5 ms·

A man's life ruined. The cost to society of imprisoning a person for life. Over something that's worth what, $5? Probably less. I guess now every person in Cal

by amag 10y ago

A man's life ruined. The cost to society of imprisoning a person for life. Over something that's worth what, $5? Probably less. I guess now every person in California pays > $5 each for his imprisonment. If he were to be properly rehabilitated not only would Californians not need to pay for his time in prison but he would contribute to California by paying taxes. IMHO it seems the big difference between the US penal system and much of the European is that the US prioritizes vengeance whereas the European prioritizes rehabilitation.

apsec112 10y ago
Much less than that. $50,000/year of prison * (~80 year life expectancy - ~30 mean age of criminal) / 39.9 million Californians = $0.06 each. (I totally agree with you, I just hate order-of-magnitude errors.)
hnamazon123 10y ago
There's a cost to society >$5 in value when you allow someone so fundamentally anti-social to repeatedly victimize people. Keep in mind he was only sentenced after he was caught and the store owner pressed charges.
- nordify 10y ago
  It costs society far more to imprison him for life. If we are optimizing for cost to society then it should be possible to find at least one other local minimum between the loss to society of a $5 petty theft and life imprisonment.
  - hnamazon123 10y ago
    I disagree. I very much value being able to without having to constantly watch out for and defend myself against attacks on my person or property. Europeans don't really care about that, neither do San Franciscans either apparently. That's why crime is absurdly high in SF and they love it. Good for them.
tzs 10y ago
(Note: the following should not be interpreted as an endorsement of "three strikes" laws. I've voted against these whenever they've shown up on ballot initiatives). But what should we do when rehabilitation repeatedly fails for a particular individual?
- nordify 10y ago
  Throwing the person into prison for life is obviously the wrong solution, it is not proportional to the crimes committed and it's a net negative for society. Put the person on supervised release, put an ancle monitor on the person and put the person to community work, until they become a net benefit to society. Other solutions may apply, but at least the above is better than three strikes.
  - tzs 10y ago
    > Throwing the person into prison for life is obviously the wrong solution, it is not proportional to the crimes committed and it's a net negative for society. That brings to mind an interesting question. Why should prison time be proportional to the crimes committed? If the purpose of prison is rehabilitation, then shouldn't the time be however long it takes to rehabilitate the prisoner? There might be some correlation between that and the crimes committed, but I would expect that to be a weak correlation. There will be many people who are easy to rehabilitate whose first crime was very serious and many people hard to rehabilitate whose first crime was relatively minor.
    - nordify 10y ago
      Because society only works when there are some values or rules shared by the people. Society only obeys the rule of law as long as there is some consensus that the law is fair and just. Basic fairness demands that breaking a rule should result in a punishment. The punishment is only fair if it is proportional to the offense. Therefore prison time should be proportional to the crimes committed.
      - abstractbeliefs 10y ago

by amag 10y ago

apsec112 10y ago

Much less than that. $50,000/year of prison * (~80 year life expectancy - ~30 mean age of criminal) / 39.9 million Californians = $0.06 each. (I totally agree with you, I just hate order-of-magnitude errors.)

hnamazon123 10y ago

There's a cost to society >$5 in value when you allow someone so fundamentally anti-social to repeatedly victimize people. Keep in mind he was only sentenced after he was caught and the store owner pressed charges.

nordify 10y ago
It costs society far more to imprison him for life. If we are optimizing for cost to society then it should be possible to find at least one other local minimum between the loss to society of a $5 petty theft and life imprisonment.
- hnamazon123 10y ago
  I disagree. I very much value being able to without having to constantly watch out for and defend myself against attacks on my person or property. Europeans don't really care about that, neither do San Franciscans either apparently. That's why crime is absurdly high in SF and they love it. Good for them.

tzs 10y ago

(Note: the following should not be interpreted as an endorsement of "three strikes" laws. I've voted against these whenever they've shown up on ballot initiatives). But what should we do when rehabilitation repeatedly fails for a particular individual?

nordify 10y ago
Throwing the person into prison for life is obviously the wrong solution, it is not proportional to the crimes committed and it's a net negative for society. Put the person on supervised release, put an ancle monitor on the person and put the person to community work, until they become a net benefit to society. Other solutions may apply, but at least the above is better than three strikes.
- tzs 10y ago
  > Throwing the person into prison for life is obviously the wrong solution, it is not proportional to the crimes committed and it's a net negative for society. That brings to mind an interesting question. Why should prison time be proportional to the crimes committed? If the purpose of prison is rehabilitation, then shouldn't the time be however long it takes to rehabilitate the prisoner? There might be some correlation between that and the crimes committed, but I would expect that to be a weak correlation. There will be many people who are easy to rehabilitate whose first crime was very serious and many people hard to rehabilitate whose first crime was relatively minor.
  - nordify 10y ago
    Because society only works when there are some values or rules shared by the people. Society only obeys the rule of law as long as there is some consensus that the law is fair and just. Basic fairness demands that breaking a rule should result in a punishment. The punishment is only fair if it is proportional to the offense. Therefore prison time should be proportional to the crimes committed.
    - abstractbeliefs 10y ago