors that are similar in moral and direct consequences but differ mostly just in terms of whether they could land you in prison. A great example is the frequency of alcohol use versus marijuana use. IF anything alcohol has more negative direct consequences and more association with immoral actions under the influence. Yet, many times more people regularly use alcohol than marijuana, and that is largely because they fear the legal consequences, including prison. The doubling of occasional pot smoking adults in the past decade is most plausibly due to the changes in its legal status and its reduces (though sadly not eliminated) association with consequences like prison. The fact that we shouldn't put pot smokers in prison is irrelevant to the issue.

Tying this all back into the OP question: Prisons are a way of making the consequences of criminal acts so unpleasant that most people don't wind up in prison partly because they are avoiding prison by avoiding or at least limiting their criminal actions that would land them in prison. Ideally, we'd want a system of criminal consequences that simultaneously serves this function of deterring the majority, while also rehabilitating those that were so motivated toward the criminal action that the threat of the consequence was not enough and they wound up in prison. That is an unlikely ideal, since almost anything that would make prison more rehabilitative would either make it less of an unpleasant deterrent to the general population who currently avoids prison due to its unpleasantness.

That said, some modest changes could have a big impact. Non-violent criminals should be kept completely separate from violent criminals, and first-timers should be separate from repeat offenders. Cameras with audio should be in every crevice including showers and bathrooms and reviewed by outside parties. Claims of privacy violation are nonsense. Prisoners already have to shower and shit right in front of others, which is more emotionally invasive than someone screening the videos for criminal or even just threatening behavior, especially since modern tech can automatically blur all faces and only unblur them when a there is a need to identify someone.