4 ms·

Or not necessarily pragmatism, but a shift in focus from overbearing justice (commonly seen as retribution and punishment, or more generally some kind of reveng

by ljm 9y ago

Or not necessarily pragmatism, but a shift in focus from overbearing justice (commonly seen as retribution and punishment, or more generally some kind of revenge) to rehabilitation and giving people the resources they need to get out of crime, rather than ostracizing them or putting them to manual labour for pennies an hour. In this sense Promise is being pragmatic because it can't transform the American attitude to crime all by itself (the punishment of which doubles up as a profit motive for the prison industry), but it can attempt to make one aspect of it less shitty. However, it is miles away from ideal. Coming from a European perspective I find it utterly perplexing that a society would not only accept high rates of incarceration but also support venture capital to optimize that status quo. Because that's what is being offered - making it affordable for poor people to go into custody, as opposed to lobbying against private prisons and extreme sentences for trivial crimes, and disentangling this horrific 'tough on crime' narrative that has taken hold over the past decades. How on earth is it positive to see an opportunity for profit in all the people being locked up before trial and to what end will that investment be pursued? It's fascinating that many viewpoints from the US are so exceptional in their notion that they completely ignore how systems in other countries tackle the problem without generating a criminal underclass.

smoyer 9y ago
I'm a US citizen and was about to part exactly this ... we need fewer people in jail period. That probably applies to most if not all of those who Promise would help so I can't help thinking this is simply putting lipstick on a pig. EDIT: I should also note that it's nice to see teams are trying tackling to tackle harder social problems.
- bobthechef 9y ago
  > we need fewer people in jail period What does that mean? How do you know we have too many? Are you claiming we have many innocent people who haven't broken the law in jail? Or that some laws prescribe incommensurate penalties for certain crimes?
  - rbobby 9y ago
    > How do you know we have too many? The US leads the world in incarceration, with a rate of 737 per 100,000. Canada has 438 per 100,000... and on virtual all measures Canada and the US are very similar (old joke... What is a Canadian? An unarmed American with healthcare). Amazingly the UK is 148 per 100,000, Scotland 134, N.Ireland 79, Ireland 78, and Australia 168.
    - adanto6840 9y ago
      What are the rates of crimes committed per 100k population in the US and the countries you mentioned? Obviously that's a loaded question, but just trying to illustrate the point -- perhaps the US criminal justice system is just as good (or possibly even better) at investigating, arresting, and jailing those who commit "crimes"? Is the problem really with the criminal justice system, or is it with the laws, perhaps even just the sentencing laws? FWIW I am firmly against, disgusted by, the extremely elevated incarceration rates in the US -- especially those incarcerated for "non-violent crimes" -- but I tend to think that the issue is more with the laws (sentencing, plea-bargaining, due process, etc) than it is with the prosecutors themselves. Of course there are bad apples too, from judges to prosecutors to defendants themselves, but I tend to see more issue with the disconnected legislation than I do anything else. Heck, the US AG wants to crack down on marijuana -- despite numerous state ballot initiatives legalizing it at state levels. Meanwhile, there's a serious opioid epidemic which is killing thousands of people; 'crackdown' is failing to address that problem. I know, let's crack down on marijuana too -- throw them all in jail, that's the way to save lives. It just blatantly defies logic or basic reasoning. :(
      - irrlichthn 9y ago
        > perhaps the US criminal justice system is just as good at investigating, arresting, and jailing those who commit "crimes"? Having worked with statistics around this issue and compared them with many other countries, I don't think this is the case. The USA seems to have two problems: A very, unusual high crime rate (about 10 times higher than in the country where I live for example!) and by comparison, a very harsh jurisdictional system. Combined, you get the result you have.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
bobthechef 9y ago
> commonly seen as retribution and punishment, or more generally some kind of revenge That's not the purpose of the justice system per se, though I don't see any problem with someone offering criminals, in the spirit of charity, opportunities and help in turning away from criminality toward good ways of living. (Obviously, they must be willing, and we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking criminals are victims.) However, justice implies that retribution and punishment are merited, and if merited, then legitimately inflicted. If it didn't, mercy and forgiveness would be meaningless. Indeed, crime and evil actions would cease to have any substance. A justice system that does not punish in a manner that is commensurate with crimes committed is no justice system at all. The word "retribution" for some reason offends modern sensibilities. Part of that stems from what appears to be the false belief that retribution entails hatred, which it does not. If there are flaws in the justice system because either the punishments for some crimes are excessive, or innocent people are being convicted at high rates and possibly because of perverse incentives, or whatever, then those things need to be addressed. But I do not support a generally lenient attitude toward crime in the spirit of Norway's treatment of Breivik. That that unrepentant criminal is alive and in relative comfort is a sickening insult to his victims.
- ericathegreat 9y ago
  I think this depends very much on what you consider the intention of a justice system to be. If it is to strive towards balance between individuals, then you are correct. If a person causes suffering, then they should experience suffering themselves. Balance attained. However, if the intention of a justice system is to reduce the total amount of injustice done in the world, then punishment is surprisingly ineffective. Being a criminal does not _preclude_ a person from also being a victim. People who inflict violence have very, very often experienced a great deal of violence against themselves. In these cases, punishment is going to do far more harm than good in society. Harsh punishment, especially incarceration, makes pre-existing issues much worse. It creates recidivism, and increases the total amount of injustice over the long term. Compassion, support, empathy, education, and carefully guided opportunity to improve would, in many of these cases, improve that person's circumstance to a point where they no longer have cause to harm others. The original victims may not have received the recompense that they deserve, but the likelihood of more people experiencing pain at the criminal's hand in the future is reduced. So it's not quite as simple as all one way or all the other. I think that is why the raw concept of 'retribution' is a less desirable idea these days than it has been in the past. It makes the demands of individual balance at the expense of community balance. Don't get me wrong, I think that ignoring individual balance outright in favour of community balance is equally flawed. The trick is providing lots of options, so that someone like a judge can make the call as to where that balancing point should be and be confident that it is played out.
JackFr 9y ago
> commonly seen as retribution and punishment, or more generally some kind of revenge Role of the incarceration is 1) incapacitation, at a bare minimum prevent continuing criminal activity; 2) Rehabilitation, in so far as causes and proclivities toward criminal activity can be remediated, do so; 3) Punishment, enjoying the rewards of criminality offend our sense of fairness. The problem is (3) seems to be the only one we're capable of...
- sobani 9y ago
  4) deterrent, to make you think twice before committing a criminal act. The urge for long prison sentences can be explained by reasons 1, 2 and 4. And I guess reason 3 as well; the longer someone is incarcerated, the longer they will have to think about what they did wrong and how to fix their life. note: I don't believe that longer sentences are effective for any of those reasons, but others do
adamsea 9y ago
Perhaps it’s sort of an incremental vs revolutionary change kind of situation.

by ljm 9y ago

smoyer 9y ago

I'm a US citizen and was about to part exactly this ... we need fewer people in jail period. That probably applies to most if not all of those who Promise would help so I can't help thinking this is simply putting lipstick on a pig. EDIT: I should also note that it's nice to see teams are trying tackling to tackle harder social problems.

bobthechef 9y ago
> we need fewer people in jail period What does that mean? How do you know we have too many? Are you claiming we have many innocent people who haven't broken the law in jail? Or that some laws prescribe incommensurate penalties for certain crimes?
- rbobby 9y ago
  > How do you know we have too many? The US leads the world in incarceration, with a rate of 737 per 100,000. Canada has 438 per 100,000... and on virtual all measures Canada and the US are very similar (old joke... What is a Canadian? An unarmed American with healthcare). Amazingly the UK is 148 per 100,000, Scotland 134, N.Ireland 79, Ireland 78, and Australia 168.
  - adanto6840 9y ago
    What are the rates of crimes committed per 100k population in the US and the countries you mentioned? Obviously that's a loaded question, but just trying to illustrate the point -- perhaps the US criminal justice system is just as good (or possibly even better) at investigating, arresting, and jailing those who commit "crimes"? Is the problem really with the criminal justice system, or is it with the laws, perhaps even just the sentencing laws? FWIW I am firmly against, disgusted by, the extremely elevated incarceration rates in the US -- especially those incarcerated for "non-violent crimes" -- but I tend to think that the issue is more with the laws (sentencing, plea-bargaining, due process, etc) than it is with the prosecutors themselves. Of course there are bad apples too, from judges to prosecutors to defendants themselves, but I tend to see more issue with the disconnected legislation than I do anything else. Heck, the US AG wants to crack down on marijuana -- despite numerous state ballot initiatives legalizing it at state levels. Meanwhile, there's a serious opioid epidemic which is killing thousands of people; 'crackdown' is failing to address that problem. I know, let's crack down on marijuana too -- throw them all in jail, that's the way to save lives. It just blatantly defies logic or basic reasoning. :(
    - irrlichthn 9y ago
      > perhaps the US criminal justice system is just as good at investigating, arresting, and jailing those who commit "crimes"? Having worked with statistics around this issue and compared them with many other countries, I don't think this is the case. The USA seems to have two problems: A very, unusual high crime rate (about 10 times higher than in the country where I live for example!) and by comparison, a very harsh jurisdictional system. Combined, you get the result you have.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

bobthechef 9y ago

> commonly seen as retribution and punishment, or more generally some kind of revenge That's not the purpose of the justice system per se, though I don't see any problem with someone offering criminals, in the spirit of charity, opportunities and help in turning away from criminality toward good ways of living. (Obviously, they must be willing, and we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking criminals are victims.) However, justice implies that retribution and punishment are merited, and if merited, then legitimately inflicted. If it didn't, mercy and forgiveness would be meaningless. Indeed, crime and evil actions would cease to have any substance. A justice system that does not punish in a manner that is commensurate with crimes committed is no justice system at all. The word "retribution" for some reason offends modern sensibilities. Part of that stems from what appears to be the false belief that retribution entails hatred, which it does not. If there are flaws in the justice system because either the punishments for some crimes are excessive, or innocent people are being convicted at high rates and possibly because of perverse incentives, or whatever, then those things need to be addressed. But I do not support a generally lenient attitude toward crime in the spirit of Norway's treatment of Breivik. That that unrepentant criminal is alive and in relative comfort is a sickening insult to his victims.

ericathegreat 9y ago
I think this depends very much on what you consider the intention of a justice system to be. If it is to strive towards balance between individuals, then you are correct. If a person causes suffering, then they should experience suffering themselves. Balance attained. However, if the intention of a justice system is to reduce the total amount of injustice done in the world, then punishment is surprisingly ineffective. Being a criminal does not _preclude_ a person from also being a victim. People who inflict violence have very, very often experienced a great deal of violence against themselves. In these cases, punishment is going to do far more harm than good in society. Harsh punishment, especially incarceration, makes pre-existing issues much worse. It creates recidivism, and increases the total amount of injustice over the long term. Compassion, support, empathy, education, and carefully guided opportunity to improve would, in many of these cases, improve that person's circumstance to a point where they no longer have cause to harm others. The original victims may not have received the recompense that they deserve, but the likelihood of more people experiencing pain at the criminal's hand in the future is reduced. So it's not quite as simple as all one way or all the other. I think that is why the raw concept of 'retribution' is a less desirable idea these days than it has been in the past. It makes the demands of individual balance at the expense of community balance. Don't get me wrong, I think that ignoring individual balance outright in favour of community balance is equally flawed. The trick is providing lots of options, so that someone like a judge can make the call as to where that balancing point should be and be confident that it is played out.

JackFr 9y ago

> commonly seen as retribution and punishment, or more generally some kind of revenge Role of the incarceration is 1) incapacitation, at a bare minimum prevent continuing criminal activity; 2) Rehabilitation, in so far as causes and proclivities toward criminal activity can be remediated, do so; 3) Punishment, enjoying the rewards of criminality offend our sense of fairness. The problem is (3) seems to be the only one we're capable of...

sobani 9y ago
4) deterrent, to make you think twice before committing a criminal act. The urge for long prison sentences can be explained by reasons 1, 2 and 4. And I guess reason 3 as well; the longer someone is incarcerated, the longer they will have to think about what they did wrong and how to fix their life. note: I don't believe that longer sentences are effective for any of those reasons, but others do

adamsea 9y ago

Perhaps it’s sort of an incremental vs revolutionary change kind of situation.