4 ms·

That's all fine and good and I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the Scandinavians about this. But there's a huge component missing to this - and that is the ri

That's all fine and good and I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the Scandinavians about this. But there's a huge component missing to this - and that is the rights of the victims. There are quite a number of people who have 'committed a crime' and really are at no risk of re-offending in the first place. A Montreal doctor, in a fit of fury, murdered his wife and children. I believe - with some basic help and observation, it's entirely unlikely he'd do such a thing again. I don't think for a second that 'prison' or even the 'threat of prison' factors into his likelihood of recitivism. So the 're-integration' thing to do for this doctor would just be a little time in a psych/hospital, then re-integration and observation/checking-in on him. But what about the wife? The kids that were murdered? What about their rights as victims? If you 'slander' someone - you might have to pay them $100K. But if you 'murder' them - there's nobody to pay? This is a real issue - and more real in Scandinavia. I have a distant relative who is Danish - a rough and tumble guy who hangs out with bikers. Over at his place for dinner one day (in Denmark) - the guy sitting beside me (who seemed rather normal if a tiny bit thuggish) - was a murderer. He spent four years in jail for murdering someone, and was now in a 'half way house' for a couple of years. That's it. I don't doubt that maybe his situation is optimized for 'non recidivism' - but there are moral questions with this. Four years in a really nice jail - with Internet, a 'instrument' room with instruments, a goddam mixing panel to make tracks (!), a gym, half decent food - etc. - is just wrong. Imagine if your mother/family member was ruthlessly murdered by her landlord. He does four years in an easy prison. No worries. His property, holdings intact. He comes back as if it didn't happen, with a little bit of 'checking in' form the government? We cannot think of crime just as a matter of 'recidivism rates' - yes - those are important - but the moral implications are equally as important.

neilparikh 9y ago
Is how much "justice" the victim really equally important to the recidivism rates? I don't think it is. If one treatment method is "more unjust" towards the victim, but it leads to a lower recidivism rate, I think we should use that one. For example, in the case of murder, I think it's obvious that it's in society's best interest to optimize the justice system around reducing the murder rate as a whole, not how much "justice" the victim receives. Now, if there's 2 methods that (somehow) lead to the same recidivism rate, then we can consider the one that is "more just" towards the victim, but even then, I'm not 100% sure. Note: I put justice in quotes not because I'm trying to minimize it (it's definitely that has to be considered, or people will lose faith in the system), but because it's an ill-defined term right now.
- alexasmyths 9y ago
  It's an inherently moral question, so it's hard. I personally think that the 'Doctor who murdered his wife and children' - should spend 30 years in jail - even if it might technically increase his likelihood to 'do it again'. It's also hard because the US system - as a basis of discussion - is kind of a mess. Crazy rates of incarceration, aggressive prosecutors, racism, private prisons, massive prison gangs, overcrowding - etc. etc. - it's such an anomaly. It's easy to point out how the US system utterly 'non optimal' and in some cases actually 'unjust' because it probably is. Which also makes it hard to compare to Scandinavia. I think we can probably 'get justice' and 'recidivism down' with a little common sense. Starting with ridiculous drug sentences etc..
incorrect_mule 9y ago
So you want to knowingly create more criminals, just so you feel better? That's just disgusting
- alexasmyths 9y ago
  "just so you feel better" I want people who have committed atrocities to face justice, which is an issue of morality, not a 'feeling'. There are absolutely some murders who don't need a day of prison, and possibly not a lot of mental health help and would not be a 'risk to society'. For example, I think that letting those people into society who have committed crimes - merely because 'they are not a threat' - is 'disgusting'.
  - gspetr 9y ago
    But what is your proposed solution? I'm Russian and there used to be a popular anecdote here that 1/3 of the country is in prison, 1/3 guards them and 1/3 are relatives, waiting for the release of the prisoners. Russian prisons are no resorts, with few if any facilities found in Scandinavian prisons, with terrible food and anything but humane attitude from the administration. Out of people who spend there 4+ years and then go out VERY few are back to being normal. Most are simply broken (and I do not use that term lightly) unless they were hardened criminals for whom prison is merely another step in their career and they knew what they were getting into. I don't think severe prison conditions are good for the society as a whole.
    - alexasmyths 9y ago
      I'm not against programs to help re-integration at all - I think those are good. But I still think that people should receive sentences that are commensurate with justice - not just recidivism. Give people the sentences they deserve, and work on social integration towards the end of their term and after their release. I know only about Russian prisons from a documentary I saw (so very little) - and they seem crazy hard-core - a little too rough - also dominated by gangs, which is bad. 'Gang culture' in prison is bad thing, so is violence - I think having people in those types of conditions is 'cruel and unusual' punishment. I think the regular notion of prison is reasonable: i.e. not 'club med' but also not 'gang-land/rape-land'. And social programs are fine I think.
vilmosi 9y ago
That's just the difference between justice and revenge. That's why we have a "justice" department.

neilparikh 9y ago

Is how much "justice" the victim really equally important to the recidivism rates? I don't think it is. If one treatment method is "more unjust" towards the victim, but it leads to a lower recidivism rate, I think we should use that one. For example, in the case of murder, I think it's obvious that it's in society's best interest to optimize the justice system around reducing the murder rate as a whole, not how much "justice" the victim receives. Now, if there's 2 methods that (somehow) lead to the same recidivism rate, then we can consider the one that is "more just" towards the victim, but even then, I'm not 100% sure. Note: I put justice in quotes not because I'm trying to minimize it (it's definitely that has to be considered, or people will lose faith in the system), but because it's an ill-defined term right now.

alexasmyths 9y ago
It's an inherently moral question, so it's hard. I personally think that the 'Doctor who murdered his wife and children' - should spend 30 years in jail - even if it might technically increase his likelihood to 'do it again'. It's also hard because the US system - as a basis of discussion - is kind of a mess. Crazy rates of incarceration, aggressive prosecutors, racism, private prisons, massive prison gangs, overcrowding - etc. etc. - it's such an anomaly. It's easy to point out how the US system utterly 'non optimal' and in some cases actually 'unjust' because it probably is. Which also makes it hard to compare to Scandinavia. I think we can probably 'get justice' and 'recidivism down' with a little common sense. Starting with ridiculous drug sentences etc..

incorrect_mule 9y ago

So you want to knowingly create more criminals, just so you feel better? That's just disgusting

alexasmyths 9y ago
"just so you feel better" I want people who have committed atrocities to face justice, which is an issue of morality, not a 'feeling'. There are absolutely some murders who don't need a day of prison, and possibly not a lot of mental health help and would not be a 'risk to society'. For example, I think that letting those people into society who have committed crimes - merely because 'they are not a threat' - is 'disgusting'.
- gspetr 9y ago
  But what is your proposed solution? I'm Russian and there used to be a popular anecdote here that 1/3 of the country is in prison, 1/3 guards them and 1/3 are relatives, waiting for the release of the prisoners. Russian prisons are no resorts, with few if any facilities found in Scandinavian prisons, with terrible food and anything but humane attitude from the administration. Out of people who spend there 4+ years and then go out VERY few are back to being normal. Most are simply broken (and I do not use that term lightly) unless they were hardened criminals for whom prison is merely another step in their career and they knew what they were getting into. I don't think severe prison conditions are good for the society as a whole.
  - alexasmyths 9y ago
    I'm not against programs to help re-integration at all - I think those are good. But I still think that people should receive sentences that are commensurate with justice - not just recidivism. Give people the sentences they deserve, and work on social integration towards the end of their term and after their release. I know only about Russian prisons from a documentary I saw (so very little) - and they seem crazy hard-core - a little too rough - also dominated by gangs, which is bad. 'Gang culture' in prison is bad thing, so is violence - I think having people in those types of conditions is 'cruel and unusual' punishment. I think the regular notion of prison is reasonable: i.e. not 'club med' but also not 'gang-land/rape-land'. And social programs are fine I think.

vilmosi 9y ago

That's just the difference between justice and revenge. That's why we have a "justice" department.