2 ms·

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 vi

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..