6 ms·

Agreed. (Related wall of text follows) I've always thought a major issue with the criminal justice system is serving competing masters: You want to punish pe

Agreed. (Related wall of text follows) I've always thought a major issue with the criminal justice system is serving competing masters: You want to punish people so OTHERS decide it would be a bad idea and don't try it You want to punish people so THEY decide it was a bad idea, not worth doing again. You want to redeem criminals, put them on a better path You want to ensure the criminals do not post a further threat to society But these goals contradict each other to a degree: Punishing to send a message is something I suspect this only work for fringe crimes - most criminals aren't know for their expert cost/benefit analysis - and regardless, "send a message" punishment hurts efforts to redeem ("we're punishing you as a threat to others" isn't something that makes people think you're fair and worth listening too) Punishing someone to ensure they think it's a bad idea probably works in terms of teaching cost/benefit, but there's the risk that you're teaching the opposite - Life in prison has got to suck, but if you get through it and discover there is no place in the outside world for you, you're socially ostracized, hard to employ, probably in a crappy financial situation...well, crime CAN pay, and you know you can survive the consequences if you do get caught (heck, at this point, crappy as it is, you're probably used to it - not enough to like it, but it would have some degree of comfort compared to the unfamilar-and-crappy situation you are in now. I could continue to armchair psychoanalyze the effects of living in a smaller community, but I think I've made enough unjustified statements. Redemption directly pushes against the Punishment rules. Not because redeemed criminals can't accept the concept of "paying a debt to society" (I've always hated that phrase), but because (reportedly) rare is the prisoner that ARRIVES at prison redeemed, and starting with punishment and separating them from the situations that were the problems before generally does not help with dealing with those situations. (And this is assuming this is a "dumb" criminal that committed a stupid crime for stupid reasons. My mother told me as a young child to not commit a crime I couldn't retire on. I recommend this to parents of young children...it has an inherent logic that is harder for a child to dispute than "Just Don't". I credit it with keeping me out of trouble until I was old enough to appreciate the value of laws, respect, and morality. Anyway, there are doubtless OTHER criminals who truly had no better option - redeeming them by telling them how that is their fault and we'll punish them doesn't sound like it would succeed. Sheltering society from the increased threat that a proven criminal represents largely doesn't care about Punishment or Redemption...but it doesn't help them at all. Redemption is easier of the criminals aren't removed from life. Punishment sounds like it is helped by this, but that goes back to the "what lesson are they learning", so if we're training career criminals, that makes the Sheltering concept currently a short term win for a long term loss. All of this is based on my opinions that are largely formed from random articles and headlines (rarely in-depth) and likely too much influence from TV and movies (insert Law & Order DUM-DUM here) so no one should actually trust this. If, however, anyone has interesting insight or even actual knowledge to share, that'd be great - I have literally thought this general structure for the last 20+ years, so it obviously has some staying power in my brain even if I'm not motivated enough to do much research.

acjohnson55 9y ago
I don't think we should discount the extent to which the purpose of our criminal justice system is vengeance for its own sake. I don't think most people think of it this way, but it's hard to say this isn't the case.
- ergothus 9y ago
  That's a really good point. Everytime I hear someone say they want "justice" for the family of someone that died as a result of crime, I count that sentiment as not helpful. You can't get "justice" because you can't bring back the dead. Paying their debt to society? Society might be be better off without this person in it, but removing a future problem isn't paying a debt - society doesn't benefit as much as gets less penalized. I think you're totally right, and until we acknowledge this point as a society, it will be really hard to improve things very much.
keeganmccallum 9y ago
I 100% agree with this train of thinking and really like the way you've structured this. It's helped me kinda put together all the nagging feelings about what is wrong with criminal justice. In your opinion, what's the alternative though? Or I'd even be interested to hear what your take is on what a step in the right direction is. I know there are systemic problems that really trigger most of this, so maybe the solution is to cure the disease and not the symptoms so to speak?
- ergothus 9y ago
  Oh, improvements? I have very few ideas, and they are largely ones that other people have been saying for a long time. But, much like improving a technology, you need metrics and you need to decide what your goal is. Presumably society will want a balance between everything listed, not just one...but what are the terms of that balance? As it is, every lawyer, judge, jury member, voter, journalist, and prison warden are all winging it, so we aren't getting a balance, we're getting a mish-mash result from this tug of war. (I wonder how much of that comes from the trial process being adversarial - the assumption is the truth survives if both sides push in opposite directions as hard as they can. Leaving aside if that works as intended, sentences and guidelines are likely heavily influenced by those for whom that environment is familiar and accepted. That's a digression though) Anyway, if we don't know what we are trying for, how can we take steps towards it? But to give some concrete ideas: * Improve mental health care, in prison, but mostly out of it. My understanding is that when there was a big push to close "asylums" a few decades ago, significant groups of those populations (and those since that would have gone there) quickly moved to prisons. And even if that was unrelated, it's not hard to find that prisons hold a lot of people with mental issues. * Improve the social safety net - if people can feed themselves, their kids, and live where there are jobs (or at least opportunities) it becomes much easier to say that there is no need for crime. I think this will become a bigger deal - automation may be costing jobs, or may just result in shifting them, but either way unskilled labor that pays enough to live on is definitely shrinking. I'm very curious about basic income, but the potential for unforeseen side effects is huge, so I'm cautious. * Non-violent offenders don't need prison (nor lesser violent offenses and/or those that aren't likely to reoffend - a high school fight is different than a murder). Give them GPS trackers, force them to stay inside, to attend whatever sessions are needed. This might be honest real help, or it may be boring them to tears with a shrink or group meetings, depending on your views, but that means it's either Rehabilitation or Punishment. :) But it keeps people in contact with real society (in particular it maintains their corner of society: Friends, family, news), doesn't create a separate concentration to train people to be harder criminals, and is cheaper to boot! Critics would say this lets people stay home and watch TV all day, which is valid, but if Punishment is the goal, there will be downsides, the degree to which can be negotiated. * Better work plans. I can only imagine getting a job as an ex-con is hell, based on how every job application I've ever filled out asked about it. This ties in with the safety social net above - better handling of managing jobs for everyone, but in particular ex-cons. If you have more to lose, it's easier to stay in the lines. (This is probably the hardest thing in this list to do, because it is to want, hard to figure out how) * Give white-collar crime the same sentences. If every one of these wealthy execs and financiers that "settle but admit no wrongdoing" got the same treatment as the poor black 20-year old that robbed a 7-11, I'm guessing there'd be a bigger push for reform. That's not just cynicism - I'm guessing most people, including myself, don't realize how bad it truly can be, and thus have only vague interest in improving it. * End prison rape. It happens. Not rarely. We know it happens. and we joke about it. Not rarely. I know very little about trauma, but I do know that someone that has trauma can form some very hard opinions very quickly. And if most people make jokes rather than care about your trauma, and have no/limited support network, and have no/limited mental health care, I can guess in which direction those hard opinions are more likely to go. I'm probably missing some, but these are the ideas I've seen that sound to me like they're going in a sensible direction.

acjohnson55 9y ago

I don't think we should discount the extent to which the purpose of our criminal justice system is vengeance for its own sake. I don't think most people think of it this way, but it's hard to say this isn't the case.

ergothus 9y ago
That's a really good point. Everytime I hear someone say they want "justice" for the family of someone that died as a result of crime, I count that sentiment as not helpful. You can't get "justice" because you can't bring back the dead. Paying their debt to society? Society might be be better off without this person in it, but removing a future problem isn't paying a debt - society doesn't benefit as much as gets less penalized. I think you're totally right, and until we acknowledge this point as a society, it will be really hard to improve things very much.

keeganmccallum 9y ago

I 100% agree with this train of thinking and really like the way you've structured this. It's helped me kinda put together all the nagging feelings about what is wrong with criminal justice. In your opinion, what's the alternative though? Or I'd even be interested to hear what your take is on what a step in the right direction is. I know there are systemic problems that really trigger most of this, so maybe the solution is to cure the disease and not the symptoms so to speak?

ergothus 9y ago
Oh, improvements? I have very few ideas, and they are largely ones that other people have been saying for a long time. But, much like improving a technology, you need metrics and you need to decide what your goal is. Presumably society will want a balance between everything listed, not just one...but what are the terms of that balance? As it is, every lawyer, judge, jury member, voter, journalist, and prison warden are all winging it, so we aren't getting a balance, we're getting a mish-mash result from this tug of war. (I wonder how much of that comes from the trial process being adversarial - the assumption is the truth survives if both sides push in opposite directions as hard as they can. Leaving aside if that works as intended, sentences and guidelines are likely heavily influenced by those for whom that environment is familiar and accepted. That's a digression though) Anyway, if we don't know what we are trying for, how can we take steps towards it? But to give some concrete ideas: * Improve mental health care, in prison, but mostly out of it. My understanding is that when there was a big push to close "asylums" a few decades ago, significant groups of those populations (and those since that would have gone there) quickly moved to prisons. And even if that was unrelated, it's not hard to find that prisons hold a lot of people with mental issues. * Improve the social safety net - if people can feed themselves, their kids, and live where there are jobs (or at least opportunities) it becomes much easier to say that there is no need for crime. I think this will become a bigger deal - automation may be costing jobs, or may just result in shifting them, but either way unskilled labor that pays enough to live on is definitely shrinking. I'm very curious about basic income, but the potential for unforeseen side effects is huge, so I'm cautious. * Non-violent offenders don't need prison (nor lesser violent offenses and/or those that aren't likely to reoffend - a high school fight is different than a murder). Give them GPS trackers, force them to stay inside, to attend whatever sessions are needed. This might be honest real help, or it may be boring them to tears with a shrink or group meetings, depending on your views, but that means it's either Rehabilitation or Punishment. :) But it keeps people in contact with real society (in particular it maintains their corner of society: Friends, family, news), doesn't create a separate concentration to train people to be harder criminals, and is cheaper to boot! Critics would say this lets people stay home and watch TV all day, which is valid, but if Punishment is the goal, there will be downsides, the degree to which can be negotiated. * Better work plans. I can only imagine getting a job as an ex-con is hell, based on how every job application I've ever filled out asked about it. This ties in with the safety social net above - better handling of managing jobs for everyone, but in particular ex-cons. If you have more to lose, it's easier to stay in the lines. (This is probably the hardest thing in this list to do, because it is to want, hard to figure out how) * Give white-collar crime the same sentences. If every one of these wealthy execs and financiers that "settle but admit no wrongdoing" got the same treatment as the poor black 20-year old that robbed a 7-11, I'm guessing there'd be a bigger push for reform. That's not just cynicism - I'm guessing most people, including myself, don't realize how bad it truly can be, and thus have only vague interest in improving it. * End prison rape. It happens. Not rarely. We know it happens. and we joke about it. Not rarely. I know very little about trauma, but I do know that someone that has trauma can form some very hard opinions very quickly. And if most people make jokes rather than care about your trauma, and have no/limited support network, and have no/limited mental health care, I can guess in which direction those hard opinions are more likely to go. I'm probably missing some, but these are the ideas I've seen that sound to me like they're going in a sensible direction.