6 ms·

how to solve prisons in America: go full Liberal. states want private prisons. prisons should be to rehabilitate. so pay the prison business only if it delive

by gcb0 9y ago

how to solve prisons in America: go full Liberal. states want private prisons. prisons should be to rehabilitate. so pay the prison business only if it delivers. i.e. pay private prisons on a rehabilitation rate instead of simply the number of inmates. it's not like you're expected to pay for damaged goods in a regular business transaction, so simply stop doing so with private prisons.

pc86 9y ago
> prisons should be to rehabilitate A lot of people, regardless of political persuasion, believe that the purpose of prisons is to punish those inside. No more, no less, and any "rehabilitation" is just something that happens alongside (and often in spite of) the real purpose.
- 7952 9y ago
  The trouble is that punishment and rehabilitation are seen as mutually exclusive. That a "soft" prison is less punishing. But really the removal of freedom in itself is a vast punishment. Going further than that is just unceccessary and counterproductive.
  - TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
    The problem is rehabilitation only works on some people, and punishment works on virtually no one. Prisons are a dumping ground for people with personality disorders. You can't fix a personality disorder with rehabilitation, or with punishment. (Arguably you can't fix a personality disorder at all.) Some people are relatively rational. They commit crimes for a variety of reasons, a good proportion of which are a direct outcome of poverty and/or economic abuse and/or racism. The best way to rehabilitate them is to rehabilitate society so it doesn't push them into a corner, or create subcultures where crime is a reasonable survival option. The people with psychological issues are much harder to deal with. Keeping them locked and away and occupied is more humane than trying to "punish" them, because the punishment is pointless and will have exactly zero effect. Running prisons as a for-profit industry instead of a social service is barbarism, and ultimately just puts more criminals on the streets.
- daxorid 9y ago
  Even if the purpose was punishment, I wonder why we harbor such a deep aversion to corporal punishment. The (US) Constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual" punishments in sentencing, but in my mind, losing years of one's life, which one will never get back, is significantly more cruel than, say, fifty lashes.
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    There's a book on (roughly) this question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discipline_and_Punish#Summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discipline_and_Punish#Summary
  - pc86 9y ago
    Cruel and unusual, not cruel or unusual. SCOTUS has said about the death penalty specifically that it is without a doubt cruel; however, it is pervasive, and therefore not an unusual punishment. Therefore there is no Constitutional violation. I suspect a similar argument in the inverse rules out corporal punishment. Fifty lashes, even if less cruel than decades in prison, is certainly a cruel punishment. It's also very unusual for 2017 America.
    - foldr 9y ago
      Prohibitions against X and Y unfortunately tend to be grammatically ambiguous. If your read it as "prohibited to do X and prohibited to do Y" rather than "prohibited to do [X and Y]", then it is equivalent to "prohibited to do [X or Y]". So for example, the statement "It is prohibited to bring fruits and vegetables across the border" would usually be taken to prohibit bringing fruits or vegetables alone.
      - pc86 9y ago
        Ok. We can argue grammatical pedantry all we want, I'm just saying what SCOTUS has said with regard to its interpretation of 8A specifically. There are three things not allowed: 1) excessive bail required; 2) excessive fines imposed; 3) cruel and unusual punishment. The application of a cruel but common punishment doesn't fit #3.
- spacelizard 9y ago
  If we believe prisons are to act as a sort of operant conditioning for the inmates, then the punishment IS supposed the rehabilitation. However, as you probably know, many folks do not respond to this type of conditioning.
- RobertoG 9y ago
  Luckily we have a lot of data. If punishment is rehabilitating, in average, the harder the prisons the nicer the people that come from them. We could check for instance, I don't know, Russia vs. Sweden or something like that.
- Sevii 9y ago
  The purpose of prisons is to keep felons away from people's children.
  - pc86 9y ago
    That's not even remotely accurate. All you need to do is look at the number of people in prison who aren't felons to know that that's wrong on its face.
Koshkin 9y ago
> prisons should be to rehabilitate What I personally appreciate the most is the simple fact of having dangerous people confined so that the danger to others (including myself) is no longer there.
- duozerk 9y ago
  The vast majority of people in prison are not dangerous (and, in my view at least, don't belong there), at least in the US.
  - smcl 9y ago
    You are completely correct. I'd also add that even if we assume everyone IS dangerous, would you really want to lock them away for 5, 10, 15 years without any thought as to what sort of human they'd be after that? My personal opinion is that we should treat these people humanely and with sympathy, but if GP is taking an extreme self-centered approach then why not consider the possibility that the system is creating people who are more dangerous to them in the long run?
  - hnaccy 9y ago
    >The vast majority of people in prison are not dangerous Why do you think this?
    - Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
      I found a source for inmate stats: https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offen... It's hard to precisely quantify the violent versus non-violent crimes, so I'll be making some assumptions in my summary based on some educated guesses about the kinds of crimes that land you in each category: Non-violent: 70% Violent: 30%
      - hnaccy 9y ago
        That's only counting federal prisoners. When you include state prisoners you get Violent: 47% Property: 17% Weapons: 5% It's not obvious to me that the "vast majority" of prisoners are not dangerous.
MarkPNeyer 9y ago
I've thought this for a long time. How do you actually make it happen, though? If prisons had to refund the state when there was an instance of recidivism, they'd have an incentive to insure former prisoners were able to integrate back into society again.

by gcb0 9y ago

pc86 9y ago

> prisons should be to rehabilitate A lot of people, regardless of political persuasion, believe that the purpose of prisons is to punish those inside. No more, no less, and any "rehabilitation" is just something that happens alongside (and often in spite of) the real purpose.

7952 9y ago
The trouble is that punishment and rehabilitation are seen as mutually exclusive. That a "soft" prison is less punishing. But really the removal of freedom in itself is a vast punishment. Going further than that is just unceccessary and counterproductive.
- TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
  The problem is rehabilitation only works on some people, and punishment works on virtually no one. Prisons are a dumping ground for people with personality disorders. You can't fix a personality disorder with rehabilitation, or with punishment. (Arguably you can't fix a personality disorder at all.) Some people are relatively rational. They commit crimes for a variety of reasons, a good proportion of which are a direct outcome of poverty and/or economic abuse and/or racism. The best way to rehabilitate them is to rehabilitate society so it doesn't push them into a corner, or create subcultures where crime is a reasonable survival option. The people with psychological issues are much harder to deal with. Keeping them locked and away and occupied is more humane than trying to "punish" them, because the punishment is pointless and will have exactly zero effect. Running prisons as a for-profit industry instead of a social service is barbarism, and ultimately just puts more criminals on the streets.
daxorid 9y ago
Even if the purpose was punishment, I wonder why we harbor such a deep aversion to corporal punishment. The (US) Constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual" punishments in sentencing, but in my mind, losing years of one's life, which one will never get back, is significantly more cruel than, say, fifty lashes.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  There's a book on (roughly) this question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discipline_and_Punish#Summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discipline_and_Punish#Summary
- pc86 9y ago
  Cruel and unusual, not cruel or unusual. SCOTUS has said about the death penalty specifically that it is without a doubt cruel; however, it is pervasive, and therefore not an unusual punishment. Therefore there is no Constitutional violation. I suspect a similar argument in the inverse rules out corporal punishment. Fifty lashes, even if less cruel than decades in prison, is certainly a cruel punishment. It's also very unusual for 2017 America.
  - foldr 9y ago
    Prohibitions against X and Y unfortunately tend to be grammatically ambiguous. If your read it as "prohibited to do X and prohibited to do Y" rather than "prohibited to do [X and Y]", then it is equivalent to "prohibited to do [X or Y]". So for example, the statement "It is prohibited to bring fruits and vegetables across the border" would usually be taken to prohibit bringing fruits or vegetables alone.
    - pc86 9y ago
      Ok. We can argue grammatical pedantry all we want, I'm just saying what SCOTUS has said with regard to its interpretation of 8A specifically. There are three things not allowed: 1) excessive bail required; 2) excessive fines imposed; 3) cruel and unusual punishment. The application of a cruel but common punishment doesn't fit #3.
spacelizard 9y ago
If we believe prisons are to act as a sort of operant conditioning for the inmates, then the punishment IS supposed the rehabilitation. However, as you probably know, many folks do not respond to this type of conditioning.
RobertoG 9y ago
Luckily we have a lot of data. If punishment is rehabilitating, in average, the harder the prisons the nicer the people that come from them. We could check for instance, I don't know, Russia vs. Sweden or something like that.
Sevii 9y ago
The purpose of prisons is to keep felons away from people's children.
- pc86 9y ago
  That's not even remotely accurate. All you need to do is look at the number of people in prison who aren't felons to know that that's wrong on its face.

Koshkin 9y ago

> prisons should be to rehabilitate What I personally appreciate the most is the simple fact of having dangerous people confined so that the danger to others (including myself) is no longer there.

duozerk 9y ago
The vast majority of people in prison are not dangerous (and, in my view at least, don't belong there), at least in the US.
- smcl 9y ago
  You are completely correct. I'd also add that even if we assume everyone IS dangerous, would you really want to lock them away for 5, 10, 15 years without any thought as to what sort of human they'd be after that? My personal opinion is that we should treat these people humanely and with sympathy, but if GP is taking an extreme self-centered approach then why not consider the possibility that the system is creating people who are more dangerous to them in the long run?
- hnaccy 9y ago
  >The vast majority of people in prison are not dangerous Why do you think this?
  - Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
    I found a source for inmate stats: https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offen... It's hard to precisely quantify the violent versus non-violent crimes, so I'll be making some assumptions in my summary based on some educated guesses about the kinds of crimes that land you in each category: Non-violent: 70% Violent: 30%
    - hnaccy 9y ago
      That's only counting federal prisoners. When you include state prisoners you get Violent: 47% Property: 17% Weapons: 5% It's not obvious to me that the "vast majority" of prisoners are not dangerous.

MarkPNeyer 9y ago

I've thought this for a long time. How do you actually make it happen, though? If prisons had to refund the state when there was an instance of recidivism, they'd have an incentive to insure former prisoners were able to integrate back into society again.