4 ms·

And yeah, if someone who doesn’t have enough to eat steals from a grocery store we throw em in jail. I’d venture most people in prison were traumatized at some

And yeah, if someone who doesn’t have enough to eat steals from a grocery store we throw em in jail. I’d venture most people in prison were traumatized at some point. Take into account their circumstances. This is an educated privileged woman who defrauded everyone around her for years. I expect her to get community service, frankly. The only reason she’d end up in jail is that she took rich peoples money.

throwaway894345 6y ago
I agree with your broader point even if I think this characterization is exaggerated. The system is skewed toward the rich; however, I do think sentencing should factor in the likelihood of re-offending, and I would intuit that rich people (especially white-collar criminals) are less likely to re-offend due to some combination of greater fear of prison ("more to lose") and damage to their reputation ("people don't tend to trust fraudsters multiple times" though there are exceptions to every rule). Poorer people are probably more likely to re-offend due to systemic issues, and at least in my major US city we have a perennial problem of violent gun offenders being released after only a few months or years only to re-offend (typically disproportionately in poorer communities, perpetuating the poverty cycle). I very much doubt that differences in likelihood of re-offending account for the entire sentencing disparity between rich and poor; however, to the extent that it contributes to the disparity, we shouldn't try to solve for that gap by lightening sentences on account of poverty, but by addressing the upstream systemic issues (notably, lighter sentencing often perpetuates systemic issues, as with my anecdote about violent gun offenders).
- taurath 6y ago
  1st - is there actually a higher statistical likelihood of poor people reoffending? Rich people go to jail less often, so I’d imagine those that do might even have a higher rate. 2nd - if you wanted to drop the reoffense rate, as well as the offense rate, what would you do? Why aren’t we doing it?
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    1. I'm not sure. It's only my assumption, but it should definitely be verified. Obviously if the assumption is bad then my conclusion is no good. 2. Several broad categories of solutions spring to mind with their own tradeoffs: 2.1 Invest in rehabilitation. Difficulties are cost and probably political problems due to ignorance (or maybe I'm ignorant for my faith in rehabilitation?). 2.2 Longer sentencing (or rather require prisoners to serve more of their sentence more frequently, as opposed to early probation, etc). Downside is cost, ethics, and politics (a lot of well-meaning, typically upper- and upper-middle-class folks believe that longer sentences harms communities of color more than violent re-offenders, or rather they don't consider the costs of the latter). 2.3 Death penalty. Downside is ethics.
    - taurath 6y ago
      2.1 - What does "rehab" constitute? Crimes of need are not likely to go away unless people's situation improves. 2.2 - We punish more people for longer than anywhere else in the world. Our prison population backs that up. (https://www.apa.org/images/2014-10-incarceration-chart2_tcm7-176264_w1024_n.jpg https://www.apa.org/images/2014-10-incarceration-chart2_tcm7...). Its absolutely not the case that we get better outcomes. There's no evidence to support that longer sentences will solve anything. 2.3 - Has its own problems - a nontrivial amount of people are put to death who are later exonerated. Its costly. Its also not an effective deterrent Further reading: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/10/incarceration https://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/10/incarceration
      - throwaway894345 6y ago
        2.1 you said we were talking about reducing recidivism, not reducing crime overall. To reduce crime in general, I mentioned addressing the systemic upstream factors like poverty and inequality. 2.2 Point blank if you imprison people they aren’t a threat to society while they’re being held. It’s not a good idea IMO, but you didn’t ask for my preferred ideas. 2.3 right, like I said: ethics In general I think we’re agreeing, but your tone seems to suggest otherwise. Hopefully I’m just misreading.
- begemotz 6y ago
  >"however, I do think sentencing should factor in the likelihood of re-offending," This is very troubling thinking. The problem here is - not only are you sentencing them for future, 'possible' crimes but you are doing it on the basis of demographics - there are huge issues to consider here. And what would it buy that isn't accounted for by using something more individual and predictive of re-offending -- like whether (and how frequently) they have offended in the past -- which is used in sentencing guidelines?
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    You’re confusing correlation with causation. Sentencing someone because they are likely to reoffend will affect poor people differently than rich people in aggregate due to aforementioned systemic effects but it doesn’t follow that someone is being sentenced on the basis of their individual poverty or wealth.
- karmelapple 6y ago
  Holmes is reportedly looking to start a new company [1]. That’s necessary but insufficient conditions for her to re-offend, but if she doesn’t feel any significant personal consequences due to the fraud she committed at Theranos, why wouldn’t she try it again? [1] https://www.eonline.com/news/1026009/after-the-1-billion-downfall-what-elizabeth-holmes-and-the-theranos-team-are-up-to-now https://www.eonline.com/news/1026009/after-the-1-billion-dow...
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    I don’t know Holmes, but one could conceive of a person being afraid to go through her ordeal again but with a high probability of being caught (how is the SEC and everyone else not going to watch her like a hawk?) and a high probability of a harsher sentence. Of course we could psychoanalyze whichever way, although I would guess she will behave better this time around.

throwaway894345 6y ago

I agree with your broader point even if I think this characterization is exaggerated. The system is skewed toward the rich; however, I do think sentencing should factor in the likelihood of re-offending, and I would intuit that rich people (especially white-collar criminals) are less likely to re-offend due to some combination of greater fear of prison ("more to lose") and damage to their reputation ("people don't tend to trust fraudsters multiple times" though there are exceptions to every rule). Poorer people are probably more likely to re-offend due to systemic issues, and at least in my major US city we have a perennial problem of violent gun offenders being released after only a few months or years only to re-offend (typically disproportionately in poorer communities, perpetuating the poverty cycle). I very much doubt that differences in likelihood of re-offending account for the entire sentencing disparity between rich and poor; however, to the extent that it contributes to the disparity, we shouldn't try to solve for that gap by lightening sentences on account of poverty, but by addressing the upstream systemic issues (notably, lighter sentencing often perpetuates systemic issues, as with my anecdote about violent gun offenders).

taurath 6y ago
1st - is there actually a higher statistical likelihood of poor people reoffending? Rich people go to jail less often, so I’d imagine those that do might even have a higher rate. 2nd - if you wanted to drop the reoffense rate, as well as the offense rate, what would you do? Why aren’t we doing it?
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  1. I'm not sure. It's only my assumption, but it should definitely be verified. Obviously if the assumption is bad then my conclusion is no good. 2. Several broad categories of solutions spring to mind with their own tradeoffs: 2.1 Invest in rehabilitation. Difficulties are cost and probably political problems due to ignorance (or maybe I'm ignorant for my faith in rehabilitation?). 2.2 Longer sentencing (or rather require prisoners to serve more of their sentence more frequently, as opposed to early probation, etc). Downside is cost, ethics, and politics (a lot of well-meaning, typically upper- and upper-middle-class folks believe that longer sentences harms communities of color more than violent re-offenders, or rather they don't consider the costs of the latter). 2.3 Death penalty. Downside is ethics.
  - taurath 6y ago
    2.1 - What does "rehab" constitute? Crimes of need are not likely to go away unless people's situation improves. 2.2 - We punish more people for longer than anywhere else in the world. Our prison population backs that up. (https://www.apa.org/images/2014-10-incarceration-chart2_tcm7-176264_w1024_n.jpg https://www.apa.org/images/2014-10-incarceration-chart2_tcm7...). Its absolutely not the case that we get better outcomes. There's no evidence to support that longer sentences will solve anything. 2.3 - Has its own problems - a nontrivial amount of people are put to death who are later exonerated. Its costly. Its also not an effective deterrent Further reading: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/10/incarceration https://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/10/incarceration
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      2.1 you said we were talking about reducing recidivism, not reducing crime overall. To reduce crime in general, I mentioned addressing the systemic upstream factors like poverty and inequality. 2.2 Point blank if you imprison people they aren’t a threat to society while they’re being held. It’s not a good idea IMO, but you didn’t ask for my preferred ideas. 2.3 right, like I said: ethics In general I think we’re agreeing, but your tone seems to suggest otherwise. Hopefully I’m just misreading.
begemotz 6y ago
>"however, I do think sentencing should factor in the likelihood of re-offending," This is very troubling thinking. The problem here is - not only are you sentencing them for future, 'possible' crimes but you are doing it on the basis of demographics - there are huge issues to consider here. And what would it buy that isn't accounted for by using something more individual and predictive of re-offending -- like whether (and how frequently) they have offended in the past -- which is used in sentencing guidelines?
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  You’re confusing correlation with causation. Sentencing someone because they are likely to reoffend will affect poor people differently than rich people in aggregate due to aforementioned systemic effects but it doesn’t follow that someone is being sentenced on the basis of their individual poverty or wealth.
karmelapple 6y ago
Holmes is reportedly looking to start a new company [1]. That’s necessary but insufficient conditions for her to re-offend, but if she doesn’t feel any significant personal consequences due to the fraud she committed at Theranos, why wouldn’t she try it again? [1] https://www.eonline.com/news/1026009/after-the-1-billion-downfall-what-elizabeth-holmes-and-the-theranos-team-are-up-to-now https://www.eonline.com/news/1026009/after-the-1-billion-dow...
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  I don’t know Holmes, but one could conceive of a person being afraid to go through her ordeal again but with a high probability of being caught (how is the SEC and everyone else not going to watch her like a hawk?) and a high probability of a harsher sentence. Of course we could psychoanalyze whichever way, although I would guess she will behave better this time around.