5 ms·

I don't think 8 years for murder is reasonable. Within a lifespan of 80 years, someone could kill about 10 people. That doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Loic 10y ago
The ultimate goal of prison is to reintegrate people in the society. It fails at the moment miserably also because people consider the prison as a way to prevent people to come back to the society. Your comment and the one to whom you respond show these two points of view. It is interesting that at the moment in the US you have more a "keep the criminals away from the society" point of view and in Europe "try to reintegrate them".
- Snargorf 10y ago
  No, the ultimate goal of prison is to prevent crime. Both by deterring would-be criminals, and by keeping future lawbreakers behind bars where they can't do harm.
  - BrandonM 10y ago
    You left out perhaps the most important part: "...in the most cost-effective way possible," where cost includes repeat offenses, taxpayer money, the opportunity cost of lost productivity, destroyed families (multi-generational effects), etc.
    - ricksplat 10y ago
      I think this is an important point. These costs are amongst the many things a judge should (does?) weigh up in sentencing. If she gets it wrong a sentence may be reviewed (made more harsh or lenient as appropriate) on appeal. However when sentencing is politicised, such as with mandatory sentences the judge's "judgement" is taken out of the equation. It may be appropriate to give a guy life for stealing batteries when a bigger picture is taken into account but that should be for the professionals (i.e the judiciary) to decide rather than politicians looking to buzz frightened people into voting for them.
  - riffraff 10y ago
    the point is that the "european" view is that you prevent crime by trying to help people who committed a crime rather than by punishing them. Too harsh a punishment often only succeeds in putting someone in a position where they are even more likely to break the law. E.g. you catch someone for smoking pot, and they get civil service and have to visit social support/psychologist/whatever. This might not do any good but it might do some. If you send them to jail for 5 years, they it's basically guaranteed that they will get out being in a much worse position than they were before, and more likely do commit crimes.
- geowwy 10y ago
  > The ultimate goal of prison is to reintegrate people in the society. I don't understand that. If we're worried about criminals' integration with society then we shouldn't put them in prison. Prisons exist to separate people from society.
  - Veratyr 10y ago
    In America this is true. Prisons exist to punish criminals and to protect society from them. In more civilised countries, this is not the case. Prisons' ultimate goal is to rehabilitate the prisoners to the point where they can be reintegrated into society. Instead of focusing on making life unpleasant and treating people like animals, they have more of a focus on educating them and treating them so that they do not commit crimes again.
Hockenbrizzle 10y ago
This can't be the correct way of thinking of the prison system. A person should not be sent to prison for the sole purpose of suffering for the crime which they committed. There is a reason people call a prison a correctional facility. The point is to correct the problems in their character that caused them to commit such a crime. If you isolate them from the world it's no wonder they would eventually commit a crime again. Because they have no idea how to fit into society. And then we just have another person to take care of while they don't do anything to contribute to society.
- Snargorf 10y ago
  By this logic, I can just murder anyone I like, and then demonstrate that I won't do it again. After that, no reason to keep me in prison any more right? It's not like the dead person or their family count for anything - it's all about me and the government's budget. Yeah?
  - pluma 10y ago
    Serious question: what the fuck is wrong with you? This Puritan "let's murder and torture people for their sins" approach is not working. Criminals are humans. Yes, it's not about the dead person. They're dead. It's also not about the family of the dead person. They've already been harmed. It's not about you, it's about preventing future crimes. If you've been turned into a productive member of society, great -- everyone's off better now. If you haven't, the system has failed society (not just you). Heck, there's a good chance prison isn't even the best solution for you personally. Most likely you need actual counselling or you're facing social problems. Containment is the last resort. You don't fix bugs by hiding them -- you fix them by figuring out why they happened in the first place and determining how to decrease the likelihood of them happening again. EDIT: In response to the killed throwaway: if you kill someone "in the heat of the moment" and it's not self-defence or anything else we consider acceptable, of course there's still a problem in need of fixing: self control. If you kill a man because he sleeps with your wife, no matter how betrayed you might feel, it's still a problem with how you act on those feelings. But this is only visible if you stop thinking "what is an appropriate punishment" and start thinking "why did this happen" and "what could have prevented it".
amag 10y ago
Well, in most legal systems having a prior will very likely increase the sentence.
seletz 10y ago
So jail them for life because -- you know -- they could maybe do something illegal? What reasoning is this? Why not have a only "for the rest of your life" punishments? You know, a thug being a thug, probably born like it. Won't ever change those people. Better lock them up, put them away. /s

Loic 10y ago

The ultimate goal of prison is to reintegrate people in the society. It fails at the moment miserably also because people consider the prison as a way to prevent people to come back to the society. Your comment and the one to whom you respond show these two points of view. It is interesting that at the moment in the US you have more a "keep the criminals away from the society" point of view and in Europe "try to reintegrate them".

Snargorf 10y ago
No, the ultimate goal of prison is to prevent crime. Both by deterring would-be criminals, and by keeping future lawbreakers behind bars where they can't do harm.
- BrandonM 10y ago
  You left out perhaps the most important part: "...in the most cost-effective way possible," where cost includes repeat offenses, taxpayer money, the opportunity cost of lost productivity, destroyed families (multi-generational effects), etc.
  - ricksplat 10y ago
    I think this is an important point. These costs are amongst the many things a judge should (does?) weigh up in sentencing. If she gets it wrong a sentence may be reviewed (made more harsh or lenient as appropriate) on appeal. However when sentencing is politicised, such as with mandatory sentences the judge's "judgement" is taken out of the equation. It may be appropriate to give a guy life for stealing batteries when a bigger picture is taken into account but that should be for the professionals (i.e the judiciary) to decide rather than politicians looking to buzz frightened people into voting for them.
- riffraff 10y ago
  the point is that the "european" view is that you prevent crime by trying to help people who committed a crime rather than by punishing them. Too harsh a punishment often only succeeds in putting someone in a position where they are even more likely to break the law. E.g. you catch someone for smoking pot, and they get civil service and have to visit social support/psychologist/whatever. This might not do any good but it might do some. If you send them to jail for 5 years, they it's basically guaranteed that they will get out being in a much worse position than they were before, and more likely do commit crimes.
geowwy 10y ago
> The ultimate goal of prison is to reintegrate people in the society. I don't understand that. If we're worried about criminals' integration with society then we shouldn't put them in prison. Prisons exist to separate people from society.
- Veratyr 10y ago
  In America this is true. Prisons exist to punish criminals and to protect society from them. In more civilised countries, this is not the case. Prisons' ultimate goal is to rehabilitate the prisoners to the point where they can be reintegrated into society. Instead of focusing on making life unpleasant and treating people like animals, they have more of a focus on educating them and treating them so that they do not commit crimes again.

Hockenbrizzle 10y ago

This can't be the correct way of thinking of the prison system. A person should not be sent to prison for the sole purpose of suffering for the crime which they committed. There is a reason people call a prison a correctional facility. The point is to correct the problems in their character that caused them to commit such a crime. If you isolate them from the world it's no wonder they would eventually commit a crime again. Because they have no idea how to fit into society. And then we just have another person to take care of while they don't do anything to contribute to society.

Snargorf 10y ago
By this logic, I can just murder anyone I like, and then demonstrate that I won't do it again. After that, no reason to keep me in prison any more right? It's not like the dead person or their family count for anything - it's all about me and the government's budget. Yeah?
- pluma 10y ago
  Serious question: what the fuck is wrong with you? This Puritan "let's murder and torture people for their sins" approach is not working. Criminals are humans. Yes, it's not about the dead person. They're dead. It's also not about the family of the dead person. They've already been harmed. It's not about you, it's about preventing future crimes. If you've been turned into a productive member of society, great -- everyone's off better now. If you haven't, the system has failed society (not just you). Heck, there's a good chance prison isn't even the best solution for you personally. Most likely you need actual counselling or you're facing social problems. Containment is the last resort. You don't fix bugs by hiding them -- you fix them by figuring out why they happened in the first place and determining how to decrease the likelihood of them happening again. EDIT: In response to the killed throwaway: if you kill someone "in the heat of the moment" and it's not self-defence or anything else we consider acceptable, of course there's still a problem in need of fixing: self control. If you kill a man because he sleeps with your wife, no matter how betrayed you might feel, it's still a problem with how you act on those feelings. But this is only visible if you stop thinking "what is an appropriate punishment" and start thinking "why did this happen" and "what could have prevented it".

amag 10y ago

Well, in most legal systems having a prior will very likely increase the sentence.

seletz 10y ago

So jail them for life because -- you know -- they could maybe do something illegal? What reasoning is this? Why not have a only "for the rest of your life" punishments? You know, a thug being a thug, probably born like it. Won't ever change those people. Better lock them up, put them away. /s