7 ms·

The American system of justice is not to rehabilitate, but to humiliate, punish, and torture. Worse, we outsource this to the private prison system which has an

The American system of justice is not to rehabilitate, but to humiliate, punish, and torture. Worse, we outsource this to the private prison system which has an incentive to keep people in prison. You go to prison in America you will be brutally tortured, humiliated, and will emerge far worse than when you went in. That is the fault of every American citizen - not the politicians - but the people. Because it is the citizenry who punishes the politician that appears even remotely soft on prisoners, or supports prison reform. America is a vengeful society, overflowing with righteous indignation.

tormeh 9y ago
> overflowing with righteous indignation As a non-American, I have to say this is the most puzzling thing about the US: The abundance of anger and indignation in public debate. I guess it's a natural consequence of a winner-takes-all voting system in combination with a vast and heterogeneous population.
- sotojuan 9y ago
  It's a combination of that and our Puritan background. There aren't many societies more bent on shaming and excluding than 17th century Puritans.
- mikekchar 9y ago
  On the contrary. <rapidly fashions tinfoil hat> The US is a representative democracy with only 2 credible political parties. In such a system, if you are one of the incumbents, it pays to polarise every issue: that way no third part can emerge. At the very worst, you are out of power for 8-12 years, but you always come back into power. If you manage to get you hooks into the media, then you can encourage them to polarise every issue too. They'll love it, because confirmation bias is a powerful force. It leads to rabid followers of the various institutions -- who deride the followers of the other institutions. Hmmm... tin foil hats are comfy. I think I'll wear this one for a while...
  - tormeh 9y ago
    A winner-takes-all voting system results in only two parties (Regional third parties can exist, but not national ones). No conspiracy required, only maths.
    - Osiris 9y ago
      I studied comparative politics in college and this is absolutely true. Different voting system have different outcomes due to the nature of the rules. Unsurprisingly, every attempt to make a more fair voting/systems ends up with its own pros and cons, such as giving minority parties disproportionate influence due to need for coalitions.
      - tjl 9y ago
        In Canada, we have a first past-the-post voting system (if you get the majority of the votes in the riding, you get the seat) and we have at least 3 parties federally (Conservatives, Liberals, and NDP). Technically, we have 4 (including the Bloc Québecois but they're only in one province). So, it's entirely possible to have a winner take all voting system and have more than two parties. Things have fluctuated over the years and we've had 5 parties when the Progressive Conservatives had a split and the Reform Party was created, but they eventually merged once they realized that they couldn't win if they split the votes. There's been at least one attempt to try and change the voting system, but the side involved in presenting the pros of the new system really did a terrible job.
        tormeh 9y ago
        Well, it sort of depends on the size of the "voting blocs" in which there are winner-takes-all. If the voting bloc was a single person then you have proportional representation, more or less. In the US, the voting blocs are the states, and they are usually very big, so the US is very far from PR. How big are these voting blocs in Canada? Anyway, it's interesting to me that even PR systems usually end up having two major parties (with a host of smaller parties around them). I guess that's because many voters cannot bother to educate themselves about the smaller parties or because there's usually one big question of the day that can be answered in a yes/no fashion...
- fjdlwlv 9y ago
  America was hateful and racist back when voters were all rich Anglos too.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
rayiner 9y ago
I agree with that in general, but it's a bit oversimplified. America is also a dangerous and violent society--our per capita murder rate has averaged 5-10x higher than the U.K. for over a century (long before private prisons and modern mass media). I agree that it's a moral failing if the people that we don't deal with that problem in a more graceful and humane way.
- gragas 9y ago
  .
  - rayiner 9y ago
    I don't follow how Simpson's paradox is relevant here.
  - vitaminbandit 9y ago
    Explain how Simpson's Paradox works here. Explain how it can be mathematically possible for each state/city/etc to have a lower murder per capita than the national murder per capita. Use concrete numbers as examples. Spoiler: it isn't mathematically possible.
    - gragas 9y ago
      .
      - vitaminbandit 9y ago
        > That's a logical fallacy (Simpson's Paradox). It could be the case that when you condition on each neighborhood, the per capita murder rate is lower than Britain's, but the overall per capita murder rate is higher. One, phrase your statement properly. You intended to compare neighborhood to corresponding neighborhood between the two countries. Not "Britain's". Two, as others have mentioned. You have no basis for invoking Simpson's Paradox. > Explain how Simpson's Paradox works here. Explain how it can be mathematically possible for each state/city/etc to have a lower murder per capita than the national murder per capita. Use concrete numbers as examples. Three, how does your example satisfy my comment? Four, I know Simpson's Paradox. I also know the difference between knowing something and knowing the name of something.
ygaf 9y ago
>Because it is the citizenry who punishes the politician that appears even remotely soft on prisoners, or supports prison reform. So, because the man on the street rejects shorter sentences or decriminilization, he is to blame for "brutal torture and humiliation" and privatization? Nah.
- nine_k 9y ago
  This is how democracy works. Either your vote matters and you are responsible, or neither. Voting is not just a privilege, it's also a responsibility.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
arionhardison 9y ago
This does not tell the whole story. There is also a huge racial element to how and why we lock people up (and for how long). The documentary 13 explored this in depth and showed how whites used "prison/jail" to makeup for the lost free labor of slaves. Or how Regan used "the war on drugs to simply lock up blacks. To have a discussion about the American prison system and never mention race shows just how bias the HN crowd is; even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
- mhluongo 9y ago
  Agreed much of our drug policy and criminal system systematically keeps down black people. Not sure that one comment skipping a discussion of race implies all of HN is biased, though
  - arionhardison 9y ago
    I disagree; and your watered down comment is an example of what I was talking about. It does not just "systematically" keep people down. That is just your elitist way of saying "meh, the system is not optimized for your success but get over it". In reality; the system was actually designed to incarcerate a certain group of people, not because of American's "Puritan” roots but because America is racist as hell and always has been but it does not benefit the HN crowd (mainly White/Asian/Indian etc…) to admit or examine this issue since it does not reinforce the image of how they want to see themselves. That is how an entire discussion on this issue can take place without even a mention of the driving force behind America’s incarceration strategy.
    - ygaf 9y ago
      People aren't talking about race because the article is mainly about life inside prison, not how easily or for how long you end up in there.
    - mhluongo 9y ago
      No, my "systematically" meant "by design, throughout the system". Also, I definitely didn't say "meh", act particularly elitist, say anything about the system vs "your success", or try to make excuses for America based on "Puritan roots". I think the system is racist as hell. I'd love to have a real discussion about this, but you're putting words in my mouth, versus responding to my actual comment and trying to have a conversation
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
knucklesandwich 9y ago
The idea of "tough on crime" was born from the political elites though. Read the Rick Perlstein trilogy, particularly the first two books "Before the Storm" and "Nixonland", which go into this depth. It was used to exploit racial resentment in the civil rights era as part of the "Southern Strategy" as Democrats began accepting civil rights into their political program (and eventually to blame the Civil Rights Act for crime). Racism is obviously a persistent problem here, as well as classism (which is often an unexamined cultural phenomenon in the US) and a culture of vengeance. Vengeance is a DISTINCTLY American idea that has been with us since our calvinist roots and is part of our cultural image in everything from our forever war of foreign intervention to our films (particularly Tarantino films exhibit this). It's a sick, contemptible cultural tenet. We can begin to reverse this by electing DAs like Philly just has: Larry Krasner, a civil rights attorney who has made lowering sentences where he has prosecutorial discretion and refusing to try insufficient cases a part of his platform ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsEFPHMrAKc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsEFPHMrAKc ). It will also take citizen pressure to ensure these people follow through on their program as they join a thoroughly racist, punitive institution. Also, people must be willing to elect representatives that will cut criminal penalties across the board. Simply cutting them for nonviolent crimes will not solve the problem: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/03/04/how-to-cut-the-prison-population-by-50-percent#.qxdsLekv6 https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/03/04/how-to-cut-the...
- AndOrNot 9y ago
  You mean Krasner, who has long history of supporting organizations like BLM who are responsible for cop killings. Latest election of DA in Philadelphia was race to bottom, who would let repeat criminals out on the street without any consequences. And he won because he is the worst of worst. George Soros funded his campaign and gave him more than 2.4 million dollars. George Soros is wanted in multiple countries for his crimes. In Russia, Hungary and multiple other countries. In recent shooting in Philadelphia, the perp has 200 offenses against him and he is running free. And yes he is black. Blacks are a 13% population in US. Black males are 6.5% of population in US but they commit more than 50% of violent crime. Look up statistics on FBI. So if more blacks are in prison, is that racial bias? Or just some race committing out of proportion crimes? Based on your comment it will be difficult for you the agree with the facts and numbers. But I decided to write this for those who would like to know the facts.
ygaf 9y ago
>You go to prison in America you will be brutally tortured Having read the article for context, I think you could gain some perspective from it: >In Syrian prisons, dissidents are beaten, given electric shocks, crushed in a folding board called the “flying carpet” and hanged in their thousands after two-minute “trials”. More commonly, prisons are vile because they are overcrowded and ill-managed, so the nastier inmates (and guards) can do what they please. At some Brazilian lockups, for example, heavily outnumbered guards patrol the perimeter and allow gang bosses to impose order within.
- rectang 9y ago
  And in American society, we celebrate and encourage prison rape, routinely assign prisoners to solitary confinement for years on end, and so on. Is "better than the prison system in a war-torn dictatorship" your moral standard?
  - ygaf 9y ago
    Touche, I was uncharitable towards the OP.

tormeh 9y ago

> overflowing with righteous indignation As a non-American, I have to say this is the most puzzling thing about the US: The abundance of anger and indignation in public debate. I guess it's a natural consequence of a winner-takes-all voting system in combination with a vast and heterogeneous population.

sotojuan 9y ago
It's a combination of that and our Puritan background. There aren't many societies more bent on shaming and excluding than 17th century Puritans.
mikekchar 9y ago
On the contrary. <rapidly fashions tinfoil hat> The US is a representative democracy with only 2 credible political parties. In such a system, if you are one of the incumbents, it pays to polarise every issue: that way no third part can emerge. At the very worst, you are out of power for 8-12 years, but you always come back into power. If you manage to get you hooks into the media, then you can encourage them to polarise every issue too. They'll love it, because confirmation bias is a powerful force. It leads to rabid followers of the various institutions -- who deride the followers of the other institutions. Hmmm... tin foil hats are comfy. I think I'll wear this one for a while...
- tormeh 9y ago
  A winner-takes-all voting system results in only two parties (Regional third parties can exist, but not national ones). No conspiracy required, only maths.
  - Osiris 9y ago
    I studied comparative politics in college and this is absolutely true. Different voting system have different outcomes due to the nature of the rules. Unsurprisingly, every attempt to make a more fair voting/systems ends up with its own pros and cons, such as giving minority parties disproportionate influence due to need for coalitions.
    - tjl 9y ago
      In Canada, we have a first past-the-post voting system (if you get the majority of the votes in the riding, you get the seat) and we have at least 3 parties federally (Conservatives, Liberals, and NDP). Technically, we have 4 (including the Bloc Québecois but they're only in one province). So, it's entirely possible to have a winner take all voting system and have more than two parties. Things have fluctuated over the years and we've had 5 parties when the Progressive Conservatives had a split and the Reform Party was created, but they eventually merged once they realized that they couldn't win if they split the votes. There's been at least one attempt to try and change the voting system, but the side involved in presenting the pros of the new system really did a terrible job.
      - tormeh 9y ago
        Well, it sort of depends on the size of the "voting blocs" in which there are winner-takes-all. If the voting bloc was a single person then you have proportional representation, more or less. In the US, the voting blocs are the states, and they are usually very big, so the US is very far from PR. How big are these voting blocs in Canada? Anyway, it's interesting to me that even PR systems usually end up having two major parties (with a host of smaller parties around them). I guess that's because many voters cannot bother to educate themselves about the smaller parties or because there's usually one big question of the day that can be answered in a yes/no fashion...
fjdlwlv 9y ago
America was hateful and racist back when voters were all rich Anglos too.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

rayiner 9y ago

I agree with that in general, but it's a bit oversimplified. America is also a dangerous and violent society--our per capita murder rate has averaged 5-10x higher than the U.K. for over a century (long before private prisons and modern mass media). I agree that it's a moral failing if the people that we don't deal with that problem in a more graceful and humane way.

gragas 9y ago
.
- rayiner 9y ago
  I don't follow how Simpson's paradox is relevant here.
- vitaminbandit 9y ago
  Explain how Simpson's Paradox works here. Explain how it can be mathematically possible for each state/city/etc to have a lower murder per capita than the national murder per capita. Use concrete numbers as examples. Spoiler: it isn't mathematically possible.
  - gragas 9y ago
    .
    - vitaminbandit 9y ago
      > That's a logical fallacy (Simpson's Paradox). It could be the case that when you condition on each neighborhood, the per capita murder rate is lower than Britain's, but the overall per capita murder rate is higher. One, phrase your statement properly. You intended to compare neighborhood to corresponding neighborhood between the two countries. Not "Britain's". Two, as others have mentioned. You have no basis for invoking Simpson's Paradox. > Explain how Simpson's Paradox works here. Explain how it can be mathematically possible for each state/city/etc to have a lower murder per capita than the national murder per capita. Use concrete numbers as examples. Three, how does your example satisfy my comment? Four, I know Simpson's Paradox. I also know the difference between knowing something and knowing the name of something.

ygaf 9y ago

>Because it is the citizenry who punishes the politician that appears even remotely soft on prisoners, or supports prison reform. So, because the man on the street rejects shorter sentences or decriminilization, he is to blame for "brutal torture and humiliation" and privatization? Nah.

nine_k 9y ago
This is how democracy works. Either your vote matters and you are responsible, or neither. Voting is not just a privilege, it's also a responsibility.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

arionhardison 9y ago

This does not tell the whole story. There is also a huge racial element to how and why we lock people up (and for how long). The documentary 13 explored this in depth and showed how whites used "prison/jail" to makeup for the lost free labor of slaves. Or how Regan used "the war on drugs to simply lock up blacks. To have a discussion about the American prison system and never mention race shows just how bias the HN crowd is; even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

mhluongo 9y ago
Agreed much of our drug policy and criminal system systematically keeps down black people. Not sure that one comment skipping a discussion of race implies all of HN is biased, though
- arionhardison 9y ago
  I disagree; and your watered down comment is an example of what I was talking about. It does not just "systematically" keep people down. That is just your elitist way of saying "meh, the system is not optimized for your success but get over it". In reality; the system was actually designed to incarcerate a certain group of people, not because of American's "Puritan” roots but because America is racist as hell and always has been but it does not benefit the HN crowd (mainly White/Asian/Indian etc…) to admit or examine this issue since it does not reinforce the image of how they want to see themselves. That is how an entire discussion on this issue can take place without even a mention of the driving force behind America’s incarceration strategy.
  - ygaf 9y ago
    People aren't talking about race because the article is mainly about life inside prison, not how easily or for how long you end up in there.
  - mhluongo 9y ago
    No, my "systematically" meant "by design, throughout the system". Also, I definitely didn't say "meh", act particularly elitist, say anything about the system vs "your success", or try to make excuses for America based on "Puritan roots". I think the system is racist as hell. I'd love to have a real discussion about this, but you're putting words in my mouth, versus responding to my actual comment and trying to have a conversation

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

knucklesandwich 9y ago

The idea of "tough on crime" was born from the political elites though. Read the Rick Perlstein trilogy, particularly the first two books "Before the Storm" and "Nixonland", which go into this depth. It was used to exploit racial resentment in the civil rights era as part of the "Southern Strategy" as Democrats began accepting civil rights into their political program (and eventually to blame the Civil Rights Act for crime). Racism is obviously a persistent problem here, as well as classism (which is often an unexamined cultural phenomenon in the US) and a culture of vengeance. Vengeance is a DISTINCTLY American idea that has been with us since our calvinist roots and is part of our cultural image in everything from our forever war of foreign intervention to our films (particularly Tarantino films exhibit this). It's a sick, contemptible cultural tenet. We can begin to reverse this by electing DAs like Philly just has: Larry Krasner, a civil rights attorney who has made lowering sentences where he has prosecutorial discretion and refusing to try insufficient cases a part of his platform ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsEFPHMrAKc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsEFPHMrAKc ). It will also take citizen pressure to ensure these people follow through on their program as they join a thoroughly racist, punitive institution. Also, people must be willing to elect representatives that will cut criminal penalties across the board. Simply cutting them for nonviolent crimes will not solve the problem: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/03/04/how-to-cut-the-prison-population-by-50-percent#.qxdsLekv6 https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/03/04/how-to-cut-the...

AndOrNot 9y ago
You mean Krasner, who has long history of supporting organizations like BLM who are responsible for cop killings. Latest election of DA in Philadelphia was race to bottom, who would let repeat criminals out on the street without any consequences. And he won because he is the worst of worst. George Soros funded his campaign and gave him more than 2.4 million dollars. George Soros is wanted in multiple countries for his crimes. In Russia, Hungary and multiple other countries. In recent shooting in Philadelphia, the perp has 200 offenses against him and he is running free. And yes he is black. Blacks are a 13% population in US. Black males are 6.5% of population in US but they commit more than 50% of violent crime. Look up statistics on FBI. So if more blacks are in prison, is that racial bias? Or just some race committing out of proportion crimes? Based on your comment it will be difficult for you the agree with the facts and numbers. But I decided to write this for those who would like to know the facts.

ygaf 9y ago

>You go to prison in America you will be brutally tortured Having read the article for context, I think you could gain some perspective from it: >In Syrian prisons, dissidents are beaten, given electric shocks, crushed in a folding board called the “flying carpet” and hanged in their thousands after two-minute “trials”. More commonly, prisons are vile because they are overcrowded and ill-managed, so the nastier inmates (and guards) can do what they please. At some Brazilian lockups, for example, heavily outnumbered guards patrol the perimeter and allow gang bosses to impose order within.

rectang 9y ago
And in American society, we celebrate and encourage prison rape, routinely assign prisoners to solitary confinement for years on end, and so on. Is "better than the prison system in a war-torn dictatorship" your moral standard?
- ygaf 9y ago
  Touche, I was uncharitable towards the OP.