19 ms·

I kind of understand it. From my experiences growing up around relatively hard stuff (first saw guns for sale in a backpack in 9th grade science class. This was

I kind of understand it. From my experiences growing up around relatively hard stuff (first saw guns for sale in a backpack in 9th grade science class. This was my closest friend at the time, and didn't seem weird to me at all.) Some of the people we knew, friends of friends, were cooking hard drugs, in their mid 30s etc. One of them, or many, "dating" my friends middle school sister. It didn't take much to get a gun in your face just to emphasize the results of a debate. With this setting in mind my claim is that there are persons who are operating at their neutral/healthy. Not matter how many years of good behavior or words or programming or songs .. nothing per my experience removes the low bar option for gun in face. So it's difficult for me. I know people turn things around. I have. I suppose it looks like a sort of spectrum with different gravities to good/bad behavior depending on so many factors.

tdfx 7y ago
I think this is what a lot of overly optimistic "rehabilitation" advocates miss. They seem to believe that if you provide just enough nurturing, opportunity, and understanding that people who act outside society's acceptable boundaries will be drawn back within them. They fail to recognize that you're not returning these people to something they deviated from, you have to create an entirely new worldview for them that they never had any experience with.
- mlyle 7y ago
  On the other hand, if you make reintegration to society impossible, and eventually release prisoners... you know the outcome you're going to get. Plenty of societies appear to do much better than the US at preventing recidivism and reforming criminals to productive members of society.
  - ddxxdd 7y ago
    I remember a common saying that's bandied about Hacker News: a 10x quantitative difference is a qualitative difference. Well, America's violent crime rate is 10 times higher than Europe's violent crime rate, so make of that what you will.
    - flattone 7y ago
      Parse attempt: there are too significant systemic, social differences to meaningfully compare process&results between countries.
      - maxerickson 7y ago
        Half the point is that systemic differences contribute to different outcomes, so lets change the system. What a sad rejoinder to argue that the system is a force of nature.
        mlyle 7y ago
        Some bits of the system we can change with effort. Urban poverty, etc, can improve. We can have a better criminal justice system. Some are cultural bits in subpopulations that are resistant to change; we can work on it, but it's not clear how much of an effect any intervention will have. There's some other structural ones that will be extremely difficult to change-- we have the some of the most dangerous places in the world next-door in Latin America.
- fiblye 7y ago
  That's true for some of them. There's also a very large number of people in prison who are legitimately good people, but made a mistake at some point or got pushed into a situation where they didn't have many good options. There are plenty of people who have no desire to commit any crime and won't once they're let out. A big problem is that prison is a black hole that's hard to return from, part of which is due to society's perception of everyone who gets locked up and the mental wasting away and lack of development once you're in there.
- maxerickson 7y ago
  It seems likely enough that they believe that nurturing, opportunity and understanding are going to contribute to building a new worldview. I mean, you aren't going to build trust by treating people poorly.
- DanBC 7y ago
  There's a lot more evidence for rehabilitation than there is for mass incarceration with brutal staff. There are of course some people who are so dangerous, so relentlessly violent, that they can never be released from prison. Does that mean we should be brutal to those people for all the years they're in prison? Why? What's that going to achieve? It doesn't stop them being violent, and it may well escalate their dangerous harmful behaviour in prison.

tdfx 7y ago

I think this is what a lot of overly optimistic "rehabilitation" advocates miss. They seem to believe that if you provide just enough nurturing, opportunity, and understanding that people who act outside society's acceptable boundaries will be drawn back within them. They fail to recognize that you're not returning these people to something they deviated from, you have to create an entirely new worldview for them that they never had any experience with.

mlyle 7y ago
On the other hand, if you make reintegration to society impossible, and eventually release prisoners... you know the outcome you're going to get. Plenty of societies appear to do much better than the US at preventing recidivism and reforming criminals to productive members of society.
- ddxxdd 7y ago
  I remember a common saying that's bandied about Hacker News: a 10x quantitative difference is a qualitative difference. Well, America's violent crime rate is 10 times higher than Europe's violent crime rate, so make of that what you will.
  - flattone 7y ago
    Parse attempt: there are too significant systemic, social differences to meaningfully compare process&results between countries.
    - maxerickson 7y ago
      Half the point is that systemic differences contribute to different outcomes, so lets change the system. What a sad rejoinder to argue that the system is a force of nature.
      - mlyle 7y ago
        Some bits of the system we can change with effort. Urban poverty, etc, can improve. We can have a better criminal justice system. Some are cultural bits in subpopulations that are resistant to change; we can work on it, but it's not clear how much of an effect any intervention will have. There's some other structural ones that will be extremely difficult to change-- we have the some of the most dangerous places in the world next-door in Latin America.
fiblye 7y ago
That's true for some of them. There's also a very large number of people in prison who are legitimately good people, but made a mistake at some point or got pushed into a situation where they didn't have many good options. There are plenty of people who have no desire to commit any crime and won't once they're let out. A big problem is that prison is a black hole that's hard to return from, part of which is due to society's perception of everyone who gets locked up and the mental wasting away and lack of development once you're in there.
maxerickson 7y ago
It seems likely enough that they believe that nurturing, opportunity and understanding are going to contribute to building a new worldview. I mean, you aren't going to build trust by treating people poorly.
DanBC 7y ago
There's a lot more evidence for rehabilitation than there is for mass incarceration with brutal staff. There are of course some people who are so dangerous, so relentlessly violent, that they can never be released from prison. Does that mean we should be brutal to those people for all the years they're in prison? Why? What's that going to achieve? It doesn't stop them being violent, and it may well escalate their dangerous harmful behaviour in prison.