5 ms·

Well it’s pretty clear that nicer prison cells don’t encourage recidivism when you look at the statistics. So basically it comes down to social drives/desires..

Well it’s pretty clear that nicer prison cells don’t encourage recidivism when you look at the statistics. So basically it comes down to social drives/desires... The will of the people has spoken and citizens of the USA _want_ to see inhumane prisons because they feel the inmates deserve it. I don’t even say that while standing on terribly high ground... Australian prisons are much closer to American ones than Norwegian ones... especially for non-white inmates. TLDR... Shits fucked and the thing I want most from the whole BLM 2020 protest movement is meaningful prison reform. Because it’s a long path to social reconciliation and meaningful integration... but it’s not anywhere near as long a road to prison reform.

aparsons 6y ago
Unpopular opinion: why do we need this? The people in prison are by and large human trash who have brought so much suffering to humanity. The quality of prisons in the US roughly correlates with the class of crime. I’d let it be.
- TheNorthman 6y ago
  Yeah. If you smoke weed, you deserve what you get.
  - aparsons 6y ago
    The legal system certainly need a change - and finally states are moving to decriminalize marijuana possession (as it should always have been). On the other hand, there are crimes where you should certainly be in prison. Hard to argue that a child molester or murderer should be living in great conditions off taxpayer dollars.
    - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
      I would argue that we should do whatever it takes to get them rehabilitated, so that when they rejoin society they don't continue their life of crime.
    - colejohnson66 6y ago
      And that’s the problem. Anytime someone brings up prison reform, the whole “child molesters” and “murderers” argument comes up to detract from the fact that the majority of people in prison are for minor crimes, not murder or child molestation. And if a majority were in prison for that, maybe there’s something wrong with the society.
      - throwaway201103 6y ago
        > the majority of people in prison are for minor crimes If you're talking about prison as in convicted and sentenced, I disagree. Prisons are overcrowded as it is. Minor/nonviolent criminals are not the ones serving time. If you're talking about jail as in people who are charged and awaiting trial, yes you will find more nonviolent offenders there and they may not be able to afford bail so they are stuck there. Even then in most places space is limited and first-time offenders and those seen as low risk are not held.
smt88 6y ago
> citizens of the USA _want_ to see inhumane prisons because they feel the inmates deserve it While I think that's true, I also think it's missing another major argument: that prison is a deterrent. I don't know enough to agree or disagree, but it's a big part of the discussion. My feeling is that Nordic countries can have nice prisons because their social safety net is so strong. Maybe they can argue that being a free, poor person in a Nordic country is still better than being in their prisons. The same is not true in the US, especially when you consider how harsh our culture is toward people who suffer from drug addiction. Abject poverty is much, much worse than the prisons in this tweet, and we don't have good non-criminal options for people who are both poor and deeply addicted to illegal drugs. You can imagine a poor person in the US (with or without an addiction) trying to steal from someone's house and ending up shooting someone. If they go to a dangerous, filthy prison, they're probably worse off than when they were free. If they go to a Nordic-style prison, their lifestyle has actually upgraded quite a lot. My understanding is that the latter option, the Nordic prison, would reduce their likelihood of having to resort to crime in the future. But the question is how much violent crime is deterred by fear of prison and whether the Nordic style of prisons would instill enough fear. I think I'm on the side of having nicer prisons, but I don't really know enough about it.
- Privacy846 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ajmurmann 6y ago
  Not a Nordic country, but the case still holds value: Japan apparently has a problem with lonely, old ladies doing minor crimes with the intention of going to prison where they are less lonely. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-03-16/japan-s-prisons-are-a-haven-for-elderly-women https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-03-16/japan-s-p... So there is a danger of prisons becoming too attractive. It's interesting though that the motivation isn't about creature comforts but about social connection. I wonder how much the reverse is true and not seeing your loved ones is a deterrent from prison. So much comes down to a healthy, connected society.
giantg2 6y ago
I think one of the biggest drivers in US prison conditions is cost. The percent of the population that is incarcerated is quite high. This would increase the per tax payer cost to support the system, while also shrinking tax revenue (people in prison generally aren't making money to pay tax on). I agree that reforms are needed. It would also be great to see a reduction in the incarceration rate by relying on other punitive measures when possible. And that people actual get a speedy trial instead of waiting years. And officers/judges actually following rule of law. I think the real root issue of all of this is that the majority of people have no idea or experience in how broken to system is. The idea that people deserve it, and even seen that many people don't laws/rights and simply assume someone charged is likely guilty.
- Privacy846 6y ago
  > I think the real root issue of all of this is that the majority of people have no idea or experience in how broken to system is. You think that the root issue is the majority of people who (according to you) have no idea how the system works, and thus are not at all involved in the system itself? How on earth does that make sense?
  - giantg2 6y ago
    How does it not make sense? I think you are underestimating the ignorance of public. Take poll of people. Most won't know that you have to wait years to get a trial. Most won't know that the majority of cases never make it to trial and are resolved plea deals (some of which are innocent people pleading guilty to avoid sitting in jail because they can't afford bail). Most won't know their civil rights (ask them about Brady vs MD, Miranda, the 4th ammendment, etc). How many do you think understand jury nullification? These people fund the system through their taxes. They sit on juries. They elect people who commit abuses and allow abuses to happen. Even the ones who have been a victim of the system may not know it, the extent that it is common, or the other parts of the system they have not experienced. For example, you could have a summary offense filed against you and the officer might amend the charge at the trial. If you aren't given a continuance, then it could violate your rights. If the change was made because the officer made a mistake and you didn't realize/understand it, if he will possible lie to the judge and say the change was for leniency (concealment of exculpatory evidence). At the very least, you wouldn't witness prison conditions for most summary offenses. For reference, approximately 8% of the population has been convicted of a felony and less than half of them have served time in prison. So the people with firsthand prison experience will be quite low (guessing less than 10%, but couldn't find those numbers).
Privacy846 6y ago
The will of the people is besides the point. The policy preferences of the bottom 90% of the US population are not reflected _at all_ in actual policy making (a Princeton study from some years back). Edit: maybe this was it: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  It's impossible to demonstrate that - to what extent the population drives policy and practice in all matters in which the state has a hand is just too socially complex.
  - Privacy846 6y ago
    [deleted]
    - rayiner 6y ago
      It’s extremely difficult to model what people actually want. Stated policy preferences change dramatically when you go from the general to the specific and ask people to make specific trade-offs. For example: https://reason.com/2014/07/10/millennials-prefer-small-government-if-2/ https://reason.com/2014/07/10/millennials-prefer-small-gover... > At first glance millennials appear to prefer a "larger government providing more services" (54%) over a "smaller government providing few services" (43%). However, once tax rates are mentioned support for large government flips. Instead 57 percent favor "smaller government, providing fewer services, with low taxes" and 41 percent want "larger government providing more services, with high taxes." We also find that the race/ethnicity gap on the size of government disappears among Hispanic, Asian, and white millennials once tax rates are explicit. Most policy polls are useless, because they don’t ask voters what they’d be willing to pay or give up in another area for that particular policy. For example, support for universal healthcare plummets when you mention taxes and losing private insurance: > But the more revealing part of the survey, I think, comes from the questions focused on the costs of single payer, all of which caused support for Medicare for All to drop below 40 percent. Told that it would eliminate private health insurance and require people to pay more in taxes, for example, support fell to 37 percent. Told that it would cause some medical treatments and tests to be delayed, support dropped even further, to 26 percent. It’s also the case that in a Republican form of government, politicians are specifically charged with implementing specific policies that reflect the public’s hierarchy of preferences. Poll after poll shows the economy as the dominant concern of most voters. (Apart from this year when covid because a main concern.) People might, in the abstract say they favor taxing the wealthy and corporations more heavily. But when Election Day rolls around, they reward politicians (especially at the state and local level) who convinced a big corporation to move to their area and punish politicians who caused corporations to leave.
happytoexplain 6y ago
I don't see any way around the enormous hatred and desire to inflict suffering that many Americans have for anybody convicted of any crime that carries any prison term. As you said, to them it's all about what people "deserve", and that ideology is one of the most fundamental and powerful poisons in societies - a part of the id that civilized nations seek to keep out of the government's decisions. It's something straight out of the dark ages. I would never blame a person who wanted to inflict suffering on somebody who personally wronged them gravely enough, but to want that emotion enshrined in the system is immoral in the most extreme way. On this topic, I don't think it's unnecessarily dramatic or ad hominem to say that the viewpoint of many Americans is evil.

aparsons 6y ago

Unpopular opinion: why do we need this? The people in prison are by and large human trash who have brought so much suffering to humanity. The quality of prisons in the US roughly correlates with the class of crime. I’d let it be.

TheNorthman 6y ago
Yeah. If you smoke weed, you deserve what you get.
- aparsons 6y ago
  The legal system certainly need a change - and finally states are moving to decriminalize marijuana possession (as it should always have been). On the other hand, there are crimes where you should certainly be in prison. Hard to argue that a child molester or murderer should be living in great conditions off taxpayer dollars.
  - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
    I would argue that we should do whatever it takes to get them rehabilitated, so that when they rejoin society they don't continue their life of crime.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    And that’s the problem. Anytime someone brings up prison reform, the whole “child molesters” and “murderers” argument comes up to detract from the fact that the majority of people in prison are for minor crimes, not murder or child molestation. And if a majority were in prison for that, maybe there’s something wrong with the society.
    - throwaway201103 6y ago
      > the majority of people in prison are for minor crimes If you're talking about prison as in convicted and sentenced, I disagree. Prisons are overcrowded as it is. Minor/nonviolent criminals are not the ones serving time. If you're talking about jail as in people who are charged and awaiting trial, yes you will find more nonviolent offenders there and they may not be able to afford bail so they are stuck there. Even then in most places space is limited and first-time offenders and those seen as low risk are not held.

smt88 6y ago

> citizens of the USA _want_ to see inhumane prisons because they feel the inmates deserve it While I think that's true, I also think it's missing another major argument: that prison is a deterrent. I don't know enough to agree or disagree, but it's a big part of the discussion. My feeling is that Nordic countries can have nice prisons because their social safety net is so strong. Maybe they can argue that being a free, poor person in a Nordic country is still better than being in their prisons. The same is not true in the US, especially when you consider how harsh our culture is toward people who suffer from drug addiction. Abject poverty is much, much worse than the prisons in this tweet, and we don't have good non-criminal options for people who are both poor and deeply addicted to illegal drugs. You can imagine a poor person in the US (with or without an addiction) trying to steal from someone's house and ending up shooting someone. If they go to a dangerous, filthy prison, they're probably worse off than when they were free. If they go to a Nordic-style prison, their lifestyle has actually upgraded quite a lot. My understanding is that the latter option, the Nordic prison, would reduce their likelihood of having to resort to crime in the future. But the question is how much violent crime is deterred by fear of prison and whether the Nordic style of prisons would instill enough fear. I think I'm on the side of having nicer prisons, but I don't really know enough about it.

Privacy846 6y ago
[deleted]
ajmurmann 6y ago
Not a Nordic country, but the case still holds value: Japan apparently has a problem with lonely, old ladies doing minor crimes with the intention of going to prison where they are less lonely. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-03-16/japan-s-prisons-are-a-haven-for-elderly-women https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-03-16/japan-s-p... So there is a danger of prisons becoming too attractive. It's interesting though that the motivation isn't about creature comforts but about social connection. I wonder how much the reverse is true and not seeing your loved ones is a deterrent from prison. So much comes down to a healthy, connected society.

giantg2 6y ago

I think one of the biggest drivers in US prison conditions is cost. The percent of the population that is incarcerated is quite high. This would increase the per tax payer cost to support the system, while also shrinking tax revenue (people in prison generally aren't making money to pay tax on). I agree that reforms are needed. It would also be great to see a reduction in the incarceration rate by relying on other punitive measures when possible. And that people actual get a speedy trial instead of waiting years. And officers/judges actually following rule of law. I think the real root issue of all of this is that the majority of people have no idea or experience in how broken to system is. The idea that people deserve it, and even seen that many people don't laws/rights and simply assume someone charged is likely guilty.

Privacy846 6y ago
> I think the real root issue of all of this is that the majority of people have no idea or experience in how broken to system is. You think that the root issue is the majority of people who (according to you) have no idea how the system works, and thus are not at all involved in the system itself? How on earth does that make sense?
- giantg2 6y ago
  How does it not make sense? I think you are underestimating the ignorance of public. Take poll of people. Most won't know that you have to wait years to get a trial. Most won't know that the majority of cases never make it to trial and are resolved plea deals (some of which are innocent people pleading guilty to avoid sitting in jail because they can't afford bail). Most won't know their civil rights (ask them about Brady vs MD, Miranda, the 4th ammendment, etc). How many do you think understand jury nullification? These people fund the system through their taxes. They sit on juries. They elect people who commit abuses and allow abuses to happen. Even the ones who have been a victim of the system may not know it, the extent that it is common, or the other parts of the system they have not experienced. For example, you could have a summary offense filed against you and the officer might amend the charge at the trial. If you aren't given a continuance, then it could violate your rights. If the change was made because the officer made a mistake and you didn't realize/understand it, if he will possible lie to the judge and say the change was for leniency (concealment of exculpatory evidence). At the very least, you wouldn't witness prison conditions for most summary offenses. For reference, approximately 8% of the population has been convicted of a felony and less than half of them have served time in prison. So the people with firsthand prison experience will be quite low (guessing less than 10%, but couldn't find those numbers).

Privacy846 6y ago

The will of the people is besides the point. The policy preferences of the bottom 90% of the US population are not reflected _at all_ in actual policy making (a Princeton study from some years back). Edit: maybe this was it: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...

happytoexplain 6y ago
It's impossible to demonstrate that - to what extent the population drives policy and practice in all matters in which the state has a hand is just too socially complex.
- Privacy846 6y ago
  [deleted]
  - rayiner 6y ago
    It’s extremely difficult to model what people actually want. Stated policy preferences change dramatically when you go from the general to the specific and ask people to make specific trade-offs. For example: https://reason.com/2014/07/10/millennials-prefer-small-government-if-2/ https://reason.com/2014/07/10/millennials-prefer-small-gover... > At first glance millennials appear to prefer a "larger government providing more services" (54%) over a "smaller government providing few services" (43%). However, once tax rates are mentioned support for large government flips. Instead 57 percent favor "smaller government, providing fewer services, with low taxes" and 41 percent want "larger government providing more services, with high taxes." We also find that the race/ethnicity gap on the size of government disappears among Hispanic, Asian, and white millennials once tax rates are explicit. Most policy polls are useless, because they don’t ask voters what they’d be willing to pay or give up in another area for that particular policy. For example, support for universal healthcare plummets when you mention taxes and losing private insurance: > But the more revealing part of the survey, I think, comes from the questions focused on the costs of single payer, all of which caused support for Medicare for All to drop below 40 percent. Told that it would eliminate private health insurance and require people to pay more in taxes, for example, support fell to 37 percent. Told that it would cause some medical treatments and tests to be delayed, support dropped even further, to 26 percent. It’s also the case that in a Republican form of government, politicians are specifically charged with implementing specific policies that reflect the public’s hierarchy of preferences. Poll after poll shows the economy as the dominant concern of most voters. (Apart from this year when covid because a main concern.) People might, in the abstract say they favor taxing the wealthy and corporations more heavily. But when Election Day rolls around, they reward politicians (especially at the state and local level) who convinced a big corporation to move to their area and punish politicians who caused corporations to leave.

happytoexplain 6y ago

I don't see any way around the enormous hatred and desire to inflict suffering that many Americans have for anybody convicted of any crime that carries any prison term. As you said, to them it's all about what people "deserve", and that ideology is one of the most fundamental and powerful poisons in societies - a part of the id that civilized nations seek to keep out of the government's decisions. It's something straight out of the dark ages. I would never blame a person who wanted to inflict suffering on somebody who personally wronged them gravely enough, but to want that emotion enshrined in the system is immoral in the most extreme way. On this topic, I don't think it's unnecessarily dramatic or ad hominem to say that the viewpoint of many Americans is evil.