4 ms·

While I do see and, to some extent, feel the need for justice to inflict negative consequences on wrongdoers, my overall preference is for the system to work to

While I do see and, to some extent, feel the need for justice to inflict negative consequences on wrongdoers, my overall preference is for the system to work towards preventing harm to society. > Some people cannot be reformed. Should they be in jail forever? With the caveat that it depends on the crime, yes. If someone is shoplifting a candy bar once a month, it's not worth it to lock them up forever. If they're killing someone once a month, then yes. Somewhere in there is a (big) grey area where the cost to society vs their actions have an equal value. > Many people who commit crime are in fact not criminal at all. Many, many people are 'caught up in the moment' unlikely to do such a thing ever again. It's not about if they're "criminals" or not. If they cannot control their behavior and are likely to keep losing control (causing damage to society), then they get locked up. It's worth noting that locking someone up in a place that prevents them from doing damage, but isn't necessarily unpleasant, is reasonable too. Assuming a good mental facility, putting someone in it because they are a danger to society even though they don't want to be... in theory that's how things work now and it's a good one.

zamalek 8y ago
I really don't judge people for siding with penitentiary because it's part of a cycle: people want vindictive justice, the system upholds vindictive justice and politicians campaign for it, people learn that vindictive justice is the only solution. It's like trying to argue decriminalization of marijuana in the 1960s: people simply haven't started considering other options. More and more I'm starting to believe that crimes are a "disease." Addiction (and locking up of addicts) is a common debate, but a lack of education can be "treated" and "cured" too. So can discipline and motivational problems. There are some problems that cannot be treated (they definitely exist), and those should be dealt with differently. > and are likely to keep losing control (causing damage to society), then they get locked up. Exactly, this is the caveat that I briefly mentioned. There are four functions of prisons [according to me]: 1. Penitentiary: execute justice on those who have harmed society. The victims may feel a sense of justice before the perpetrator is released, or executed. I've succeeded at petty revenge in the past and felt worse about the situation, so I really don't think this works. 2. Correctional: rehabilitate those who have harmed society. The perpetrator must feel a sense of remorse before being released. 3. Protective: lock the perpetrator away forever. Ideally figure out how to provide them with a meaningful life behind walls. The perpetrator is too dangerous to other individuals in society. 4. Psychiatric: lock the perpetrator away until some mental/medical condition is resolved. This could be for their own protection (suicide), or the protection of others (insanity). If the medical condition cannot be resolved (i.e. psychopathy) then society needs to be protected from this individual. Correctional services seem to be foreign to most people, as so few countries implement it. Norway's mostly successful correctional system[1] changed my mind, but at one point correctional services definitely was a foreign concept to me. If others continue to believe that penitentiary is the answer after I've made my point, then I have failed at making my point. "Living with guilt" vs. "dying/prison as the easy way out" has often worked, so far as getting people to at least think about alternatives, even though I don't exactly feel that way about the situation. [1]: https://www.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful-2014-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is...
- mLuby 8y ago
  Viewing it as a disease is fine, but then crime should be viewed as a communicable disease, both in the sense that seeing someone commit (and get away with) a crime increases the likelihood that you'll do it, and also because the disease does not only harm the host but also those around them. Normally we quarantine people with communicable diseases when possible, which ends up looking a lot like prison…
  - zamalek 8y ago
    What a good point! Thanks for the food for thought.
- Haga 8y ago
  I disagree on the locked away for forever on insanity charges. People who loose permanently there freedom should have all rights and ability that are non-threatening. Means no physical freedom but a online presence for example.
  - zamalek 8y ago
    But I mentioned that with "meaningful life."

zamalek 8y ago

I really don't judge people for siding with penitentiary because it's part of a cycle: people want vindictive justice, the system upholds vindictive justice and politicians campaign for it, people learn that vindictive justice is the only solution. It's like trying to argue decriminalization of marijuana in the 1960s: people simply haven't started considering other options. More and more I'm starting to believe that crimes are a "disease." Addiction (and locking up of addicts) is a common debate, but a lack of education can be "treated" and "cured" too. So can discipline and motivational problems. There are some problems that cannot be treated (they definitely exist), and those should be dealt with differently. > and are likely to keep losing control (causing damage to society), then they get locked up. Exactly, this is the caveat that I briefly mentioned. There are four functions of prisons [according to me]: 1. Penitentiary: execute justice on those who have harmed society. The victims may feel a sense of justice before the perpetrator is released, or executed. I've succeeded at petty revenge in the past and felt worse about the situation, so I really don't think this works. 2. Correctional: rehabilitate those who have harmed society. The perpetrator must feel a sense of remorse before being released. 3. Protective: lock the perpetrator away forever. Ideally figure out how to provide them with a meaningful life behind walls. The perpetrator is too dangerous to other individuals in society. 4. Psychiatric: lock the perpetrator away until some mental/medical condition is resolved. This could be for their own protection (suicide), or the protection of others (insanity). If the medical condition cannot be resolved (i.e. psychopathy) then society needs to be protected from this individual. Correctional services seem to be foreign to most people, as so few countries implement it. Norway's mostly successful correctional system[1] changed my mind, but at one point correctional services definitely was a foreign concept to me. If others continue to believe that penitentiary is the answer after I've made my point, then I have failed at making my point. "Living with guilt" vs. "dying/prison as the easy way out" has often worked, so far as getting people to at least think about alternatives, even though I don't exactly feel that way about the situation. [1]: https://www.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful-2014-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is...

mLuby 8y ago
Viewing it as a disease is fine, but then crime should be viewed as a communicable disease, both in the sense that seeing someone commit (and get away with) a crime increases the likelihood that you'll do it, and also because the disease does not only harm the host but also those around them. Normally we quarantine people with communicable diseases when possible, which ends up looking a lot like prison…
- zamalek 8y ago
  What a good point! Thanks for the food for thought.
Haga 8y ago
I disagree on the locked away for forever on insanity charges. People who loose permanently there freedom should have all rights and ability that are non-threatening. Means no physical freedom but a online presence for example.
- zamalek 8y ago
  But I mentioned that with "meaningful life."