8 ms·

> and that really should be the only point for prisons (protect the public) That's not true. Our prisons should protect the public, rehabilitate prisoners in

by JackFr 6y ago

> and that really should be the only point for prisons (protect the public) That's not true. Our prisons should protect the public, rehabilitate prisoners in so far as they can, and, to an appropriate extent, punish. Some people are skittish about the idea of punsihment. But it's abhorrent to our sense of justice that one suffer no consequences after committing a crime. Now in general I think our prisons and sentencing guidelines to a pretty terrible job at all three of these things but that is another story altogether.

cnity 6y ago
> it's abhorrent to our sense of justice that one suffer no consequences after committing a crime This is interesting, philosophically speaking. Why do you say this is so? To what end is the suffering, purely for the sake of the suffering itself, valuable? If it's at odds with the rehabilitation, which should take precedence?
- pnutjam 6y ago
  sounded like more of an observation to me, seems accurate too.
- smaddox 6y ago
  Or, from another perspective, what makes one think that forced confinement and ostracisation does not qualify as sufficient "consequences"? In a fundamental sense, this is the greatest punishment that can be given to a human being. We are incredibly social creatures.
  - 1234letshaveatw 6y ago
    I think most would say it does qualify. That was their point- that the goal of incarceration is not only protection, but it (rightfully) serves as punishment.
Arubis 6y ago
> Some people are skittish about the idea of punsihment. But it's abhorrent to our sense of justice that one suffer no consequences after committing a crime. I suspect this is the majority view, but it’s not universal. I’m pointing this out not to argue with you directly so much as to point out that this may be more _your_ sense of justice than a general rule of human nature.
- gdy 6y ago
  Just wait until someone you love gets murdered or maimed.
  - Arubis 6y ago
    This is illustrative of how having a bias pointed out can be perceived as a threat, and responded to in kind.
    - MarkusQ 6y ago
      I doubt that was intended as a threat (though I can see how you might read it that way). Instead, I believe I was an attempt to point out to you that an accusation of bias can go both ways, and that your view of what was typical/normal would change if your circumstances did. If you were taking some position about money management and the response was "Yeah, just wait until you when the lottery" you wouldn't see this as a threat. Try reading it in that sense.
    - gdy 6y ago
      That wasn't pointing a bias out, that was just an unsubstantiated statement. The rest in your comment is just your perception and projection of your perception.
  - piva00 6y ago
    Emotional responses shouldn't trump your sense of justice and fairness to human life. I have someone that was close to me murdered and I don't think that a harsher punishment only for my enjoyment is the answer to "what is justice?".
skummetmaelk 6y ago
> Our prisons should protect the public If this is priority number one then rehabilitation follows from that. Rehabilitating prisoners to minimize the risk of relapse and continued danger upon release to society carries the greatest benefit for protecting the interests of the public as a whole. You can argue that locking people away forever is better for protecting the public, but that is ludicrously expensive and deprives the public of tax dollars that could go to improving public interests such as a strong economy. Releasing prisoners and letting them work also boosts the economy. Provided that the risk of them relapsing to anti-social criminal behavior is so small that the expected benefit is larger than the detriment. The feeling of justice being served and retribution is not very productive. For sure there must be consequences, but the consequences should benefit society and serve to prevent criminal behavior in the first place rather than satisfy the victim's insatiable hunger for revenge.
save_ferris 6y ago
In my observations of the American public, people generally seem to be fine with the extreme sentences and punishment that the system doles out. We’re completely apathetic towards most criminals (usually unless they happen to be rich & white), without understanding the circumstances that created their situation. Take the Crystal Mason case. She’s a Texas woman of color who voted illegally in the 2016 election and got a 5 year prison sentence[0]. The problem was that her parole officer never told her she was ineligible to vote, so she went to the polls thinking that she was doing so legally. Now, not knowing what you’re doing is a crime isn’t a legally sound defense argument, but it does raise serious questions about how we view punishment and those we deem should be punished. While I don’t think that crimes shouldn’t be punished, 5 years for voting mistakenly is an abhorrent sentence, and serves to further divide power between the rich and poor. 0: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/31/598458914/texas-woman-sentenced-to-5-years-for-illegal-voting https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/31/598458914...
- crazypython 6y ago
  > Now, not knowing what you’re doing is a crime isn’t a legally sound defense argument, but it does raise serious questions about how we view punishment and those we deem should be punished. Isn't it a Mens Rea defense?
  - jki275 6y ago
    Many crimes do not require intent, they're strict liability. Some do.
    - thaumasiotes 6y ago
      That distinction isn't relevant here. She had mens rea -- she knew she was voting. She didn't know she was breaking the law.
      - lebuffon 6y ago
        Fascinating to me that it is humanly impossible for any individual to remember ALL the laws yet ignorance of the law is not a defence. :)
gorgoiler 6y ago
The mechanism and reasoning behind protection and rehabilitation are simple enough to understand. With the punishment component in this model I imagine the aim is to dissuade rational people from committing crime in the first place? Is it also to assuage the specific anger of the victims, or the abstract anger of society as a whole, or does vengeance not play a part in the morality of punishment?
designdesign 6y ago
I've suffered some significant injustice at the hands of another, and for what it's worth their punishment has provided nothing for me. My experience has completely reversed my thinking about the way criminals are treated. Punishment compounds loss and has provided nothing to me or society. If prison could effectively protect society while providing rehabilitation I don't think any specific punishment would be necessary.
- JackFr 6y ago
  > and for what it's worth their punishment has provided nothing for me. That is why it is "The people vs. ..." and not "designdesign vs. ..." > Punishment compounds loss and has provided nothing to me or society. I think you need to convince society of that, rather than speaking for them. I look at a guy like Bernie Madoff, who poses no threat to the public now and is probably not likely to be rehabilitated in any traditional sense. But is simply offends for him to live out the rest of his live having hurt so many without some kind of punishment.
  - designdesign 6y ago
    You're right about convincing society, but American society has conflated vengeance with justice to the point that they may be inseparable concepts.
    - n4r9 6y ago
      This is the crux of it. It's not some fundamental human value to want harsh vengeance doled out for crimes. It's peculiar to the US and a few other countries.
    - marksweston 6y ago
      I think, in practice, "justice" has always been a mediated form of vengeance. The state maintains its monopoly on violence by extracting enough vengeance from criminals that individuals (i.e. victims or their families) are willing to subcontract revenge to the state. In other words, the "justice" system has to provide enough vengeance to retain the consent of the victims, or those offended on their behalf. The benefits to society are large; total violence is much lower once it's able to break the cycles of private retaliation and avoid endless bloodfeuds. But it is an uncomfortably pragmatic equation. I don't think there's any other consistent way to look at the issue though. Treating murder as the ultimate crime, as almost all justice systems do, makes sense in terms of the cost to the victim and the desire of societies as a whole to see murderers punished. But most murders are unplanned, and most murderers are no more likely to murder again than any other member of the population. Given the above, long sentences for (unpremeditated) murder just do not make sense; they probably have little value either as deterrence or prevention, and they certainly don't rehabilitate. But would a victim's associates stand idly by if their murderer was free after five years?
minikites 6y ago
>to an appropriate extent, punish. What's the overall goal of punishment? We know it's not a deterrent to crime. We know it doesn't help recidivism rates. The only remaining reason I can think of is spite/hate.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  Or, a sense of justice. A powerful emotion in people. Who know how many more criminals there might be, if punishment was off the table? Recidivism doesn't count that. So there's that social pressure too. Its pretty easy to figure out 'why punishment', if you try.
  - rswail 6y ago
    Who knows how many fewer criminals there might be, if social safety nets, providing for people's basic needs of food, shelter, health care and education? How do you cure homelessness? You provide homes. How do you deal with mental and physical illness? You provide health care. How do you give people are path forwards? You provide education. All of these things are what our societies are for. To carry on about "law and order" and even the "rule of law" without also quoting the part about "promote the general welfare" is to completely miss the purpose.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      We should certainly provide all of those things. But even homeless people, ill people, people with no direction in life can and should avoid committing crimes.
  - rfrey 6y ago
    It's pretty easy to figure out 'why we shouldn't focus on revenge', if you try. edit: I may be guilty of not listening to what you're actually saying. If you're saying there is something in the core of people that is delighted by revenge, therefore the current system, I agree. If you are saying that justifies a focus on punishment, I disagree.
rswail 6y ago
The appropriate extent of punishment is that you are not allowed your freedom. You are restrained from engaging in society. However, currently, in the US, prisoners are a) primarily incarcerated for non-violent crime, b) used as indentured servants with their labor sold without freedom to withdraw their labor, c) kept in prison beyond reasonable and appropriate sentences to provide the private and public purse of people's taxes paying the prison complex and their labor for profit.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  > prisoners are a) primarily incarcerated for non-violent crime You need to be careful about the difference between "of people sentenced to prison, how many were sentenced for a nonviolent crime?" and "of people currently in prison, how many are serving a sentence for a nonviolent crime?". Only the first question will tell you that prisoners are primarily incarcerated for nonviolent crime. This is a result of sentences for nonviolent crimes being much lighter than sentences for violent crimes.
fsloth 6y ago
It's very interesting people would want prisons to punish people. It is known that justice systems are fallible. To demand explicit punishment as part of prison service is equivalent of saying "It's ok if lot of innocent people are punished as long as it is made sure all guilty are punished as well".
nix23 6y ago
>rehabilitate prisoners Yes that's what i mean with do/learn, give them the tools so they can live a good and legal life after prison. >to an appropriate extent, punish I think that's already included in the package..when they take away your freedom.
- abnry 6y ago
  What do you do when someone refuses to be rehabilitated? There is real evil in the world and people who are happy to break the rules of society again and again and again.
  - nix23 6y ago
    Then they have to stay inside prison or closed psychiatry, absolutely. Like i wrote prisons a here to protect the public, closed psychiatry's to protect the public or the prisoner/patient from themselves. Some guy with pointy ears said once: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
wwweston 6y ago
> Some people are skittish about the idea of punsihment. But it's abhorrent to our sense of justice that one suffer no consequences after committing a crime. Consequences could be restoration and responsibility instead of mere punishment. Still, let's say punishment has a place for some severe crimes where restoration/responsibility isn't possible or for people who will not cooperate. Imprisonment itself is punitive -- there should be no better time that the entire public should understand fully that the loss of freedom and opportunity and association involved in confinement is no small one, because almost all of us have gotten a small taste of what that's like, and some people have found it difficult even when it's their own homes stocked with their own possessions and comforts. Can we really justify the degree to which we create further suffering beyond the consequences of imprisonment itself? And if these consequences aren't actually written into the law -- which specifies imprisonment, but not necessarily isolation, or $.05 per email, or informal violence in prison -- can we really said to be a society based on law or justice?

by JackFr 6y ago

cnity 6y ago

> it's abhorrent to our sense of justice that one suffer no consequences after committing a crime This is interesting, philosophically speaking. Why do you say this is so? To what end is the suffering, purely for the sake of the suffering itself, valuable? If it's at odds with the rehabilitation, which should take precedence?

pnutjam 6y ago
sounded like more of an observation to me, seems accurate too.
smaddox 6y ago
Or, from another perspective, what makes one think that forced confinement and ostracisation does not qualify as sufficient "consequences"? In a fundamental sense, this is the greatest punishment that can be given to a human being. We are incredibly social creatures.
- 1234letshaveatw 6y ago
  I think most would say it does qualify. That was their point- that the goal of incarceration is not only protection, but it (rightfully) serves as punishment.

Arubis 6y ago

> Some people are skittish about the idea of punsihment. But it's abhorrent to our sense of justice that one suffer no consequences after committing a crime. I suspect this is the majority view, but it’s not universal. I’m pointing this out not to argue with you directly so much as to point out that this may be more _your_ sense of justice than a general rule of human nature.

gdy 6y ago
Just wait until someone you love gets murdered or maimed.
- Arubis 6y ago
  This is illustrative of how having a bias pointed out can be perceived as a threat, and responded to in kind.
  - MarkusQ 6y ago
    I doubt that was intended as a threat (though I can see how you might read it that way). Instead, I believe I was an attempt to point out to you that an accusation of bias can go both ways, and that your view of what was typical/normal would change if your circumstances did. If you were taking some position about money management and the response was "Yeah, just wait until you when the lottery" you wouldn't see this as a threat. Try reading it in that sense.
  - gdy 6y ago
    That wasn't pointing a bias out, that was just an unsubstantiated statement. The rest in your comment is just your perception and projection of your perception.
- piva00 6y ago
  Emotional responses shouldn't trump your sense of justice and fairness to human life. I have someone that was close to me murdered and I don't think that a harsher punishment only for my enjoyment is the answer to "what is justice?".

skummetmaelk 6y ago

> Our prisons should protect the public If this is priority number one then rehabilitation follows from that. Rehabilitating prisoners to minimize the risk of relapse and continued danger upon release to society carries the greatest benefit for protecting the interests of the public as a whole. You can argue that locking people away forever is better for protecting the public, but that is ludicrously expensive and deprives the public of tax dollars that could go to improving public interests such as a strong economy. Releasing prisoners and letting them work also boosts the economy. Provided that the risk of them relapsing to anti-social criminal behavior is so small that the expected benefit is larger than the detriment. The feeling of justice being served and retribution is not very productive. For sure there must be consequences, but the consequences should benefit society and serve to prevent criminal behavior in the first place rather than satisfy the victim's insatiable hunger for revenge.

save_ferris 6y ago

In my observations of the American public, people generally seem to be fine with the extreme sentences and punishment that the system doles out. We’re completely apathetic towards most criminals (usually unless they happen to be rich & white), without understanding the circumstances that created their situation. Take the Crystal Mason case. She’s a Texas woman of color who voted illegally in the 2016 election and got a 5 year prison sentence[0]. The problem was that her parole officer never told her she was ineligible to vote, so she went to the polls thinking that she was doing so legally. Now, not knowing what you’re doing is a crime isn’t a legally sound defense argument, but it does raise serious questions about how we view punishment and those we deem should be punished. While I don’t think that crimes shouldn’t be punished, 5 years for voting mistakenly is an abhorrent sentence, and serves to further divide power between the rich and poor. 0: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/31/598458914/texas-woman-sentenced-to-5-years-for-illegal-voting https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/31/598458914...

crazypython 6y ago
> Now, not knowing what you’re doing is a crime isn’t a legally sound defense argument, but it does raise serious questions about how we view punishment and those we deem should be punished. Isn't it a Mens Rea defense?
- jki275 6y ago
  Many crimes do not require intent, they're strict liability. Some do.
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    That distinction isn't relevant here. She had mens rea -- she knew she was voting. She didn't know she was breaking the law.
    - lebuffon 6y ago
      Fascinating to me that it is humanly impossible for any individual to remember ALL the laws yet ignorance of the law is not a defence. :)

gorgoiler 6y ago

The mechanism and reasoning behind protection and rehabilitation are simple enough to understand. With the punishment component in this model I imagine the aim is to dissuade rational people from committing crime in the first place? Is it also to assuage the specific anger of the victims, or the abstract anger of society as a whole, or does vengeance not play a part in the morality of punishment?

designdesign 6y ago

I've suffered some significant injustice at the hands of another, and for what it's worth their punishment has provided nothing for me. My experience has completely reversed my thinking about the way criminals are treated. Punishment compounds loss and has provided nothing to me or society. If prison could effectively protect society while providing rehabilitation I don't think any specific punishment would be necessary.

JackFr 6y ago
> and for what it's worth their punishment has provided nothing for me. That is why it is "The people vs. ..." and not "designdesign vs. ..." > Punishment compounds loss and has provided nothing to me or society. I think you need to convince society of that, rather than speaking for them. I look at a guy like Bernie Madoff, who poses no threat to the public now and is probably not likely to be rehabilitated in any traditional sense. But is simply offends for him to live out the rest of his live having hurt so many without some kind of punishment.
- designdesign 6y ago
  You're right about convincing society, but American society has conflated vengeance with justice to the point that they may be inseparable concepts.
  - n4r9 6y ago
    This is the crux of it. It's not some fundamental human value to want harsh vengeance doled out for crimes. It's peculiar to the US and a few other countries.
  - marksweston 6y ago
    I think, in practice, "justice" has always been a mediated form of vengeance. The state maintains its monopoly on violence by extracting enough vengeance from criminals that individuals (i.e. victims or their families) are willing to subcontract revenge to the state. In other words, the "justice" system has to provide enough vengeance to retain the consent of the victims, or those offended on their behalf. The benefits to society are large; total violence is much lower once it's able to break the cycles of private retaliation and avoid endless bloodfeuds. But it is an uncomfortably pragmatic equation. I don't think there's any other consistent way to look at the issue though. Treating murder as the ultimate crime, as almost all justice systems do, makes sense in terms of the cost to the victim and the desire of societies as a whole to see murderers punished. But most murders are unplanned, and most murderers are no more likely to murder again than any other member of the population. Given the above, long sentences for (unpremeditated) murder just do not make sense; they probably have little value either as deterrence or prevention, and they certainly don't rehabilitate. But would a victim's associates stand idly by if their murderer was free after five years?

minikites 6y ago

>to an appropriate extent, punish. What's the overall goal of punishment? We know it's not a deterrent to crime. We know it doesn't help recidivism rates. The only remaining reason I can think of is spite/hate.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Or, a sense of justice. A powerful emotion in people. Who know how many more criminals there might be, if punishment was off the table? Recidivism doesn't count that. So there's that social pressure too. Its pretty easy to figure out 'why punishment', if you try.
- rswail 6y ago
  Who knows how many fewer criminals there might be, if social safety nets, providing for people's basic needs of food, shelter, health care and education? How do you cure homelessness? You provide homes. How do you deal with mental and physical illness? You provide health care. How do you give people are path forwards? You provide education. All of these things are what our societies are for. To carry on about "law and order" and even the "rule of law" without also quoting the part about "promote the general welfare" is to completely miss the purpose.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    We should certainly provide all of those things. But even homeless people, ill people, people with no direction in life can and should avoid committing crimes.
- rfrey 6y ago
  It's pretty easy to figure out 'why we shouldn't focus on revenge', if you try. edit: I may be guilty of not listening to what you're actually saying. If you're saying there is something in the core of people that is delighted by revenge, therefore the current system, I agree. If you are saying that justifies a focus on punishment, I disagree.

rswail 6y ago

The appropriate extent of punishment is that you are not allowed your freedom. You are restrained from engaging in society. However, currently, in the US, prisoners are a) primarily incarcerated for non-violent crime, b) used as indentured servants with their labor sold without freedom to withdraw their labor, c) kept in prison beyond reasonable and appropriate sentences to provide the private and public purse of people's taxes paying the prison complex and their labor for profit.

thaumasiotes 6y ago
> prisoners are a) primarily incarcerated for non-violent crime You need to be careful about the difference between "of people sentenced to prison, how many were sentenced for a nonviolent crime?" and "of people currently in prison, how many are serving a sentence for a nonviolent crime?". Only the first question will tell you that prisoners are primarily incarcerated for nonviolent crime. This is a result of sentences for nonviolent crimes being much lighter than sentences for violent crimes.

fsloth 6y ago

It's very interesting people would want prisons to punish people. It is known that justice systems are fallible. To demand explicit punishment as part of prison service is equivalent of saying "It's ok if lot of innocent people are punished as long as it is made sure all guilty are punished as well".

nix23 6y ago

>rehabilitate prisoners Yes that's what i mean with do/learn, give them the tools so they can live a good and legal life after prison. >to an appropriate extent, punish I think that's already included in the package..when they take away your freedom.

abnry 6y ago
What do you do when someone refuses to be rehabilitated? There is real evil in the world and people who are happy to break the rules of society again and again and again.
- nix23 6y ago
  Then they have to stay inside prison or closed psychiatry, absolutely. Like i wrote prisons a here to protect the public, closed psychiatry's to protect the public or the prisoner/patient from themselves. Some guy with pointy ears said once: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

wwweston 6y ago

> Some people are skittish about the idea of punsihment. But it's abhorrent to our sense of justice that one suffer no consequences after committing a crime. Consequences could be restoration and responsibility instead of mere punishment. Still, let's say punishment has a place for some severe crimes where restoration/responsibility isn't possible or for people who will not cooperate. Imprisonment itself is punitive -- there should be no better time that the entire public should understand fully that the loss of freedom and opportunity and association involved in confinement is no small one, because almost all of us have gotten a small taste of what that's like, and some people have found it difficult even when it's their own homes stocked with their own possessions and comforts. Can we really justify the degree to which we create further suffering beyond the consequences of imprisonment itself? And if these consequences aren't actually written into the law -- which specifies imprisonment, but not necessarily isolation, or $.05 per email, or informal violence in prison -- can we really said to be a society based on law or justice?