4 ms·

It still amazes me the human waste of US prison sentences. Armed robbery in the UK for a 17 year old, from memory, is likely to attract significantly less than

It still amazes me the human waste of US prison sentences. Armed robbery in the UK for a 17 year old, from memory, is likely to attract significantly less than 10 years of actual time served. Yet in the UK we are not overrun with armed robbers. I think the deterrent effect of a long sentence is rather lost on a 17 year-old who is already making bad life decisions.

Retric 8y ago
The idea is not a deterrent. The idea is if someone spends most of their life in prison they are not going to be able to commit crimes outside. Effective or not, the reasoning is fairly straightforward.
- fwn 8y ago
  A sentence has always a correcting, an deterring, a protecting and a vengeance component. (Not very educated on law though. That's what I learned in my mandatory philosophy of law class as an undergrad long ago.)
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    The US is very heavy on protecting and vengeance. There is no interest in correcting and it seems harsh sentences don't deter much either.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > A sentence has always a correcting, an deterring, a protecting and a vengeance component. No, those are among the different theories of the function(s) of criminal punishment. It is not the case that every criminal sentence incorporates all four as elements.
- kwjenfo 8y ago
  "Effective or not...". That's the problem. The sentence is vengeance. When he comes out of prison at 27, expect him to go back. But, I guess people are happy to spend billions of dollars to keep people in prisons than trying to reform them that would help society.
- albertgoeswoof 8y ago
  But you have to let them out at some point. The longer they’re in the more likely they’re going to be to commit crime when they do leave.
  - themihai 8y ago
    Without some rehabilitation programs chances are that they will get back to prison regardless of how long or short it's their stay. I guess the gov has to decide if it's worth to pay for rehabilitation or just keep them in jails. The latter is easier to implement and to sell.
    - albertgoeswoof 8y ago
      Re-offending rates are lower in counties that do provide rehabilitation rates, it’s pretty well known. So the US government is wrong on this point if that’s what they’re judging against. Most people in positions of influence aren’t stupid though- clearly there is something else swaying the decision. I would imagine that for-profit prisons are probably the root cause.
  - a1369209993 8y ago
    > But you have to let them out at some point. The idea behind "tough on crime" is that actually, you don't: A nineteen-year-old mugged some people to pay for food/drugs/I'll-ask-my-caddie's-chauffeur-what-else-poor-people-spend-money-on? Great! We can use them as slave labor on and off for the rest of their life, and the less opprotunities for "off", the better.
seanmcdirmid 8y ago
Well, to be fair, the UK isn't awash in numerous cheap guns either. I agree with the sentiment, but there are plenty of things that more significantly affect the UK/USA's crime rate than deterrence via incarceration.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
betterunix2 8y ago
The problem in the US is that there was a period of time, still somewhat ongoing, where politicians could score a few points by promising to be "tough on crime." George H. W. Bush once went on TV to say that if longer sentences and mandatory minimum sentences meant paying for more prisons, we would pay for more prisons. One of the worst things about tough on crime politics is the feedback loop it creates -- if your opponent is tough on crime, you would have to be even more tough on crime, so the concept spread across the political spectrum (Charles Schumer is a proud "law enforcement hawk").
- aaron-lebo 8y ago
  This is easy to observe in judicial elections where said judges get tough prior to elections. But there's more to it than that. The US system doesn't rehabilitate prisoners well, so letting a person who was committing armed robbery (this isn't a small offense, it's terrorizing innocent people) at 17 out at 22 isn't much better than letting them out at 27. The chance of recidivism is high, and so letting them out early is likely to backfire. You'll recall that Bush did successfully use recidivism against Dukakis in 88. He abused that to win politically, but the system failed somewhere.
  - extralego 8y ago
    I think “Rehabilitation” is probably a distraction. A mere chance might be all that they need, and America denies that to even people who have not committed a crime. The lack of social mobility means that regardless of what programs or mindsets one experiences in prison, they are all but forced right back into the same environment that put them there in the first place.
    - aaron-lebo 8y ago
      What you're saying is if there's a chance that someone is reformed, they should be given that chance. But the other possibility is that they aren't. If you're wrong on the first and keep them in longer than they need to be, that wastes their time and potential. If you're wrong on the second and they aren't changed you're putting someone else at risk (someone who is innocent). The probabilities aren't a coin flip. Someone committing armed robbery at 17 had issues. If you know your prison system not only doesn't solve those issues but probably exacerbates them, the odds are you put that person out at 22 (or however early) and not only will they not be changed, but they'll have met real criminals and have few options. That's reckless and people who didn't rob someone at gunpoint shouldn't have to deal with the risk. That's why if we aren't actually rehabilitating, you're basically playing with a loaded gun, which is why risk averse politicians and judges aren't going anywhere near that and by odds the "correct" choice. Rehabilitation isn't a distraction. You have an actual problem that you can solve by: locking them away (we do this), helping them to become productive (rehabilitation), or hoping they've changed. The last isn't a solution, it's trusting in human nature, which in this situation has already shown to be faulty.

Retric 8y ago

The idea is not a deterrent. The idea is if someone spends most of their life in prison they are not going to be able to commit crimes outside. Effective or not, the reasoning is fairly straightforward.

fwn 8y ago
A sentence has always a correcting, an deterring, a protecting and a vengeance component. (Not very educated on law though. That's what I learned in my mandatory philosophy of law class as an undergrad long ago.)
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  The US is very heavy on protecting and vengeance. There is no interest in correcting and it seems harsh sentences don't deter much either.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > A sentence has always a correcting, an deterring, a protecting and a vengeance component. No, those are among the different theories of the function(s) of criminal punishment. It is not the case that every criminal sentence incorporates all four as elements.
kwjenfo 8y ago
"Effective or not...". That's the problem. The sentence is vengeance. When he comes out of prison at 27, expect him to go back. But, I guess people are happy to spend billions of dollars to keep people in prisons than trying to reform them that would help society.
albertgoeswoof 8y ago
But you have to let them out at some point. The longer they’re in the more likely they’re going to be to commit crime when they do leave.
- themihai 8y ago
  Without some rehabilitation programs chances are that they will get back to prison regardless of how long or short it's their stay. I guess the gov has to decide if it's worth to pay for rehabilitation or just keep them in jails. The latter is easier to implement and to sell.
  - albertgoeswoof 8y ago
    Re-offending rates are lower in counties that do provide rehabilitation rates, it’s pretty well known. So the US government is wrong on this point if that’s what they’re judging against. Most people in positions of influence aren’t stupid though- clearly there is something else swaying the decision. I would imagine that for-profit prisons are probably the root cause.
- a1369209993 8y ago
  > But you have to let them out at some point. The idea behind "tough on crime" is that actually, you don't: A nineteen-year-old mugged some people to pay for food/drugs/I'll-ask-my-caddie's-chauffeur-what-else-poor-people-spend-money-on? Great! We can use them as slave labor on and off for the rest of their life, and the less opprotunities for "off", the better.

seanmcdirmid 8y ago

Well, to be fair, the UK isn't awash in numerous cheap guns either. I agree with the sentiment, but there are plenty of things that more significantly affect the UK/USA's crime rate than deterrence via incarceration.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

betterunix2 8y ago

The problem in the US is that there was a period of time, still somewhat ongoing, where politicians could score a few points by promising to be "tough on crime." George H. W. Bush once went on TV to say that if longer sentences and mandatory minimum sentences meant paying for more prisons, we would pay for more prisons. One of the worst things about tough on crime politics is the feedback loop it creates -- if your opponent is tough on crime, you would have to be even more tough on crime, so the concept spread across the political spectrum (Charles Schumer is a proud "law enforcement hawk").

aaron-lebo 8y ago
This is easy to observe in judicial elections where said judges get tough prior to elections. But there's more to it than that. The US system doesn't rehabilitate prisoners well, so letting a person who was committing armed robbery (this isn't a small offense, it's terrorizing innocent people) at 17 out at 22 isn't much better than letting them out at 27. The chance of recidivism is high, and so letting them out early is likely to backfire. You'll recall that Bush did successfully use recidivism against Dukakis in 88. He abused that to win politically, but the system failed somewhere.
- extralego 8y ago
  I think “Rehabilitation” is probably a distraction. A mere chance might be all that they need, and America denies that to even people who have not committed a crime. The lack of social mobility means that regardless of what programs or mindsets one experiences in prison, they are all but forced right back into the same environment that put them there in the first place.
  - aaron-lebo 8y ago
    What you're saying is if there's a chance that someone is reformed, they should be given that chance. But the other possibility is that they aren't. If you're wrong on the first and keep them in longer than they need to be, that wastes their time and potential. If you're wrong on the second and they aren't changed you're putting someone else at risk (someone who is innocent). The probabilities aren't a coin flip. Someone committing armed robbery at 17 had issues. If you know your prison system not only doesn't solve those issues but probably exacerbates them, the odds are you put that person out at 22 (or however early) and not only will they not be changed, but they'll have met real criminals and have few options. That's reckless and people who didn't rob someone at gunpoint shouldn't have to deal with the risk. That's why if we aren't actually rehabilitating, you're basically playing with a loaded gun, which is why risk averse politicians and judges aren't going anywhere near that and by odds the "correct" choice. Rehabilitation isn't a distraction. You have an actual problem that you can solve by: locking them away (we do this), helping them to become productive (rehabilitation), or hoping they've changed. The last isn't a solution, it's trusting in human nature, which in this situation has already shown to be faulty.