6 ms·

Prisoners of Parole

45 points by frankus 17y ago

mynameishere 17y ago
Had to quit reading that. It's always sad to watch the exulted elite coming to a common-sense solution only after long and laughable failure. Well, I decided to NOT let the dog shit on the rug 15 times before doing anything about it, and that seemed to work better...
- akkartik 17y ago
  Yes, that seemed unbelievable to me as well. As the system gets more complex it gets harder to see the big picture (even if it seems obvious with hindsight). That's just like software. The article had another point, though: it's not enough to have positive and negative reinforcement, they should be perceived to be fair. And the system needs to adapt as perceptions shift. For example, the traditional restrictions on women in islam were largely self-perpetuating throughout history because they were seen to be fair by whole societies, including the affected women. The perception is more important than fairness itself. From our perspective in the west it seems like a kind of Stockholm Syndrome.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 17y ago
  The problem with this is when someone's kid is killed by a repeat offender and the parent lobbies for increased jail time. So politicians increase jail time. But almost everyone is a criminal so you can't actually put that many people in jail for common crimes. So the justice system let's people slip by with a rather than send people to jail... And then the cycle repeats.
  - ugh 17y ago
    There is a simple solution: Don’t let politicians increase jail time. Here is how that works in many European countries: 1) Politicians call in experts (i.e. judges, police, academics, etc.) 2) They draw up a proposal 3) The proposal gets adopted 4) If anybody questions jail times politicians just say that the experts did it and that politicians are certainly not competent enough for determining efficient jail times (I’m paraphrasing here) Not so democratic? Sure! Does it work? Just look at the incarceration rates!
  - nandemo 17y ago
    Wow, "almost everyone" is a criminal? Let me know where you live so that I avoid ending up there.
    - ubernostrum 17y ago
      Any modern/developed nation anywhere on Earth, and many other places besides. The number of minor, almost-never-enforced-but-still-on-the-books offenses you end up committing over the course of a given (insert time period) in your home country would likely startle you no matter how much better than America you think your country is.
      - nandemo 17y ago
        Oh, I see what you mean now. I never intended to say my country is better than your country; in fact I meant to say that wherever you live you were probably exaggerating.
- spamizbad 17y ago
  The elite in this case, which have been humanist intellectuals, have long advocated for prison reform, and tend to favor phasing out prison terms for non-violent offenders, so saying that they've finally come to their senses isn't accurate: they've been banging this drum since the enlightenment. We are discussing this now because States can no longer afford their prison-industrial-complexes as they are overflowing with non-violent offenders (most people in prison atm are NVOs). It's the intellectually lazy, "Common-sense", Joe-Sixpack politics of 3-strikes laws that got us into this mess. "Lock criminals up and throw away the key, I say!" is what we've been hearing from our politicians, and the electorate has been more than willing to reward those "tough on crime" with votes and money.
  - w00pla 17y ago
    > and tend to favor phasing out prison terms for non-violent offenders, So, white collar criminals shouldn't serve prison sentences? How should we punish non-violent white-collar criminals? Take away their holiday homes? > It's the intellectually lazy, "Common-sense", Joe-Sixpack politics of 3-strikes laws that got us into this mess. "Lock criminals up and throw away the key, I say!" Most countries have laws that separate habitual criminals from society. Most people view prison as having four purposes: 1. Rehabilitation (i.e. change the behaviour of a convicted individual through positive (reward) and negative (punishment) reinforcement). 2. Punishment 3. Protect the public by separating harmful individuals. 4. Serve as a deterrent to potential criminals. The “three strikes” and similar laws in other countries are clearly to protect the public by separating habitual criminals from society. This is completely reasonable. The deterrent effect has two components – the severity of the punishment and the effectivety of the prosecution. If a criminal believes he can escape prosecution, the deterrent effect will not work. Unfortunately the left did the most damage to the judicial system. Firstly, prison sentences aren’t a deterrent any more. In the old days you received a prison sentence with “hard labour” - this was removed because the left opposed it – in most countries prisoners sits around all day doing nothing (this also increases the cost of incarceration). The same goes to work – it was usual practice to set prisoners to work in their community on government property/parks. This not only reduced the cost of their incarceration but served as a powerful deterrent to people who see them and shows them the disappointment that society views their actions. In my country the left started “improving” the criminal and justice system (with almost all the suggestions leftist suggestions). Unfortunately violent crime tripled in 15 years and all other crimes increased. It is unfortunate that the same justice system that “Joe sixpack” likes works so effective in countries such as Singapore or Japan. /rant
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
ars 17y ago
Read the first 5 paragraphs, after that it's not much more than anecdotes of various ideas, that you've probably heard before, and probably only work in certain circumstances. The idea at the beginning is a very good though. I hope it would be implemented everywhere.
rwmj 17y ago
Or you could regulate drugs. It's utterly stupid to put people in prison for this, and gift billions of dollars in potential taxes to gangsters.
- tptacek 17y ago
  That could (should) happen with marijuana, but what's the point in arguing about methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine? There's no forseeable future in which they're decriminalized.
  - earl 17y ago
    Mexico did it.
- frankus 17y ago
  This is a much more complicated issue. Some currently illegal recreational drugs could be legalized for an net reduction in overall harm (e.g. Marijuana). But it's not clear that a significantly more permissive attitude toward, for instance, crack is a net winner. The second half of your argument doesn't stand up to close scrutiny: http://www.samefacts.com/2009/05/drug-policy/cheech-and-chong-mathematics/ http://www.samefacts.com/2009/05/drug-policy/cheech-and-chon... The summary of the above is that you won't generate significant taxes unless you can create a significant number of new problem users of the drug in question. But leaving both of those arguments aside, what do you do with people who don't behave themselves under the influence of their (legal or illegal) drug of choice? Judge Alm's program is meant to deal with this exact type of offender, and does quite a good job at it at minimal cost.

45 points by frankus 17y ago

Had to quit reading that. It's always sad to watch the exulted elite coming to a common-sense solution only after long and laughable failure. Well, I decided to NOT let the dog shit on the rug 15 times before doing anything about it, and that seemed to work better...

akkartik 17y ago
Yes, that seemed unbelievable to me as well. As the system gets more complex it gets harder to see the big picture (even if it seems obvious with hindsight). That's just like software. The article had another point, though: it's not enough to have positive and negative reinforcement, they should be perceived to be fair. And the system needs to adapt as perceptions shift. For example, the traditional restrictions on women in islam were largely self-perpetuating throughout history because they were seen to be fair by whole societies, including the affected women. The perception is more important than fairness itself. From our perspective in the west it seems like a kind of Stockholm Syndrome.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
Retric 17y ago
The problem with this is when someone's kid is killed by a repeat offender and the parent lobbies for increased jail time. So politicians increase jail time. But almost everyone is a criminal so you can't actually put that many people in jail for common crimes. So the justice system let's people slip by with a rather than send people to jail... And then the cycle repeats.
- ugh 17y ago
  There is a simple solution: Don’t let politicians increase jail time. Here is how that works in many European countries: 1) Politicians call in experts (i.e. judges, police, academics, etc.) 2) They draw up a proposal 3) The proposal gets adopted 4) If anybody questions jail times politicians just say that the experts did it and that politicians are certainly not competent enough for determining efficient jail times (I’m paraphrasing here) Not so democratic? Sure! Does it work? Just look at the incarceration rates!
- nandemo 17y ago
  Wow, "almost everyone" is a criminal? Let me know where you live so that I avoid ending up there.
  - ubernostrum 17y ago
    Any modern/developed nation anywhere on Earth, and many other places besides. The number of minor, almost-never-enforced-but-still-on-the-books offenses you end up committing over the course of a given (insert time period) in your home country would likely startle you no matter how much better than America you think your country is.
    - nandemo 17y ago
      Oh, I see what you mean now. I never intended to say my country is better than your country; in fact I meant to say that wherever you live you were probably exaggerating.
spamizbad 17y ago
The elite in this case, which have been humanist intellectuals, have long advocated for prison reform, and tend to favor phasing out prison terms for non-violent offenders, so saying that they've finally come to their senses isn't accurate: they've been banging this drum since the enlightenment. We are discussing this now because States can no longer afford their prison-industrial-complexes as they are overflowing with non-violent offenders (most people in prison atm are NVOs). It's the intellectually lazy, "Common-sense", Joe-Sixpack politics of 3-strikes laws that got us into this mess. "Lock criminals up and throw away the key, I say!" is what we've been hearing from our politicians, and the electorate has been more than willing to reward those "tough on crime" with votes and money.
- w00pla 17y ago
  > and tend to favor phasing out prison terms for non-violent offenders, So, white collar criminals shouldn't serve prison sentences? How should we punish non-violent white-collar criminals? Take away their holiday homes? > It's the intellectually lazy, "Common-sense", Joe-Sixpack politics of 3-strikes laws that got us into this mess. "Lock criminals up and throw away the key, I say!" Most countries have laws that separate habitual criminals from society. Most people view prison as having four purposes: 1. Rehabilitation (i.e. change the behaviour of a convicted individual through positive (reward) and negative (punishment) reinforcement). 2. Punishment 3. Protect the public by separating harmful individuals. 4. Serve as a deterrent to potential criminals. The “three strikes” and similar laws in other countries are clearly to protect the public by separating habitual criminals from society. This is completely reasonable. The deterrent effect has two components – the severity of the punishment and the effectivety of the prosecution. If a criminal believes he can escape prosecution, the deterrent effect will not work. Unfortunately the left did the most damage to the judicial system. Firstly, prison sentences aren’t a deterrent any more. In the old days you received a prison sentence with “hard labour” - this was removed because the left opposed it – in most countries prisoners sits around all day doing nothing (this also increases the cost of incarceration). The same goes to work – it was usual practice to set prisoners to work in their community on government property/parks. This not only reduced the cost of their incarceration but served as a powerful deterrent to people who see them and shows them the disappointment that society views their actions. In my country the left started “improving” the criminal and justice system (with almost all the suggestions leftist suggestions). Unfortunately violent crime tripled in 15 years and all other crimes increased. It is unfortunate that the same justice system that “Joe sixpack” likes works so effective in countries such as Singapore or Japan. /rant

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

ars 17y ago

Read the first 5 paragraphs, after that it's not much more than anecdotes of various ideas, that you've probably heard before, and probably only work in certain circumstances. The idea at the beginning is a very good though. I hope it would be implemented everywhere.

rwmj 17y ago

Or you could regulate drugs. It's utterly stupid to put people in prison for this, and gift billions of dollars in potential taxes to gangsters.

tptacek 17y ago
That could (should) happen with marijuana, but what's the point in arguing about methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine? There's no forseeable future in which they're decriminalized.
- earl 17y ago
  Mexico did it.
frankus 17y ago
This is a much more complicated issue. Some currently illegal recreational drugs could be legalized for an net reduction in overall harm (e.g. Marijuana). But it's not clear that a significantly more permissive attitude toward, for instance, crack is a net winner. The second half of your argument doesn't stand up to close scrutiny: http://www.samefacts.com/2009/05/drug-policy/cheech-and-chong-mathematics/ http://www.samefacts.com/2009/05/drug-policy/cheech-and-chon... The summary of the above is that you won't generate significant taxes unless you can create a significant number of new problem users of the drug in question. But leaving both of those arguments aside, what do you do with people who don't behave themselves under the influence of their (legal or illegal) drug of choice? Judge Alm's program is meant to deal with this exact type of offender, and does quite a good job at it at minimal cost.