Why do we still put people in prison?

[bilby]

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

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

Really? I have NEVER seen a respected source or official report use the phrase 'rampant anarchy in our prisons'; do you have a citation for this?

Perhaps we differ in our level of respect for empty hyperbole of this kind.

Prisons are not pleasant places. Perhaps you should visit one, and see for yourself what they are like. The National Association of Official Prison Visitors are always looking for volunteers, and personal experience is a good deal better than even the most respected third-party source, or official account.

If you do visit a prison, I am confident that you will find neither rampant anarchy, nor a holiday camp. If you visit as an official prison visitor, you may also be surprised to find that the prisoners you visit do not wish to return after their release - and most of them did not expect to end up in prison when they committed the crime that sent them there.

Prison - whether easy or hard - is not a deterrent to someone who believes he will not be caught. And that is the vast majority of criminals.

 

[Cerberus]

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

Really? I have NEVER seen a respected source or official report use the phrase 'rampant anarchy in our prisons'; do you have a citation for this?

Perhaps we differ in our level of respect for empty hyperbole of this kind.

Prisons are not pleasant places. Perhaps you should visit one, and see for yourself what they are like. The National Association of Official Prison Visitors are always looking for volunteers, and personal experience is a good deal better than even the most respected third-party source, or official account.

If you do visit a prison, I am confident that you will find neither rampant anarchy, nor a holiday camp. If you visit as an official prison visitor, you may also be surprised to find that the prisoners you visit do not wish to return after their release - and most of them did not expect to end up in prison when they committed the crime that sent them there.

Prison - whether easy or hard - is not a deterrent to someone who believes he will not be caught. And that is the vast majority of criminals.

You're in Oz aren't you? Society’s scum – and every society has them – make our lives a misery with their anti-social, through aggressive, threatening, to psychopathic propensities, and yet you fret for their comfort as if they’re the victims of society rather than their victims have been at their hands. They don’t care about you, so why the fuck do you care about them? I simply do not know what makes you liberals tick.

Incidentally . . .

And that is the vast majority of criminals.

Oh really? 'Do you have a citation for that empty hyperbole'??

 

[DrZoidberg]

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

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

So what`s your plan then? How do you want to reform the criminal justice system?

 

[DrZoidberg]

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

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

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

But I think all that will be fixed in time. Modern society and modern legal systems simply hasn´t had enough time to adapt to The Internet. The evolution of law is slow. I actually don´t have a problem with that. We want it to evolve slowly. Too fast legal changes and the entire system becomes unstable and then it pays off more to figure out ways to go round the laws then to actually try to follow them. We have that problem anyway. But less so than we otherwise would.

 

[Cerberus]

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

So what`s your plan then? How do you want to reform the criminal justice system?

If you haven't cottoned on to what 'my plan' would be by now, you never will.

 

[Cerberus]

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

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

But I think all that will be fixed in time. Modern society and modern legal systems simply hasn´t had enough time to adapt to The Internet. The evolution of law is slow. I actually don´t have a problem with that. We want it to evolve slowly. Too fast legal changes and the entire system becomes unstable and then it pays off more to figure out ways to go round the laws then to actually try to follow them. We have that problem anyway. But less so than we otherwise would.

This has nothing to do with 'the law', it's to do with the penal code.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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

That comment makes no sense IMHO. I suspect you´ve forgotten what you are arguing?

The Wiki page has all the research at the bottom.

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

But almost all the data is pointing in one singular direction. It´s not like there´s two equal sides here we´re evaluating. There´s the wrong side (but politically popular) and the right side (politically unpopular). That is all. For whatever reason having criminals locked up resonates with voters. That is the only reason we still have almost all criminals locked up.

 

[Cerberus]

That comment makes no sense IMHO. I suspect you´ve forgotten what you are arguing?

The Wiki page has all the research at the bottom.

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

But almost all the data is pointing in one singular direction. It´s not like there´s two equal sides here we´re evaluating. There´s the wrong side (but politically popular) and the right side (politically unpopular). That is all. For whatever reason having criminals locked up resonates with voters. That is the only reason we still have almost all criminals locked up.

And what can't prisoners do when they're locked up? All together now - 'THEY CAN'T COMMIT ANY CRIME'??????

 

[DrZoidberg]

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

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

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

That is the populistic logic behind having prisons. It just doesn´t work. Once to prison an inmate will most likely identify with being a criminal. And since the rest of society has branded them as such they are likely to reoffend. The worse the prisons the more likely they are to reoffend That is just the reality. Making prisons harsh is just dumb. It´s a stupid and an expensive solution.

Of course the criminal fraternity don´t want to get caught. Even in the most liberal criminal systems prison is still horrible. Nowhere is prison a positive experience. They just put their efforts into not getting caught. The harshness of the punishments for the crimes has always been a non-factor. Nobody commits any crime if they think they might get caught.

I suspect that the harsher the prison the more important it is to make friends on the inside. Having friends in jail means being a criminal and proving to others that you play that game.

 

[Cerberus]

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

That is the populistic logic behind having prisons. It just doesn´t work. Once to prison an inmate will most likely identify with being a criminal. And since the rest of society has branded them as such they are likely to reoffend. The worse the prisons the more likely they are to reoffend That is just the reality. Making prisons harsh is just dumb. It´s a stupid and an expensive solution.

Of course the criminal fraternity don´t want to get caught. Even in the most liberal criminal systems prison is still horrible. Nowhere is prison a positive experience. They just put their efforts into not getting caught. The harshness of the punishments for the crimes has always been a non-factor. Nobody commits any crime if they think they might get caught.

I suspect that the harsher the prison the more important it is to make friends on the inside. Having friends in jail means being a criminal and proving to others that you play that game.

Oh stop psychoanalysing the criminal mind for gods sake; it's exactly what they want society to do in order to garner misguided sympathy - which they can always depend upon from the hand-wringing, wishy-washy liberal fraternity!

 

[DrZoidberg]

And what can't prisoners do when they're locked up? All together now - 'THEY CAN'T COMMIT ANY CRIME'??????

Having people in jail is expensive. Very expensive. So giving people absurdly long sentences for minor crimes isn´t worth it... on just basic financial terms. In a society where criminals are released after serving their terms it´s the outside after prisons where we need to focus. We need to design a system that minimises people´s urge to reoffend.

Do you agree that if harsh prisons sentences only lead to encouraging reoffence then harsh sentences is bad?

Here was just the first study I found when googling. But they´re almost all like this:

http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1152

Summary: For career criminals the longer the jail sentence the more likely that they stay criminals. For regular people who just fucked up once in their lives, the length of the prison sentence is pretty much irrelevant. They wouldn´t reoffend anyway. For both groups it´s a waste of money (and lives) to give them long sentences.

 

[DrZoidberg]

That is the populistic logic behind having prisons. It just doesn´t work. Once to prison an inmate will most likely identify with being a criminal. And since the rest of society has branded them as such they are likely to reoffend. The worse the prisons the more likely they are to reoffend That is just the reality. Making prisons harsh is just dumb. It´s a stupid and an expensive solution.

Of course the criminal fraternity don´t want to get caught. Even in the most liberal criminal systems prison is still horrible. Nowhere is prison a positive experience. They just put their efforts into not getting caught. The harshness of the punishments for the crimes has always been a non-factor. Nobody commits any crime if they think they might get caught.

I suspect that the harsher the prison the more important it is to make friends on the inside. Having friends in jail means being a criminal and proving to others that you play that game.

Oh stop psychoanalysing the criminal mind for gods sake; it's exactly what they want society to do in order to garner misguided sympathy - which they can always depend upon from the hand-wringing, wishy-washy liberal fraternity!

It´s not psychoanalysis. It´s simple cause and effect. It´s just a reading of the statistics.

If X then Y. The lower X then the lower Y. Ergo, do less X.

 

[Cerberus]

And what can't prisoners do when they're locked up? All together now - 'THEY CAN'T COMMIT ANY CRIME'??????

Having people in jail is expensive. Very expensive. So giving people absurdly long sentences for minor crimes isn´t worth it... on just basic financial terms. In a society where criminals are released after serving their terms it´s the outside after prisons where we need to focus. We need to design a system that minimises people´s urge to reoffend.

Do you agree that if harsh prisons sentences only lead to encouraging reoffence then harsh sentences is bad?

Here was just the first study I found when googling. But they´re almost all like this:

http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1152

Summary: For career criminals the longer the jail sentence the more likely that they stay criminals. For regular people who just fucked up once in their lives, the length of the prison sentence is pretty much irrelevant. They wouldn´t reoffend anyway. For both groups it´s a waste of money (and lives) to give them long sentences.

What, you think letting them out sooner will cure their criminality? WTF! But thanks for obliquely acknowledging in your first sentence that my stance here is not to do with those who indulge 'in minor crime'.

 

[Cerberus]

It´s not psychoanalysis. It´s simple cause and effect. It´s just a reading of the statistics.

If X then Y. The lower X then the lower Y. Ergo, do less X.

If you say so!

 

[DrZoidberg]

What, you think letting them out sooner will cure their criminality? WTF! But thanks for obliquely acknowledging in your first sentence that my stance here is not to do with those who indulge 'in minor crime'.

Yes, I do. Because that´s what the research says. You´re assuming that prisons is the only way of punishing criminality. That´s your base assumption. The science shows that the shorter the prison-sentence the less likely they are to re-offend. my argument is to work toward removing prisons all together. And try to find alternative punishments

Since I don´t want to be the victim of crime, I would prefer if criminals didn´t go to prison.

What do you think we should do with those who commit minor crimes then? Today those also often go to prisons. People who have committed drug offences often go to jail. I´d put all of those into minor criminals. Drugs is a victimless crime. Putting drug addicts in jail is also completely pointless. It never helps them to overcome their addictions. It´s the same here. The longer the sentence the harder it is for them to overcome their addictions. There is no prison to date that has come up with a system to keep drugs out of prisons.

 

[bilby]

Really? I have NEVER seen a respected source or official report use the phrase 'rampant anarchy in our prisons'; do you have a citation for this?

Perhaps we differ in our level of respect for empty hyperbole of this kind.

Prisons are not pleasant places. Perhaps you should visit one, and see for yourself what they are like. The National Association of Official Prison Visitors are always looking for volunteers, and personal experience is a good deal better than even the most respected third-party source, or official account.

If you do visit a prison, I am confident that you will find neither rampant anarchy, nor a holiday camp. If you visit as an official prison visitor, you may also be surprised to find that the prisoners you visit do not wish to return after their release - and most of them did not expect to end up in prison when they committed the crime that sent them there.

Prison - whether easy or hard - is not a deterrent to someone who believes he will not be caught. And that is the vast majority of criminals.

You're in Oz aren't you?

Yes, but I grew up in the UK.

Society’s scum – and every society has them – make our lives a misery with their anti-social, through aggressive, threatening, to psychopathic propensities, and yet you fret for their comfort as if they’re the victims of society rather than their victims have been at their hands.

You seem to think that it is impossible for perpetrators to also be victims. That is a common error, but an error nonetheless.

They don’t care about you, so why the fuck do you care about them?

Because I aspire to be better than them, rather than descending to their level.

There isn't a shortage of people who don't care; I need not add to their ranks.

I simply do not know what makes you liberals tick.

An odd turn of phrase for a non-American. The word 'liberal' means something very different both here and in the UK from the way you appear to be using it. Are you an American?

Incidentally . . .

And that is the vast majority of criminals.

Oh really? 'Do you have a citation for that empty hyperbole'??

The suggestion that most criminals expect to successfully avoid prison at the time of their crimes is hardly hyperbolic, and is widely accepted by criminologists.

Doob and Webster's 2003 paper in Crime and Justice is a good place to start; the full paper is paywalled, but the abstract is clear:

The literature on the effects of sentence severity on crime levels has been reviewed numerous times in the past twenty-five years. Most reviews conclude that there is little or no consistent evidence that harsher sanctions reduce crime rates in Western populations. Nevertheless, most reviewers have been reluctant to conclude that variation in the severity of sentence does not have differential deterrent impacts. A reasonable assessment of the research to date-with a particular focus on studies conducted in the past decade-is that sentence severity has no effect on the level of crime in society. It is time to accept the null hypothesis.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Let's stop pussyfooting around and solve this problem once and for all.

First, we need to recognize that it's YOUNG MALES who commit virtually all the serious crimes, including atrocities, war crimes, terrorism, etc. So something has to be done about young males.

solution: implant a device/transponder/gadget into every male child's body that monitors his movement and behavior and which cannot be removed, and which allows watchers to transmit corrective signals (or whatever steps are needed) when the child/boy/teenager/young man begins to engage in destructive behavior. (Maybe the device could be removed when the subject reaches age 40 or so.)

This device has to be implanted into ALL young males, without exception, not just convicted criminals. And it needs to begin early, before age 10. It should be done worldwide. The countries which protest against it the most are probably the countries that most need it.

It might require a period of research to produce a suitable device, but the technology for this probably already exists, or at least the scientific principles, which engineers could develop for this purpose.

Drastic problems require drastic measures. This is a serious solution. The research should begin ASAP, if it hasn't begun already. Once these have been implanted into most young males for several years, a vast amount of the world's human-caused problems would be fixed.

 

[DrZoidberg]

There isn't a shortage of people who don't care; I need not add to their ranks.

I simply do not know what makes you liberals tick.

An odd turn of phrase for a non-American. The word 'liberal' means something very different both here and in the UK from the way you appear to be using it. Are you an American?

When Americans say "liberal" I just replaced it with "socialist". It usually works. And snicker at the fact that our Swedish leftists main problem with American conservatives are that they are so liberal (our use of the term liberal).

 

[Cerberus]

First, we need to recognize that it's YOUNG MALES who commit virtually all the serious crimes, including atrocities, war crimes, terrorism, etc. So something has to be done about young males.

solution: implant a device/transponder/gadget into every male child's body that monitors his movement and behavior and which cannot be removed, and which allows watchers to transmit corrective signals (or whatever steps are needed) when the child/boy/teenager/young man begins to engage in destructive behavior. (Maybe the device could be removed when the subject reaches age 40 or so.)

This device has to be implanted into ALL young males, without exception, not just convicted criminals. And it needs to begin early, before age 10. It should be done worldwide. The countries which protest against it the most are probably the countries that most need it.

It might require a period of research to produce a suitable device, but the technology for this probably already exists, or at least the scientific principles, which engineers could develop for this purpose.

Drastic problems require drastic measures. This is a serious solution. The research should begin ASAP, if it hasn't begun already. Once these have been implanted into most young males for several years, a vast amount of the world's human-caused problems would be fixed.

I've got a better idea - let's just reform the penal codes so when they get outside the prison gates they'll say, with feeling, 'Never, never again!' Sorted!

 

[Cerberus]

You're in Oz aren't you?

Yes, but I grew up in the UK.

Society’s scum – and every society has them – make our lives a misery with their anti-social, through aggressive, threatening, to psychopathic propensities, and yet you fret for their comfort as if they’re the victims of society rather than their victims have been at their hands.

You seem to think that it is impossible for perpetrators to also be victims. That is a common error, but an error nonetheless.

They don’t care about you, so why the fuck do you care about them?

Because I aspire to be better than them, rather than descending to their level.
There isn't a shortage of people who don't care; I need not add to their ranks.

I simply do not know what makes you liberals tick.

An odd turn of phrase for a non-American. The word 'liberal' means something very different both here and in the UK from the way you appear to be using it. Are you an American?

Incidentally . . .

And that is the vast majority of criminals.

Oh really? 'Do you have a citation for that empty hyperbole'??

The suggestion that most criminals expect to successfully avoid prison at the time of their crimes is hardly hyperbolic, and is widely accepted by criminologists.

Doob and Webster's 2003 paper in Crime and Justice is a good place to start; the full paper is paywalled, but the abstract is clear:

The literature on the effects of sentence severity on crime levels has been reviewed numerous times in the past twenty-five years. Most reviews conclude that there is little or no consistent evidence that harsher sanctions reduce crime rates in Western populations. Nevertheless, most reviewers have been reluctant to conclude that variation in the severity of sentence does not have differential deterrent impacts. A reasonable assessment of the research to date-with a particular focus on studies conducted in the past decade-is that sentence severity has no effect on the level of crime in society. It is time to accept the null hypothesis.

Ah now that explains everything - so much self-righteous liberal** sanctimony expressed in so few words. 'Let's all feel more sorry for the convicted criminal than for his victim.'

** Or religious?