3 ms·

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-violen

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
- ugh 17y ago
  Have you seen incarceration rates for the US lately? The amount of people locked up is insane (760 per 100k, in Europe it’s between 70 and 200 per 100k). And crime rates aren’t any lower than those in Europe. Could you give some more details on the Japanese judical system? Their incarceration rate is crazy low (63 per 100k – that’s lower than even the lowest European country), so they pretty much can’t have the same system as the US. They must be doing something different.
  - w00pla 17y ago
    > Have you seen incarceration rates for the US lately? The amount of people locked up is insane (760 per 100k, in Europe it’s between 70 and 200 per 100k). Yes. This means that the system isn’t an effective deterrent. What changed in the US justice system the past 60 years? > And crime rates aren’t any lower than those in Europe. It is difficult to compare crime rates with different countries. Each country has a different population and economic issues. The USA has much more illegal immigrants, minorities and drug users. > Could you give some more details on the Japanese judical system? Japan has a very high conviction rate and they retain the death penalty. Singapore is better example – they have an efficient justice system with stiff penalties (they retain both corporal punishment and capital punishment) which results in extremely low levels of crime.
    - ugh 17y ago
      Don’t know about Singapore. It’s just a city state and a unique one at that. I’m not sure whether I would want to compare Singapore to anything.
- spamizbad 17y ago
  I don't think you're familiar with crime and punishment in the United States. First off, prison labor hasn't been phased-out in the United States, quite the contrary; it's at an all-time high. For example, Microsoft's boxed software is assembled by prison labor in the United States. The primary reason why State governments were reluctant to permit prison labor wasn't fear from the left: it was fear from unskilled labor voters who didn't want their jobs taken from them by prisoners. It wasn't until our workforce became better educated that prison labor began to be accepted, as it was no longer seen as something that was taking jobs away from law-abiding citizens. This is also why labor is used in many privately operated prisons: they don't have to answer to voters. Secondly, three-strikes laws have proven to be completely effete at combating non-violent crime. Drug possession charges, which have seen the widest adoption of three-strike laws, have tripled since 1982. Meanwhile, violent crime has dropped steadily and is currently at the lowest rate we've seen since the 1960s (this despite the fact that the death penalty is applied less and less). Regardless, three-strike laws are unsustainable long-term, as State governments will be forced to pour far too much cash into prisons, putting them in a position to either raise taxes, or cut services - two very dangerous political propositions.
mynameishere 17y ago
Crime has been down, down, down since the 1970s. It's because of hard-ass policies. Joe Sixpack understands what it means to be mugged.

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

ugh 17y ago
Have you seen incarceration rates for the US lately? The amount of people locked up is insane (760 per 100k, in Europe it’s between 70 and 200 per 100k). And crime rates aren’t any lower than those in Europe. Could you give some more details on the Japanese judical system? Their incarceration rate is crazy low (63 per 100k – that’s lower than even the lowest European country), so they pretty much can’t have the same system as the US. They must be doing something different.
- w00pla 17y ago
  > Have you seen incarceration rates for the US lately? The amount of people locked up is insane (760 per 100k, in Europe it’s between 70 and 200 per 100k). Yes. This means that the system isn’t an effective deterrent. What changed in the US justice system the past 60 years? > And crime rates aren’t any lower than those in Europe. It is difficult to compare crime rates with different countries. Each country has a different population and economic issues. The USA has much more illegal immigrants, minorities and drug users. > Could you give some more details on the Japanese judical system? Japan has a very high conviction rate and they retain the death penalty. Singapore is better example – they have an efficient justice system with stiff penalties (they retain both corporal punishment and capital punishment) which results in extremely low levels of crime.
  - ugh 17y ago
    Don’t know about Singapore. It’s just a city state and a unique one at that. I’m not sure whether I would want to compare Singapore to anything.
spamizbad 17y ago
I don't think you're familiar with crime and punishment in the United States. First off, prison labor hasn't been phased-out in the United States, quite the contrary; it's at an all-time high. For example, Microsoft's boxed software is assembled by prison labor in the United States. The primary reason why State governments were reluctant to permit prison labor wasn't fear from the left: it was fear from unskilled labor voters who didn't want their jobs taken from them by prisoners. It wasn't until our workforce became better educated that prison labor began to be accepted, as it was no longer seen as something that was taking jobs away from law-abiding citizens. This is also why labor is used in many privately operated prisons: they don't have to answer to voters. Secondly, three-strikes laws have proven to be completely effete at combating non-violent crime. Drug possession charges, which have seen the widest adoption of three-strike laws, have tripled since 1982. Meanwhile, violent crime has dropped steadily and is currently at the lowest rate we've seen since the 1960s (this despite the fact that the death penalty is applied less and less). Regardless, three-strike laws are unsustainable long-term, as State governments will be forced to pour far too much cash into prisons, putting them in a position to either raise taxes, or cut services - two very dangerous political propositions.

mynameishere 17y ago

Crime has been down, down, down since the 1970s. It's because of hard-ass policies. Joe Sixpack understands what it means to be mugged.