6 ms·

So being sent to prison isn't sufficient punishment? The severity of that punishment should be determined by the whims of the prison's management?

timsayshey 6y ago
I don't know, ask his victim
- kbenson 6y ago
  Even were the victim alive, we are not a society that encourages the victim to dictate the punishment, nor allow the victim to carry out the punishment, so what would the victim's thoughts matter? As much as it's presented otherwise, punishment western democracies is first and foremost a method of deterrence for the good of all, not for the satisfaction of those harmed.
- tenebrisalietum 6y ago
  If you are not sentencing someone to life in jail or the death penalty, then you can't treat a prisoner bad enough to cause lasting damage because they will rejoin society at some point. This is irrespective of the victim's thoughts; if I get violently robbed and society + a judge has decided that's worth 10 years in jail, then that's what it is. If you think prisoners deserve absolutely nothing to the point of causing psychological or physical harm then you are saying the crime they committed is worth life in prison or the death penalty. This is assuming a functioning justice system.
- danShumway 6y ago
  You could excuse literally any punishment with that line of reasoning. It's nonsensical, designed to appeal to emotion instead of presenting a coherent, logical approach to sentencing. At some point we need to think pragmatically about what kind of society we want to create, rather than spending all of our time worrying about whether or not people are getting what they deserve.
  - chmod775 6y ago
    > It's nonsensical, designed to appeal to emotion instead of presenting a coherent, logical approach to sentencing. That's the thing though. Sentencing in the US is driven by emotions. That's how they like it. That's what they want. Nobody cares about what's best for society. Nobody cares about having five times the recidivism rate and the highest prison population in the world. What they do want is satisfy their base urge for revenge. And they're pretty good at that. Different goals, different outcomes.
  - slibhb 6y ago
    > At some point we need to think pragmatically about what kind of society we want to create, rather than spending all of our time worrying about whether or not people are getting what they deserve. To me, these two things are the same. I want to live in a society where people are held responsible for their actions. If they commit a crime, they should be punished in proportion to their crime. This is a kind of humanism because it respects individuals' freedom of choice (i.e. you choose to commit a crime...or not). To be concerned "whether or not people are getting what they deserve" is the definition of justice. And it goes both ways: if the punishment is too severe, too random, or inflicted on the innocent, that is also a problem.
    - danShumway 6y ago
      Justice can't be separated from rehabilitation. If your punishment system predictably increases recidivism rates for crimes that have real-world consequences, then you basically are punishing innocent people for other people's actions. Unless you plan to keep every prisoner in prison indefinitely, then the state that they are in when they leave prison matters. It doesn't just matter for them, it also matters for everybody else who lives alongside them in the future -- people who don't deserve to live in a worse, more dangerous society just because we determined that somebody else completely unrelated to them didn't suffer enough yet. Prisoners who leave prison without being properly rehabilitated are a liability and a risk for everyone else outside of prison -- and even if you don't care about the prisoners, you should at least care about the other citizens who live around them.
- nickelcitymario 6y ago
  It's not about him. It's about us, as a society. When we imprison someone, we take ownership and responsibility for their well-being. To be clear, we can decide, as the responsibility holders over their well-being, that we believe they should be treated like garbage. Right or wrong, we have that ability and there is no higher authority than society itself to determine if that's right or wrong. Although I have a strong opinion about what is or isn't an appropriate punishment, we absolutely should not be basing our decisions on the feelings of the victim. Putting aside that the victim is dead and can't express how they feel about it, this is no way to run a law-based society. If I commit a crime, and someone else commits an identical crime, surely we can agree that the punishment -- whatever it may be -- should be the same (or at least equivalent). It shouldn't vary based on who the victim is or how the victim may feel about it.
nickysielicki 6y ago
Not having access to entertainment is not cruel or unusual.
- mywittyname 6y ago
  It's pretty cruel to allow a person's mind to decay due to lack of stimulus. Prisoners need something to do. Books and board games are cheap and keep people occupied.
- retrac 6y ago
  Not having access to adequate forms of mental stimulation and activities for normal socialization, however, can reach the standard of torture, before long. Ramp it up enough, and eventually you're inflicting irreversible brain damage.
  - fastball 6y ago
    This is true, though the idea that board games in particular are somehow required for this is a bit ludicrous.
- nickelcitymario 6y ago
  Whether it's either cruel or unusual is a subjective question. What I asked was whether it's ok for a prisoner's quality of life to be determined by the whims of the prison. I'm of the opinion that whatever the right quality of life is, it should be consistent across the board. If I commit a federal crime, the punishment shouldn't vary based on which prison I get sent to. In other words, if you think it's perfectly reasonable for, say, a murderer to be placed in extended isolation (as an example), then that should be applied evenly to all murderers. Surely we agree on that much? Or do you believe being a criminal means you should be subject to arbitrary punishments at the whims of your captors?
- tyingq 6y ago
  "Not having access to entertainment is not cruel or unusual" Do you mean by some legal definition, psychological, or personal opinion? Personally, I don't see how spending most of your day in a cell without a book or game, for years, wouldn't result in severe psychological damage. Damage that might have consequences for others once you're eventually released.

timsayshey 6y ago

I don't know, ask his victim

kbenson 6y ago
Even were the victim alive, we are not a society that encourages the victim to dictate the punishment, nor allow the victim to carry out the punishment, so what would the victim's thoughts matter? As much as it's presented otherwise, punishment western democracies is first and foremost a method of deterrence for the good of all, not for the satisfaction of those harmed.
tenebrisalietum 6y ago
If you are not sentencing someone to life in jail or the death penalty, then you can't treat a prisoner bad enough to cause lasting damage because they will rejoin society at some point. This is irrespective of the victim's thoughts; if I get violently robbed and society + a judge has decided that's worth 10 years in jail, then that's what it is. If you think prisoners deserve absolutely nothing to the point of causing psychological or physical harm then you are saying the crime they committed is worth life in prison or the death penalty. This is assuming a functioning justice system.
danShumway 6y ago
You could excuse literally any punishment with that line of reasoning. It's nonsensical, designed to appeal to emotion instead of presenting a coherent, logical approach to sentencing. At some point we need to think pragmatically about what kind of society we want to create, rather than spending all of our time worrying about whether or not people are getting what they deserve.
- chmod775 6y ago
  > It's nonsensical, designed to appeal to emotion instead of presenting a coherent, logical approach to sentencing. That's the thing though. Sentencing in the US is driven by emotions. That's how they like it. That's what they want. Nobody cares about what's best for society. Nobody cares about having five times the recidivism rate and the highest prison population in the world. What they do want is satisfy their base urge for revenge. And they're pretty good at that. Different goals, different outcomes.
- slibhb 6y ago
  > At some point we need to think pragmatically about what kind of society we want to create, rather than spending all of our time worrying about whether or not people are getting what they deserve. To me, these two things are the same. I want to live in a society where people are held responsible for their actions. If they commit a crime, they should be punished in proportion to their crime. This is a kind of humanism because it respects individuals' freedom of choice (i.e. you choose to commit a crime...or not). To be concerned "whether or not people are getting what they deserve" is the definition of justice. And it goes both ways: if the punishment is too severe, too random, or inflicted on the innocent, that is also a problem.
  - danShumway 6y ago
    Justice can't be separated from rehabilitation. If your punishment system predictably increases recidivism rates for crimes that have real-world consequences, then you basically are punishing innocent people for other people's actions. Unless you plan to keep every prisoner in prison indefinitely, then the state that they are in when they leave prison matters. It doesn't just matter for them, it also matters for everybody else who lives alongside them in the future -- people who don't deserve to live in a worse, more dangerous society just because we determined that somebody else completely unrelated to them didn't suffer enough yet. Prisoners who leave prison without being properly rehabilitated are a liability and a risk for everyone else outside of prison -- and even if you don't care about the prisoners, you should at least care about the other citizens who live around them.
nickelcitymario 6y ago
It's not about him. It's about us, as a society. When we imprison someone, we take ownership and responsibility for their well-being. To be clear, we can decide, as the responsibility holders over their well-being, that we believe they should be treated like garbage. Right or wrong, we have that ability and there is no higher authority than society itself to determine if that's right or wrong. Although I have a strong opinion about what is or isn't an appropriate punishment, we absolutely should not be basing our decisions on the feelings of the victim. Putting aside that the victim is dead and can't express how they feel about it, this is no way to run a law-based society. If I commit a crime, and someone else commits an identical crime, surely we can agree that the punishment -- whatever it may be -- should be the same (or at least equivalent). It shouldn't vary based on who the victim is or how the victim may feel about it.

nickysielicki 6y ago

Not having access to entertainment is not cruel or unusual.

mywittyname 6y ago
It's pretty cruel to allow a person's mind to decay due to lack of stimulus. Prisoners need something to do. Books and board games are cheap and keep people occupied.
retrac 6y ago
Not having access to adequate forms of mental stimulation and activities for normal socialization, however, can reach the standard of torture, before long. Ramp it up enough, and eventually you're inflicting irreversible brain damage.
- fastball 6y ago
  This is true, though the idea that board games in particular are somehow required for this is a bit ludicrous.
nickelcitymario 6y ago
Whether it's either cruel or unusual is a subjective question. What I asked was whether it's ok for a prisoner's quality of life to be determined by the whims of the prison. I'm of the opinion that whatever the right quality of life is, it should be consistent across the board. If I commit a federal crime, the punishment shouldn't vary based on which prison I get sent to. In other words, if you think it's perfectly reasonable for, say, a murderer to be placed in extended isolation (as an example), then that should be applied evenly to all murderers. Surely we agree on that much? Or do you believe being a criminal means you should be subject to arbitrary punishments at the whims of your captors?
tyingq 6y ago
"Not having access to entertainment is not cruel or unusual" Do you mean by some legal definition, psychological, or personal opinion? Personally, I don't see how spending most of your day in a cell without a book or game, for years, wouldn't result in severe psychological damage. Damage that might have consequences for others once you're eventually released.