Why do we still put people in prison?

[DrZoidberg]

The death penalty thread inspired me to start this thread. All available research shows that putting people in jail has zero deterring effect and only acts to make criminals more likely to reoffend. To put it simply, prisons are expensive and pointless. Everybody loses. None of the research is controversial anymore. We´ve studied it plenty. Results are always the same.

Here´s from the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison

Theories of punishment and criminality

A variety of justifications and explanations are put forth for why people are imprisoned by the state. The most common of these are:[90]

Rehabilitation:[k] Theories of rehabilitation claim that the experience of being imprisoned will cause people to change their lives in a way that will make them productive and law-abiding members of society once they are released. However, this is not supported by empirical evidence, and in practice prisons tend to be ineffective at improving the lives of most prisoners.[91] As Morris and Rothman (1995) point out, "It's hard to train for freedom in a cage."[90] While the view of prisons as centers of rehabilitation was popular during the early development of the modern prison system, it is not widely held anymore, and has mostly been replaced by theories of deterrence, incapacitation, and retribution.

Deterrence: Theories of deterrence claim that by sentencing criminals to extremely harsh penalties, other people who might be considering criminal activities will be so terrified of the consequences that they will choose not to commit crimes out of fear. In reality, most studies show that high incarceration rates either increase crime, have no noticeable effect, or only decrease it by a very small amount.[93] Prisons act as training grounds for criminal activity, form criminal social networks, expose prisoners to further abuse (both from staff and other prisoners), foster anti-social sentiments towards society (law enforcement and corrections personnel in particular), fragment communities, and leave prisoners with criminal records that make it difficult to find legal employment after release. All of these things can result in a higher likelihood of reoffending upon release.

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]
Retribution: Theories of retribution seek to exact revenge upon criminals by harming them in exchange for harms caused to their victims. These theories do not necessarily focus on whether or not a particular punishment benefits the community, but are more concerned with ensuring that the punishment causes a sufficient level of misery for the prisoner, in proportion to the perceived seriousness of their crime. These theories are based upon a belief that some kind of moral balance will be achieved by "paying back" the prisoner for the wrongs they have committed.

That beggs the question; if prisons only act to create more criminals, and thereby making the world less safe for everyone... why do we still do it?

Also... a colossal waste of time for the inmate. There´s plenty of skilled professionals who spend time in jail not working with a valued skill that would make the world better for everybody.

It´s not like there aren´t plenty of good alternatives. Today in the world of IT and GPS and whatnot we can come up with loads of creative solutions that punish without being a net loss for society.

Thoughts?

 

[dystopian]

It´s not like there aren´t plenty of good alternatives. Today in the world of IT and GPS and whatnot we can come up with loads of creative solutions that punish without being a net loss for society.

You're severely overstimating the usefulness of such solutions when you try to apply them universally. Sure, you can fit criminals with GPS trackers and place limits of movement on them, and this will work for many criminals and many types of crime. It will not, however, work for many others. Replacing prisons with such a system would neccesitate a vastly expanded correctional workforce to keep track of and deal with those convicted criminals who decide to break out of their movement zones. You would also need to constantly monitor certain kinds of offenders with more than just a GSP tracker as it's entirely possible to commit crimes without exiting the prohibited movement zone. You're talking about numbers for the expanded correctional workforce that are simply not economically feasible. Compared to such a system, prisons are much more manageable, concentrating everyone that needs watching and putting them in a far more secure environment.

There is simply no feasible way we can, at present, replace prisons altogether. There *may* be solutions that could work in the future... however, such solutions usually form the central plot of dystopian science-fiction novels, which should probably tell us something.

 

[credoconsolans]

The ancient Romans didn't have prisons per se. They had holding cells, but they weren't used long term.

You did something illegal, they locked you up until they decided your punishment. Once they decided it, they punished you, and if you were still alive after, sent you on your way.

 

[tantric]

prisons exist so that the people who were 'wronged' or 'victimized' can feel avenged. that's all. i've been to prison, and that was the only purpose i could see. that and the DA gets elected on his conviction rate.

 

[Achwienichtig]

 

[DrZoidberg]

It´s not like there aren´t plenty of good alternatives. Today in the world of IT and GPS and whatnot we can come up with loads of creative solutions that punish without being a net loss for society.

You're severely overstimating the usefulness of such solutions when you try to apply them universally. Sure, you can fit criminals with GPS trackers and place limits of movement on them, and this will work for many criminals and many types of crime. It will not, however, work for many others. Replacing prisons with such a system would neccesitate a vastly expanded correctional workforce to keep track of and deal with those convicted criminals who decide to break out of their movement zones. You would also need to constantly monitor certain kinds of offenders with more than just a GSP tracker as it's entirely possible to commit crimes without exiting the prohibited movement zone. You're talking about numbers for the expanded correctional workforce that are simply not economically feasible. Compared to such a system, prisons are much more manageable, concentrating everyone that needs watching and putting them in a far more secure environment.

There is simply no feasible way we can, at present, replace prisons altogether. There *may* be solutions that could work in the future... however, such solutions usually form the central plot of dystopian science-fiction novels, which should probably tell us something.

So we use science to pick the criminals it´s useful for and apply it to them. Not the others. Now we have a one-size fits all solution, that sucks for everybody. Also, criminals who are dangerous are mental cases. They aren´t suitable for prison anyway.

Also... parents. How is putting criminals with children in prison going to benefit those kids? Isn´t that just perpetuating the cycle by design? With a system like that we can´t really complain about kids growing up to be criminals

- - - Updated - - -

prisons exist so that the people who were 'wronged' or 'victimized' can feel avenged. that's all. i've been to prison, and that was the only purpose i could see. that and the DA gets elected on his conviction rate.

So shouldn´t the victim get a say on what punishment they think would be suitable? Sure, revenge is a good reason. But only children cry out for revenge. Adults tend to understand that crime is a hell of a lot more complex than a criminal being an evil person.

 

[dystopian]

So we use science to pick the criminals it´s useful for and apply it to them.

Science is not capable of determining who it's useful for without error.

Not the others. Now we have a one-size fits all solution,

If you have a solution that works for only some people, you obviously don't have a one-size fits all solution.

Also, criminals who are dangerous are mental cases. They aren´t suitable for prison anyway.

*Humans* are dangerous; and we've already been over the "not suitable for prison" argument in the other thread. You're still going to need prisons with this idea of yours; unless you want to wholesale slaughter vast numbers of people, which simply isn't acceptable.

Also... parents. How is putting criminals with children in prison going to benefit those kids? Isn´t that just perpetuating the cycle by design? With a system like that we can´t really complain about kids growing up to be criminals

And the alternative to that is... letting criminals raise children? How does *that* not perpetuate the cycle? You're going to have kids growing up to be criminals either way, and there's no real reason why either scenario couldn't be improved upon to minimize the possibility of children growing up to be criminals; so there's real argument for or against putting people in prison on this basis.

So shouldn´t the victim get a say on what punishment they think would be suitable? Sure, revenge is a good reason. But only children cry out for revenge. Adults tend to understand that crime is a hell of a lot more complex than a criminal being an evil person.

That's a pretty big statement after you spent so much effort in the other thread deciding that people should get the deathpenalty while trying to invalidate all the reasons and arguments against it. Why are you suddenly so concerned with what the victim thinks?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Science is not capable of determining who it's useful for without error.

It´s pretty simple to do a statistical analysis and go with that. Right now it´s nothing but error, so we can´t really do any worse than we´re doing right now. So I´m not sure what kind of error you are referring to?

Not the others. Now we have a one-size fits all solution,

If you have a solution that works for only some people, you obviously don't have a one-size fits all solution.

What?

Also, criminals who are dangerous are mental cases. They aren´t suitable for prison anyway.

*Humans* are dangerous; and we've already been over the "not suitable for prison" argument in the other thread. You're still going to need prisons with this idea of yours; unless you want to wholesale slaughter vast numbers of people, which simply isn't acceptable.

But the prisons we today have make dangerous criminals even more dangerous. I take it you think this is desirable? I prefer a world with less violent crime.

Also... parents. How is putting criminals with children in prison going to benefit those kids? Isn´t that just perpetuating the cycle by design? With a system like that we can´t really complain about kids growing up to be criminals

And the alternative to that is... letting criminals raise children? How does *that* not perpetuate the cycle? You're going to have kids growing up to be criminals either way, and there's no real reason why either scenario couldn't be improved upon to minimize the possibility of children growing up to be criminals; so there's real argument for or against putting people in prison on this basis.

What is the logic behind your argument? Why would they grow up to be criminals either way? If they get to see their parent punished, wouldn´t that help to steer them away from a life of crime? Rather than what we have now "your daddy is on a long holiday"

So shouldn´t the victim get a say on what punishment they think would be suitable? Sure, revenge is a good reason. But only children cry out for revenge. Adults tend to understand that crime is a hell of a lot more complex than a criminal being an evil person.

That's a pretty big statement after you spent so much effort in the other thread deciding that people should get the deathpenalty while trying to invalidate all the reasons and arguments against it. Why are you suddenly so concerned with what the victim thinks?

I have no idea what your are talking about. I can´t see any logic to your arguments. It´s like your argument is that everybody who doesn´t agree with you is evil. Is that it? It´s not like I think we should be soft on crime. It´s more that I think we should let ourselves be informed by science if we want a society with less crime. I don´t like crime or being the victim of crime, therefore I´m against prison as a form of punishment. I think it is both wrong morally (unnecessarily cruel) as well as wrong socially (it isn´t a deterrent, and only acts to promote re-offence). It´s just dumb whatever your goals are.

 

[fromderinside]

Thoughts ? About what? You conclude in your opening paragraph then you present general summary of 'evidence'. I suppose I could look it up myself, but, why? You have already formed conclusions so all we have left is argument, not reasoned argument but, bias and prejudice based argument as evidenced by the posts which follow.

What seems to be missing are the evaluations of human nature that apply to criminality and justice. Human nature, biologically, is primarily that of self and kin interest. As social animals who operate out of self interest wouldn't one expect, as history documents, that self interest leads to principles extending that self interest to functioning groups. High among attributes of such groups are dependence or transfer of authority to the supernatural or morality.

Since science has confirmed we operate, at base, out of self interest, I presume the rest of my assertions likely follow. Now we have a basis to evaluate the value of imprisonment. Of course justifications come back to mechanisms for self, protection and revenge among others. More importantly there is a social benefit in punishment which is corralled as justification for control. If a society does not have mechanisms for control it soon fails.

I suspect we consider control more important than individual outcomes so finding that outcomes don't support benefits to society of imprisoning control are going to be offset by the maintaining of both authority and control by those who are at the levers.

We are at a crisis point is social order systems. While we are beginning to find acceptance more satisfying culturally than difference we have not yet found ways to make control less individual. Sure we are gaining in outcomes like less murder by extending acceptance, but, we aren't at the same time modifying greed or power based transactions in commerce or security or belief.

These latter three need to be addressed successfully if we are going to become consistent as social beings who get along. I'm supportive of automating control, say in the form of A/V, computers, and robots to the point where the only transactions humans have with justice is logical. Maybe then we'll design altruistic justice systems and truly find out whether our nature can be rationalized.

unwound again.

 

[dystopian]

It´s pretty simple to do a statistical analysis and go with that.

No, it's really not. There is no way to use statistical analysis to come up with system like this that will work even remotely well enough for our purposes. If you left it to such means, you'd get a system that *maybe* works most of the time, but which is completely blind to its own failures; of which there will be many even assuming you could magically pump the accuracy rating up above 90% (which you are most certainly not going to accomplish). It's an invitation to disaster and abuse. You are seriously overestimating our ability to make this work.

Right now it´s nothing but error, so we can´t really do any worse than we´re doing right now.

Obviously it's *not* "nothing but error", that's a gross oversimplification and imposition of your opinion. Indeed, the current system while imperfect is easily superior to the alternative you're proposing since the immediate consequences of errors are vastly reduced. Whereas if we create a system where we use statistical analysis to determine who gets to live at home with an ankle-bracelet and employ this en masse... we 1) risk far greater damage if the system fucks up and assigns the ankle-bracelet option to someone who will disregard this system of control and commit crimes, and 2) risk a complete break down of control if our statistical basis produces accurate results below a certain threshhold, because we've now stopped concentrating the problematic criminal population and have instead spread them out over a large area with the resources/force to effectively police them; policing them in this system is possible only because of the assumption that less than a certain percent of them will break the arbitrary limitations placed on them.

What?

It's not hard to understand, is it? What you referred to as a 'one size fits all' solution, is not in fact a one size fits all solution. It may be semantics, but semantics are often important.

But the prisons we today have make dangerous criminals even more dangerous.

No, they don't. *Some* prisons in *some* countries make *some* criminals more dangerous. It is a serious problem, yes. It is however false to claim this as some sort of absolute. Nor is this an argument against prisons perse; just certain types of prison systems as they are currently designed. It hasn't been demonstrated that the concept of prisons itself is flawed.

I take it you think this is desirable? I prefer a world with less violent crime.

What you prefer, and what reality will allow are clearly two different things. The alternative you proposed is insufficient to deal with all criminals, and its universal or near-universal application lwould leave us dangerously exposed to undesirable levels of risk. Even if we accept the risks created by this alternative system, we still need to deal with the not insignificant number of criminals who can not be covered by it; which leaves us with only two options. Either we keep them in prison. Or we execute them. The latter would require state-run murder on the scale of genocide, and would be morally unacceptable even if the actual numbers were minimal and it was done only to murderers themselves (even though in this hypothetical future, we most certainly couldn't avoid killing criminals for far lesser crimes than that)

What is the logic behind your argument? Why would they grow up to be criminals either way? If they get to see their parent punished, wouldn´t that help to steer them away from a life of crime?

Punished how? Living life pretty much as they've always had only with a shiny bracelet around their leg they can't take off? How exactly does that demonstrate 'punishment' to a child? Furthermore, has a major part of your argument not been that punishment doesn't work and isn't a desirable means of dealing with criminals anyway? So why this sudden concern with children seeing their criminal parents punished? It's already been argued that neither prisons nor the death penalty serve as a deterrence to crime. I agree with this assessment. This is because the knowledge that punishment is a possible outcome does not by itself dissuade people from engaging in certain activities. Do you imagine that criminals have never been punished as kids, or seen others get punished? Of course they have. Yet they still became criminals. Depending on the individual, certain criminal parents may simply have a pathological psychology that leads them to crime. Children of course, are shaped primarily through the influence of their parents; as such it is logical to assume that the children raised by a pathological criminal are statistically more likely to become criminals than those who are separated from such parents and raised by someone else. You have already advocated policy based purely on statistical analysis; so shouldn't you *support* removing children from the care of parents whose crimes are of a pathological nature? Of course, it's certainly true that children of parents who end up in jail often turn to crime themselves... however, one could argue multiple causes from that... ranging from the argument that's in line with your thinking that separating children from their parents inherently ends up promoting such behavior... to the argument that this is not a result of putting their parents in jail but a result of a broken social services system that doesn't help these kids enough.

There's no real reason to assume anything about which hypothetical scenario is more likely to produce criminal offspring without testing it out on a grand scale; which hasn't been done and isn't likely to ever be done due to ethical and practical concerns. As such, it would be irresponsible to base any large societal decisions on arguments along these lines.

I have no idea what your are talking about. I can´t see any logic to your arguments.

Really? You can't see *any* logic to the idea that we should maybe not murder people because you think doing so is a mercy to them... even though you just tried to argue to someone else that victims should have a say in their own punishment? You don't see the disconnect there? I find that level of cognitive dissonance impossible to imagine.

It´s like your argument is that everybody who doesn´t agree with you is evil. Is that it?

I've been pretty consistent in my reasons for condemning your position. It has nothing to do with whether or not you agree with me, and everything with the fact that you would; hypothetically; refuse to even *allow* people to disagree with you by virtue of the fact that you'd be deciding what you think is best for them and murdering them on that basis. Yes, I think that's pretty evil.

It´s not like I think we should be soft on crime. It´s more that I think we should let ourselves be informed by science if we want a society with less crime. I don´t like crime or being the victim of crime, therefore I´m against prison as a form of punishment. I think it is both wrong morally (unnecessarily cruel) as well as wrong socially (it isn´t a deterrent, and only acts to promote re-offence).

You think it's "morally wrong" to imprison someone, yet have advocated the death penalty on the basis that it's no worse than prison. By condemning one activity while promoting another activity which you have deemed to be on equal footing as the first, you demonstrate your morality to be completely arbitrary... there's no consistency there. Well, someone who advocates killing people period isn't someone who ranks very high on the morality scale to begin with, but especially not if they do so on the basis of it being for their own good without defering the decision to those actually affected by it.

 

[Unbeatable]

prisons exist so that the people who were 'wronged' or 'victimized' can feel avenged. that's all. i've been to prison, and that was the only purpose i could see. that and the DA gets elected on his conviction rate.

So shouldn´t the victim get a say on what punishment they think would be suitable?

Wait a minute, if we're going to perform an action(punishment) in order to bring about a particular consequence(the victim feeling better), shouldn't we first make sure that there's reliable evidence that the action in question does in fact lead to the desired consequence? There's a difference between merely having the intuition that you'll feel better after X occurs and having a justified expectation of it. Plenty of people want things that won't actually give them the fulfillment they seek. Indeed, that sort of bad judgment is part of what gets people into prison in the first place.

Sure, revenge is a good reason. But only children cry out for revenge. Adults tend to understand that crime is a hell of a lot more complex than a criminal being an evil person.

By that standard, I'd say there are quite a few children on TFT, and that children seem to comprise a significant portion of American voters.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Thoughts ? About what? You conclude in your opening paragraph then you present general summary of 'evidence'. I suppose I could look it up myself, but, why? You have already formed conclusions so all we have left is argument, not reasoned argument but, bias and prejudice based argument as evidenced by the posts which follow.

What seems to be missing are the evaluations of human nature that apply to criminality and justice. Human nature, biologically, is primarily that of self and kin interest. As social animals who operate out of self interest wouldn't one expect, as history documents, that self interest leads to principles extending that self interest to functioning groups. High among attributes of such groups are dependence or transfer of authority to the supernatural or morality.

Since science has confirmed we operate, at base, out of self interest, I presume the rest of my assertions likely follow. Now we have a basis to evaluate the value of imprisonment. Of course justifications come back to mechanisms for self, protection and revenge among others. More importantly there is a social benefit in punishment which is corralled as justification for control. If a society does not have mechanisms for control it soon fails.

I suspect we consider control more important than individual outcomes so finding that outcomes don't support benefits to society of imprisoning control are going to be offset by the maintaining of both authority and control by those who are at the levers.

We are at a crisis point is social order systems. While we are beginning to find acceptance more satisfying culturally than difference we have not yet found ways to make control less individual. Sure we are gaining in outcomes like less murder by extending acceptance, but, we aren't at the same time modifying greed or power based transactions in commerce or security or belief.

These latter three need to be addressed successfully if we are going to become consistent as social beings who get along. I'm supportive of automating control, say in the form of A/V, computers, and robots to the point where the only transactions humans have with justice is logical. Maybe then we'll design altruistic justice systems and truly find out whether our nature can be rationalized.

unwound again.

Exactly... the point is social control. Prison fails in controlling people socially, other than in the extreme short term. So we need a new plan.

 

[DrZoidberg]

No, it's really not. There is no way to use statistical analysis to come up with system like this that will work even remotely well enough for our purposes. If you left it to such means, you'd get a system that *maybe* works most of the time, but which is completely blind to its own failures; of which there will be many even assuming you could magically pump the accuracy rating up above 90% (which you are most certainly not going to accomplish). It's an invitation to disaster and abuse. You are seriously overestimating our ability to make this work.

I don´t know what you are talking about. No clue. I´m not sure what you have misunderstood about my argument.

But our legal system today is based on statistical analysis and reasonableness. We make a judgement call regarding how likely it is that a person is guilty if a certain piece of evidence is present. There´s actually quite a lot of, ethically innocent, people who get nailed on mere technicalities. Sure, our legal system acts to minimise it. But if you have the requirement that you have to be 100% sure, then nobody would be convicted ever.

Right now it´s nothing but error, so we can´t really do any worse than we´re doing right now.

Obviously it's *not* "nothing but error", that's a gross oversimplification and imposition of your opinion. Indeed, the current system while imperfect is easily superior to the alternative you're proposing since the immediate consequences of errors are vastly reduced. Whereas if we create a system where we use statistical analysis to determine who gets to live at home with an ankle-bracelet and employ this en masse... we 1) risk far greater damage if the system fucks up and assigns the ankle-bracelet option to someone who will disregard this system of control and commit crimes, and 2) risk a complete break down of control if our statistical basis produces accurate results below a certain threshhold, because we've now stopped concentrating the problematic criminal population and have instead spread them out over a large area with the resources/force to effectively police them; policing them in this system is possible only because of the assumption that less than a certain percent of them will break the arbitrary limitations placed on them.

I have´t proposed an alternate system. All I´m saying is that prison is counter-productive. If the point is to create a safer world prisons fail. Whatever criminal justice system we have, the point must surely be, to reduce crime? Why else have the system? My only argument is that we should try experimenting until we find a system that works. Not settle for a crap system we can be sure will fail.

But the prisons we today have make dangerous criminals even more dangerous.

No, they don't. *Some* prisons in *some* countries make *some* criminals more dangerous. It is a serious problem, yes. It is however false to claim this as some sort of absolute. Nor is this an argument against prisons perse; just certain types of prison systems as they are currently designed. It hasn't been demonstrated that the concept of prisons itself is flawed.

I see what you are doing. You´re trying to make yourself as the guy who sees both sides of the story and place yourself in the middle-ground. But it´s not the middle-ground. Perpetuating the crime cycle is a universal problem of all prison systems. It will only work in cases where the criminal had already quit their life of crime prior to getting caught.

The biggest problem is criminal records. Making criminal records public is a great way to make sure that the criminals lifestyle is perpetuated. If they had enough incentives to commit criminal offences prior to their record, they surely do after.

I take it you think this is desirable? I prefer a world with less violent crime.

What you prefer, and what reality will allow are clearly two different things. The alternative you proposed is insufficient to deal with all criminals, and its universal or near-universal application lwould leave us dangerously exposed to undesirable levels of risk. Even if we accept the risks created by this alternative system, we still need to deal with the not insignificant number of criminals who can not be covered by it; which leaves us with only two options. Either we keep them in prison. Or we execute them. The latter would require state-run murder on the scale of genocide, and would be morally unacceptable even if the actual numbers were minimal and it was done only to murderers themselves (even though in this hypothetical future, we most certainly couldn't avoid killing criminals for far lesser crimes than that)

Why this need to execute them? I don´t get it? I still haven´t proposed any alternative.

What is the logic behind your argument? Why would they grow up to be criminals either way? If they get to see their parent punished, wouldn´t that help to steer them away from a life of crime?

Punished how? Living life pretty much as they've always had only with a shiny bracelet around their leg they can't take off? How exactly does that demonstrate 'punishment' to a child? Furthermore, has a major part of your argument not been that punishment doesn't work and isn't a desirable means of dealing with criminals anyway? So why this sudden concern with children seeing their criminal parents punished? It's already been argued that neither prisons nor the death penalty serve as a deterrence to crime. I agree with this assessment. This is because the knowledge that punishment is a possible outcome does not by itself dissuade people from engaging in certain activities. Do you imagine that criminals have never been punished as kids, or seen others get punished? Of course they have. Yet they still became criminals. Depending on the individual, certain criminal parents may simply have a pathological psychology that leads them to crime. Children of course, are shaped primarily through the influence of their parents; as such it is logical to assume that the children raised by a pathological criminal are statistically more likely to become criminals than those who are separated from such parents and raised by someone else. You have already advocated policy based purely on statistical analysis; so shouldn't you *support* removing children from the care of parents whose crimes are of a pathological nature? Of course, it's certainly true that children of parents who end up in jail often turn to crime themselves... however, one could argue multiple causes from that... ranging from the argument that's in line with your thinking that separating children from their parents inherently ends up promoting such behavior... to the argument that this is not a result of putting their parents in jail but a result of a broken social services system that doesn't help these kids enough.

There's no real reason to assume anything about which hypothetical scenario is more likely to produce criminal offspring without testing it out on a grand scale; which hasn't been done and isn't likely to ever be done due to ethical and practical concerns. As such, it would be irresponsible to base any large societal decisions on arguments along these lines.

As far as the child is concerned a parent in jail might as well have been an executed parent. You yourself have already argued against the barbarity of capital punishment. Doesn´t th

I have no idea what your are talking about. I can´t see any logic to your arguments.

Really? You can't see *any* logic to the idea that we should maybe not murder people because you think doing so is a mercy to them... even though you just tried to argue to someone else that victims should have a say in their own punishment? You don't see the disconnect there? I find that level of cognitive dissonance impossible to imagine.

I´m sorry but I don´t see the connection. It´s not an issue of letting the victim dictate terms. But they should be allowed to lessen the punishment if they want. They can´t today. The punishment is dictated by the law and the law alone. All in the name of fairness.

You think it's "morally wrong" to imprison someone, yet have advocated the death penalty on the basis that it's no worse than prison. By condemning one activity while promoting another activity which you have deemed to be on equal footing as the first, you demonstrate your morality to be completely arbitrary... there's no consistency there. Well, someone who advocates killing people period isn't someone who ranks very high on the morality scale to begin with, but especially not if they do so on the basis of it being for their own good without defering the decision to those actually affected by it.

I think prison is a form of torture. And considering how it doesn´t work to make the world a safer place it´s just pure evil. It has no redeeming qualities. That´s why I think ranking prison and execution on some sort of morality ranking is a bizarre exercise. It´s like one of those hypothetical scenarios where you have to chose between what you would prefer, like "would you have sex with a hot girl once in your life and never again, or only have sex with ugly women for the rest of your life?". Obviously both options are horrendous.

 

[4321lynx]

Perhaps some figures will tell us what we are talking about.
These are from the "Economist" of a couple of weeks ago and that magazine being what it is, there is nothing of it for free online.

1, There are 2.3 million persons in US prisons -- 1.6 million in State & Fed prisons and 700,000 in local jails and Immigration holding pens.
2. It means that:
----a country of less than 5% of world population has 25% of the world's prison population.
----the incarceration rate is up x7 since the 1970s and is now x5 British rate, x9 German rate and x14 Japanese rate
----1 in 35 Americans is in prison, on parole, or on probation
3. 1/3 of African Americans can expect to be locked-up at some time in their lives

Legalising drugs (Economist does not say how many and which ones), would decrease the population 'significantly'. So would abolishing the policies of some States of Three Strikes and you're in for life, even if the 3rd is a minor offense, and they point out that California is attempting to do just that about the 3 Strikes.

It's a long article and makes the Economist worth seeking out in your local Public Library.

 

[dystopian]

I don´t know what you are talking about. No clue. I´m not sure what you have misunderstood about my argument.

I haven't misunderstood your argument. Your argument is simply flawed in ways you apparently can't understand. The system you propose is insufficient.

But our legal system today is based on statistical analysis and reasonableness. We make a judgement call regarding how likely it is that a person is guilty if a certain piece of evidence is present.

And that isn't statistical analysis. Our legal system is in no shape or form based on statistical analysis.

There´s actually quite a lot of, ethically innocent, people who get nailed on mere technicalities. Sure, our legal system acts to minimise it. But if you have the requirement that you have to be 100% sure, then nobody would be convicted ever.

Putting people in prison who are not guilty is a problem. However, for society at large it is a mere triviality. That innocent person doesn't do any overt damage to society by being in jail. However, a violent individual who through a flawed system of statistical analysis is allowed to serve his sentence at home with nothing more than cameras and a gps tracker to control his actions and movements represents an actual danger to society. That is why the comparison you're trying to draw just doesn't work.

I have´t proposed an alternate system.

You did in fact propose an alternate system, even if you didn't define it very well. In your own OP you claim we can come up with lots of creative solutions in the world of "IT" and "GPS". In point of fact there's really only one such solution if we're talking about IT and GPS, which is the one we've been talking about and which is the one you've proposed by wording the OP as you did.

All I´m saying is that prison is counter-productive. If the point is to create a safer world prisons fail.

And all I'm saying is that you've failed to prove this. You have offered nothing but unsubstantiated opinion.

My only argument is that we should try experimenting until we find a system that works. Not settle for a crap system we can be sure will fail.

But clearly prison *doesn't* fail as a whole. Individual points of failure do not seem to negate the usefulness of the entirety of the system. Prisons as we know them today are 'good enough' for the purposes of exercising control over the undesirable elements of a society; else we wouldn't have prisons to begin with. You've decided that because the modern prison system is imperfect that it is completely unsalvageable and something we should throw away completely; but this conclusion simply isn't reasonable. Cars universally develop mechanical problems over a lifetime, some sooner than others. Worse, they can crash and kill people which is surely counter to the purpose of moving people from a to b. Does this mean that the idea of a car itself is completely flawed? No, it means we need to build better cars.

But by all means, we should experiment with alternatives... we should not, however, delude ourselves into thinking we can replace prisons entirely before we find a system that involves less risk than concentrating dangerous people in a high-security environment. And I see no indication that we'll discover such a system any time soon.

I see what you are doing. You´re trying to make yourself as the guy who sees both sides of the story and place yourself in the middle-ground. But it´s not the middle-ground. Perpetuating the crime cycle is a universal problem of all prison systems. It will only work in cases where the criminal had already quit their life of crime prior to getting caught.

I'm not trying to place myself in the middle-ground. I'm just pointing out that the flaws in your absolutist claims. You make these grand sweeping claims ("perpetuating the crime cycle is a universal problem of all prison systems" for example) and then argue from that basis, but you utterly fail to substantiate these claims at the root of your arguments. You don't do this just with this issue, I've noticed an enduring tendency of yours to do this with many different topics. If you were to simply say "Prisons have a tendency to perpetuate the cycle", then I would be in perfect agreement. But instead you make these extreme black/white declarations that are simply not in evidence.

The biggest problem is criminal records. Making criminal records public is a great way to make sure that the criminals lifestyle is perpetuated. If they had enough incentives to commit criminal offences prior to their record, they surely do after.

If that is the biggest problem, then clearly putting people in prison *is not*. So why, if public criminal records are the biggest problem, can we not simply not make them public and still put people in prison? Biggest problem solved, leaving only smaller problems to deal with.

Why this need to execute them? I don´t get it? I still haven´t proposed any alternative.

You proposed IT/GPS solutions in your OP. This can only result in one system and variations thereof. Therefore, you implicitly proposed an alternative. In this implicitly proposed alternative; we must either maintain prisons for those that can't be covered by the alternative system, or we must execute them; which is something you've already argued for previously because you think it's more humane than putting them in prison.

As far as the child is concerned a parent in jail might as well have been an executed parent. You yourself have already argued against the barbarity of capital punishment.

False equivalency. It is absolutely NOT the case that as far as the child is concerned a parent in jail might as well have been executed. Such a comparison isn't even remotely reasonable. Children get visitation rights, and the comfort of knowing that their imprisoned parent won't be imprisoned forever. It is not comparable to a parent who is *dead*.

I´m sorry but I don´t see the connection. It´s not an issue of letting the victim dictate terms. But they should be allowed to lessen the punishment if they want.

If you think they should be allowed to lessen the punishment if they want, then why should they not be allowed to choose to not be executed?

I think prison is a form of torture. And considering how it doesn´t work to make the world a safer place it´s just pure evil. It has no redeeming qualities. That´s why I think ranking prison and execution on some sort of morality ranking is a bizarre exercise. It´s like one of those hypothetical scenarios where you have to chose between what you would prefer, like "would you have sex with a hot girl once in your life and never again, or only have sex with ugly women for the rest of your life?". Obviously both options are horrendous.

Then why not simply state you oppose *both*; rather than consistently argue for one over the other?

 

[Cerberus]

The death penalty thread inspired me to start this thread. All available research shows that putting people in jail has zero deterring effect and only acts to make criminals more likely to reoffend. To put it simply, prisons are expensive and pointless. Everybody loses. None of the research is controversial anymore. We´ve studied it plenty. Results are always the same.

Here´s from the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison

Theories of punishment and criminality

A variety of justifications and explanations are put forth for why people are imprisoned by the state. The most common of these are:[90]

Rehabilitation:[k] Theories of rehabilitation claim that the experience of being imprisoned will cause people to change their lives in a way that will make them productive and law-abiding members of society once they are released. However, this is not supported by empirical evidence, and in practice prisons tend to be ineffective at improving the lives of most prisoners.[91] As Morris and Rothman (1995) point out, "It's hard to train for freedom in a cage."[90] While the view of prisons as centers of rehabilitation was popular during the early development of the modern prison system, it is not widely held anymore, and has mostly been replaced by theories of deterrence, incapacitation, and retribution.

Deterrence: Theories of deterrence claim that by sentencing criminals to extremely harsh penalties, other people who might be considering criminal activities will be so terrified of the consequences that they will choose not to commit crimes out of fear. In reality, most studies show that high incarceration rates either increase crime, have no noticeable effect, or only decrease it by a very small amount.[93] Prisons act as training grounds for criminal activity, form criminal social networks, expose prisoners to further abuse (both from staff and other prisoners), foster anti-social sentiments towards society (law enforcement and corrections personnel in particular), fragment communities, and leave prisoners with criminal records that make it difficult to find legal employment after release. All of these things can result in a higher likelihood of reoffending upon release.

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]
Retribution: Theories of retribution seek to exact revenge upon criminals by harming them in exchange for harms caused to their victims. These theories do not necessarily focus on whether or not a particular punishment benefits the community, but are more concerned with ensuring that the punishment causes a sufficient level of misery for the prisoner, in proportion to the perceived seriousness of their crime. These theories are based upon a belief that some kind of moral balance will be achieved by "paying back" the prisoner for the wrongs they have committed.

That beggs the question; if prisons only act to create more criminals, and thereby making the world less safe for everyone... why do we still do it?

Also... a colossal waste of time for the inmate. There´s plenty of skilled professionals who spend time in jail not working with a valued skill that would make the world better for everybody.

It´s not like there aren´t plenty of good alternatives. Today in the world of IT and GPS and whatnot we can come up with loads of creative solutions that punish without being a net loss for society.

Thoughts?

But would not the world be a safer place if they're locked up?

 

[Togo]

But our legal system today is based on statistical analysis and reasonableness.

No, it's not based on statistics, not even a little bit. It's based on intuition. Quite complicated and well-nuanced intuition, but it all comes down to judgement, not stats.


I think to answer your question you need to work out what you want a justice system to achieve. If the idea is simply to remove offenders from wider society, then prison does in fact do this. Offenders are removed, which stops them offending.

If on top of that, you're looking to recreate the Slavery of the Old South, then Prison does an excellent job. In the past slaves (mostly blacks) were organised into gangs of forced labour. The US prison service does the same thing, and has managed a higher level of slave-labour than existed before the civil war. Military supplies, license plates, etc.

If what you're looking for is rehabilitation, then there's wide evidence and support for giving offenders and supportive and nurturing environment, and teaching them life and job skills. It's cheaper than prison, cheaper than capital punishment, and has a good success rate in turning offenders into productive citizens, for the bulk of crimes. Unfortunately, prisoners quite enjoy it.

Which leads us to the elephant in the room, which is revenge. The basic problem with the US justice system is that revenge is seen as more important than justice, social improvement, or even public safety. Prisons are brutal places because people want prisoners to suffer. Giving into that kind of base instinct is understandable, but it gets in the way of achieving anything else.

 

[DrZoidberg]

There´s actually quite a lot of, ethically innocent, people who get nailed on mere technicalities. Sure, our legal system acts to minimise it. But if you have the requirement that you have to be 100% sure, then nobody would be convicted ever.

Putting people in prison who are not guilty is a problem. However, for society at large it is a mere triviality. That innocent person doesn't do any overt damage to society by being in jail. However, a violent individual who through a flawed system of statistical analysis is allowed to serve his sentence at home with nothing more than cameras and a gps tracker to control his actions and movements represents an actual danger to society. That is why the comparison you're trying to draw just doesn't work.

People in jail are also part of society.

But why the extremes? Why the either everybody in jail or nobody approach? Why not only put people in jail who are actually dangerous? Why all the rest of them as well? Also... shouldn´t non-violent prisoners be protected from the violent prisoners somehow?

I have´t proposed an alternate system.

You did in fact propose an alternate system, even if you didn't define it very well. In your own OP you claim we can come up with lots of creative solutions in the world of "IT" and "GPS". In point of fact there's really only one such solution if we're talking about IT and GPS, which is the one we've been talking about and which is the one you've proposed by wording the OP as you did.

No, I didn´t. I really didn´t. I merely suggested that we should experiment more.

All I´m saying is that prison is counter-productive. If the point is to create a safer world prisons fail.

And all I'm saying is that you've failed to prove this. You have offered nothing but unsubstantiated opinion.

But clearly prison *doesn't* fail as a whole. Individual points of failure do not seem to negate the usefulness of the entirety of the system. Prisons as we know them today are 'good enough' for the purposes of exercising control over the undesirable elements of a society; else we wouldn't have prisons to begin with. You've decided that because the modern prison system is imperfect that it is completely unsalvageable and something we should throw away completely; but this conclusion simply isn't reasonable. Cars universally develop mechanical problems over a lifetime, some sooner than others. Worse, they can crash and kill people which is surely counter to the purpose of moving people from a to b. Does this mean that the idea of a car itself is completely flawed? No, it means we need to build better cars.

But by all means, we should experiment with alternatives... we should not, however, delude ourselves into thinking we can replace prisons entirely before we find a system that involves less risk than concentrating dangerous people in a high-security environment. And I see no indication that we'll discover such a system any time soon.

I linked to the Wikipedia article in the OP. It does all the arguing for me. This is not controversial in the least. Science figured out that jails were counter-productive in the 1930'ies. Why we´ve kept putting people in jail in spite of this is an interesting topic in itself. But hardly an interesting topic for discussion.

Putting people in jail as a tool for reform was a 19´th century Utilitarian theory. It was an incredibly popular topic for general discussion, in a way that might be hard to understand today. But reality didn´t match the theory, and those ideas went out of fashion. But we kept putting people in jail anyway. All I´m saying is that we should learn from earlier mistakes and just stop putting people in jail. Try to figure out some other solution, that actually works.

Dangerous people are dangerous. Why not focus on only putting those in jail?

I'm just pointing out that the flaws in your absolutist claims.

Erm... what. The absolutist accuses me of being an absolutist. LOL

You make these grand sweeping claims ("perpetuating the crime cycle is a universal problem of all prison systems" for example) and then argue from that basis, but you utterly fail to substantiate these claims at the root of your arguments. You don't do this just with this issue, I've noticed an enduring tendency of yours to do this with many different topics. If you were to simply say "Prisons have a tendency to perpetuate the cycle", then I would be in perfect agreement. But instead you make these extreme black/white declarations that are simply not in evidence.

Just read the linked Wikipedia article. It´s not long.

The biggest problem is criminal records. Making criminal records public is a great way to make sure that the criminals lifestyle is perpetuated. If they had enough incentives to commit criminal offences prior to their record, they surely do after.

If that is the biggest problem, then clearly putting people in prison *is not*. So why, if public criminal records are the biggest problem, can we not simply not make them public and still put people in prison? Biggest problem solved, leaving only smaller problems to deal with.

If we´re doing two stupid things, and stop doing the most stupid. It doesn´t magically make the second stupid thing suddenly intelligent.

If you think they should be allowed to lessen the punishment if they want, then why should they not be allowed to choose to not be executed?

So now you´re suddenly for capital punishment? Make up your mind.

I think prison is a form of torture. And considering how it doesn´t work to make the world a safer place it´s just pure evil. It has no redeeming qualities. That´s why I think ranking prison and execution on some sort of morality ranking is a bizarre exercise. It´s like one of those hypothetical scenarios where you have to chose between what you would prefer, like "would you have sex with a hot girl once in your life and never again, or only have sex with ugly women for the rest of your life?". Obviously both options are horrendous.

Then why not simply state you oppose *both*; rather than consistently argue for one over the other?

I am opposed to both. Which I have consistently said. In the Death Penalty thread the proposed alternative to execution was life in jail. As far as I´m concerned those are two alternatives that are both about as barbaric.

 

[dystopian]

But why the extremes? Why the either everybody in jail or nobody approach? Why not only put people in jail who are actually dangerous? Why all the rest of them as well?

I never said they should all be put in jail. However, there is no fool-proof way of coming up with a system of determing who is and who is not going to be dangerous; and unless the non-prison group is relatively small or comes with an unrealistic increase in correctional workforce and funding, the risks of alternative systems as we can create them right now are simply too great.

Also... shouldn´t non-violent prisoners be protected from the violent prisoners somehow?

They already are; we have different prisons for different kinds of crime; violent offenders are not incarcerated in the same prison (or the same section of a prison) as non-violent offenders.

No, I didn´t. I really didn´t. I merely suggested that we should experiment more.

No, you did. You really did. That's how language works; you may not have *intended* to propose this alternative system, but that *is* nonetheless exactly what you did by stating in your op that there *are* good alternatives (as opposed to stating that there *might* be) and then listing IT and GPS as the means to do so. If all you wanted to do was suggest that we should experiment instead of proposing an alternative you believe will work, then you should have phrased the OP differently.

I linked to the Wikipedia article in the OP. It does all the arguing for me. This is not controversial in the least.

No, Wikipedia articles do not provide your argument for you, you're still going to have to make them yourself. The article linked in the OP certainly doesn't do so; it is simply a listing of arguments and various explanations that people offer... it does not substantiate an absolutist interpretation of any of these arguments/explanations. Yes, the tenor of the article and its sources certainly points towards prisons being an imperfect and flawed system, but at no point does it establish the extreme view that prisons are 100% bad/ineffective or unneccessary.

Science figured out that jails were counter-productive in the 1930'ies.

It did no such thing.

Putting people in jail as a tool for reform was a 19´th century Utilitarian theory. It was an incredibly popular topic for general discussion, in a way that might be hard to understand today. But reality didn´t match the theory, and those ideas went out of fashion. But we kept putting people in jail anyway.

We've always put people in jail; the fact that we continued to do so after discredited theories of reform were abandoned doesn't change the fact that we still have criminals that need to be dealt with in some fashion. *That* is why we still put people in jail... because thus far nobody has actually come up with an alternative that allows us to abandon prisons altogether. You can rant about the ineffectiveness of prisons all you want, but it doesn't impress much when it's still actually the only means of dealing with certain kinds of criminals we have that has *any* effectiveness.

All I´m saying is that we should learn from earlier mistakes and just stop putting people in jail. Try to figure out some other solution, that actually works.

You can't stop putting people in jail until you already have that other solution that actually works. Abolishing jails when we don't have a workable alternative is just insane.

Dangerous people are dangerous. Why not focus on only putting those in jail?

And how exactly do you determine who'se dangerous and who'se not? Do you have some magic means of making this assessment that the rest of the world has been deprived from? How will you guarantee that you don't either underestimate how dangerous someone is and thus risk them being dangerous out in the world, or overestimate someone's dangerousness and put someone in jail who shouldn't be there?

Erm... what. The absolutist accuses me of being an absolutist. LOL

At what point have I made any absolutist claims? I'm not the one declaring with absolute certainty that X is all bad/good. All i've been doing is pointing out flaws and natural consequences of certain arguments. Perhaps we are operating from different understandings of the term. I'm using the term to refer to the way you declare certain things to be 100% true. "Apples are delicious" for instance, is an absolute statement which does not take into consideration that deliciousness is a subjective value. Of course, that is a colloqial example and thus easier to overlook. Such statements are not to be overlooked when they're made over the course of a debate, however.

That said, the way I'm using the word clearly conflicts with the English dictionary which states that absolutism refers either to 1) the principle or the exercise of complete and unrestricted power in government. Or 2) any theory holding that values, principles, etc., are absolute and not relative, dependent, or changeable.

My statements and positions do not conform to either of these definitions; you, however, *have* in the made a value/moral judgement that prison is torture, and have *not* allowed for the possibility that this judgement is relative. Therefore, *you* do at least conform to the 2nd definition of an absolutist.

Just read the linked Wikipedia article. It´s not long.

I have. As I've already stated elsewhere in my response to you, it does not substantiate your declarations to the point we're talking about. Relative degrees only.

If we´re doing two stupid things, and stop doing the most stupid. It doesn´t magically make the second stupid thing suddenly intelligent.

However, it does in fact demonstrate that the problems are entirely surmountable and do not require a complete replacement of the system. It's like a car with engine troubles... you would suggest we just throw out the car and use something else to get around; even though you've essentially already admitted that the biggest problem with the car is easily fixed. And if the biggest problem is so easily fixed, then we should expect the smaller remaining problems to be fixable too. Why then, still insist on getting rid of the car altogether?

So now you´re suddenly for capital punishment? Make up your mind.

I'm pointing out that the argument you're using defeats what appeared to be your argument in the other thread, not establishing myself as pro-death penalty.

I am opposed to both. Which I have consistently said. In the Death Penalty thread the proposed alternative to execution was life in jail. As far as I´m concerned those are two alternatives that are both about as barbaric.

You REALLY haven't consistently stated your opposition to the death penalty. You have effectively done the opposite. In that thread you have consistently and enthustiastically argued against me, the person most vocally opposing the death penalty, in ways that make it difficult to conlude that you are anything but *in favor* of the deathpenalty. All it would've taken is a simple "I oppose the death penalty, but..."; which is a sentence you've never typed or which I have somehow overlooked. Since you now, finally, have clearly stated you do in fact opposed the death penalty, I must retract those previous arguments which are predicated on the assumption you do in fact support the death penalty. That said, my other arguments remain.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I never said they should all be put in jail. However, there is no fool-proof way of coming up with a system of determing who is and who is not going to be dangerous; and unless the non-prison group is relatively small or comes with an unrealistic increase in correctional workforce and funding, the risks of alternative systems as we can create them right now are simply too great.

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. About half the inmates are in for violent crimes. The rest are harmless. I´d say that´s a big enough number to warrant prison reform. There´s no reason to lock any of the other half up. It´ll always be counter productive.

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.

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