5 ms·

I'm super curious - do you feel that all those crimes you mentioned should have life sentences? 'cause I mean...if not, what was the point of the jail term? De

I'm super curious - do you feel that all those crimes you mentioned should have life sentences? 'cause I mean...if not, what was the point of the jail term? Depending on perspective, it might be rehabilitative, or it might be punitive, but either way, time served should equate to a clear record, no? If not, you're either saying they need further punishment, or you don't believe that they've been rehabilitated, in which case why were they let out?

tomjen3 6y ago
If you beat a man up such that he suffers lifelong injuries, it seems only fair to me that your punishment should also be life long. I don't think you should necessarily spend all that time in prison, but not having access to trusted jobs is not comparable to being in pain every day for the rest of your life. On the other hand, I wouldn't mind if more punishments were metered out in the form of community service.
- ajmurmann 6y ago
  This points to a cultural difference there that might be at the core the argument. In Europe prison has rehabilitation as one of it's goals. In the US it's almost entirely about punishment.
- larrywright 6y ago
  Your attitude towards someone convicted of a criminal act isn’t uncommon, but it’s short-sighted. If the judicial system determines that the appropriate punishment for a crime is X years, then at the end of that time they should be given a chance at a fresh start. There are limits, of course, perhaps you don’t want to give them a security clearance, or a job that requires carrying a gun. Someone convicted of molesting children should probably never hold a job that gives them contact with children. In the US at least, having a felony conviction (and the bar for that is not that high) is effectively a lifetime punishment. It’s incredibly difficult for someone with a felony conviction on their record to get a job with potential. That’s a big part of why the recidivism rate for felons is so high. They often don’t have many options to make a living.
  - murderfs 6y ago
    > If the judicial system determines that the appropriate punishment for a crime is X years, then at the end of that time they should be given a chance at a fresh start. This is a poor argument: the judicial system has also determined, by lack of prohibition, that it's appropriate for employers to discriminate based on criminal record.
    - larrywright 6y ago
      That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be changed.
      - murderfs 6y ago
        But that wasn't your argument!
        larrywright 6y ago
        > at the end of that time they should be given a chance at a fresh start It really was.
        thaumasiotes 6y ago
        It might have been something you were thinking, but it's pretty much the opposite of what you said.
    - lostcolony 6y ago
      'Determined that it's appropriate' is rather strong language for something the system simply does not universally address. In fact, EEOC guidance, and recent court cases, seem to indicate that were it brought in front of the courts, they would likely rule in favor of the plaintiffs (obviously with recent court packing by GOP that's more in question than it was a few years ago though). It's just that oftentimes, ex-criminals searching for jobs don't have the money to take such cases to court.
  - deleted 6y ago
- lostcolony 6y ago
  That's the "punitive" side of things. Certainly, it seems "fair" to ensure the punishment is equal to the crime, but fair isn't the same as just. Why don't you go Code of Hammurabi on someone, and inflict the same kind of injury? The logic still holds. Of course, it now requires people willing to commit torture and rape and the like, to equal the crime, but that's the logical conclusion of trying to be "fair". But even without taking it to its conclusion, I'd contend "fairness" as you define it there isn't necessarily the best outcome for society; an ex-hacker is probably an excellent choice when hiring for electronic security, an ex-robber an excellent choice for hiring for physical security, etc. Even a murderer can go on to great things that benefit society. I mean, hell, Miguel De Cervantes, author of Don Quixote, the first modern novel, wrote his first published work while in prison. The Birdman of Alcatraz (Robert Stroud), a murderer, published major works in ornithology, and found a cure for a bird disease. Rehabilitated criminals can still benefit all of us, as well as redeem themselves in their own eyes by doing good for themselves and their loved ones. But all that aside, you're saying you believe the additional punishment should be societal scorn carried out by vigilantes (i.e., average citizens deciding the person shouldn't hold a job even though they've paid the price the courts decided on)? That hardly seems just or 'fair'.
  - waterhouse 6y ago
    There is a rights-based approach in which (a) yes, someone inflicting a harm on you gives you the right to inflict a proportionate harm on them; (b) you can then go to them and threaten to inflict this harm, and usually get them to agree to pay you a fine instead, thus benefiting both of you. Labor could be used to substitute for a fine if someone can't pay, although I think in today's prisons the prisoners don't necessarily do work. There are problems. For example, breaking a professional tennis player's arm may be much more career-damaging, and arguably "worse", than breaking a professional chess player's arm; and excessive retaliation is itself a crime. In that case, it may be good to get a judge or some such to evaluate the severity before carrying out the retaliation. That also goes for judging the evidence—obviously, punishing someone for a crime they didn't commit is itself a crime. So one could imagine this turning into something at least vaguely resembling today's court system.
- worik 6y ago
  The state does more injustice in the name of "fairness" than almost any other agent for any ther reason. I have to say "almost" as there is the very rare criminal who is actually mean and targets people the way the state does. People denied access. Denied votes. Denied work. Denied the means to live.

tomjen3 6y ago

If you beat a man up such that he suffers lifelong injuries, it seems only fair to me that your punishment should also be life long. I don't think you should necessarily spend all that time in prison, but not having access to trusted jobs is not comparable to being in pain every day for the rest of your life. On the other hand, I wouldn't mind if more punishments were metered out in the form of community service.

ajmurmann 6y ago
This points to a cultural difference there that might be at the core the argument. In Europe prison has rehabilitation as one of it's goals. In the US it's almost entirely about punishment.
larrywright 6y ago
Your attitude towards someone convicted of a criminal act isn’t uncommon, but it’s short-sighted. If the judicial system determines that the appropriate punishment for a crime is X years, then at the end of that time they should be given a chance at a fresh start. There are limits, of course, perhaps you don’t want to give them a security clearance, or a job that requires carrying a gun. Someone convicted of molesting children should probably never hold a job that gives them contact with children. In the US at least, having a felony conviction (and the bar for that is not that high) is effectively a lifetime punishment. It’s incredibly difficult for someone with a felony conviction on their record to get a job with potential. That’s a big part of why the recidivism rate for felons is so high. They often don’t have many options to make a living.
- murderfs 6y ago
  > If the judicial system determines that the appropriate punishment for a crime is X years, then at the end of that time they should be given a chance at a fresh start. This is a poor argument: the judicial system has also determined, by lack of prohibition, that it's appropriate for employers to discriminate based on criminal record.
  - larrywright 6y ago
    That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be changed.
    - murderfs 6y ago
      But that wasn't your argument!
      - larrywright 6y ago
        > at the end of that time they should be given a chance at a fresh start It really was.
        thaumasiotes 6y ago
        It might have been something you were thinking, but it's pretty much the opposite of what you said.
  - lostcolony 6y ago
    'Determined that it's appropriate' is rather strong language for something the system simply does not universally address. In fact, EEOC guidance, and recent court cases, seem to indicate that were it brought in front of the courts, they would likely rule in favor of the plaintiffs (obviously with recent court packing by GOP that's more in question than it was a few years ago though). It's just that oftentimes, ex-criminals searching for jobs don't have the money to take such cases to court.
- deleted 6y ago
lostcolony 6y ago
That's the "punitive" side of things. Certainly, it seems "fair" to ensure the punishment is equal to the crime, but fair isn't the same as just. Why don't you go Code of Hammurabi on someone, and inflict the same kind of injury? The logic still holds. Of course, it now requires people willing to commit torture and rape and the like, to equal the crime, but that's the logical conclusion of trying to be "fair". But even without taking it to its conclusion, I'd contend "fairness" as you define it there isn't necessarily the best outcome for society; an ex-hacker is probably an excellent choice when hiring for electronic security, an ex-robber an excellent choice for hiring for physical security, etc. Even a murderer can go on to great things that benefit society. I mean, hell, Miguel De Cervantes, author of Don Quixote, the first modern novel, wrote his first published work while in prison. The Birdman of Alcatraz (Robert Stroud), a murderer, published major works in ornithology, and found a cure for a bird disease. Rehabilitated criminals can still benefit all of us, as well as redeem themselves in their own eyes by doing good for themselves and their loved ones. But all that aside, you're saying you believe the additional punishment should be societal scorn carried out by vigilantes (i.e., average citizens deciding the person shouldn't hold a job even though they've paid the price the courts decided on)? That hardly seems just or 'fair'.
- waterhouse 6y ago
  There is a rights-based approach in which (a) yes, someone inflicting a harm on you gives you the right to inflict a proportionate harm on them; (b) you can then go to them and threaten to inflict this harm, and usually get them to agree to pay you a fine instead, thus benefiting both of you. Labor could be used to substitute for a fine if someone can't pay, although I think in today's prisons the prisoners don't necessarily do work. There are problems. For example, breaking a professional tennis player's arm may be much more career-damaging, and arguably "worse", than breaking a professional chess player's arm; and excessive retaliation is itself a crime. In that case, it may be good to get a judge or some such to evaluate the severity before carrying out the retaliation. That also goes for judging the evidence—obviously, punishing someone for a crime they didn't commit is itself a crime. So one could imagine this turning into something at least vaguely resembling today's court system.
worik 6y ago
The state does more injustice in the name of "fairness" than almost any other agent for any ther reason. I have to say "almost" as there is the very rare criminal who is actually mean and targets people the way the state does. People denied access. Denied votes. Denied work. Denied the means to live.