3 ms·

Okay, maybe. Rather than people wanting the worst possible thing for prisoners because of the perceived harm those prisoners have caused them (vindictiveness),

Okay, maybe. Rather than people wanting the worst possible thing for prisoners because of the perceived harm those prisoners have caused them (vindictiveness), they want the worst possible thing for prisoners because HOW DARE someone else have something nicer than them that they didn't "earn". That's the same attitude that would begrudge a homeless person a donated name brand hoodie, because (you) had to pay $X for it. That's even worse. But maybe the term should be different; maybe it isn't vindictiveness. The US is the most incarcerated country in the world. We have the most prisoners, the most prisoners per capita, the highest spending on prisoners, and one of the worst recidivism rates (76% after 5 years). What we're doing is -clearly- not working. The idea that we'd rather spend -more- than other countries, on a system that works worse, begs the question of 'why'. Why would we want to keep doing the same thing, that isn't working, -and- costs us more? Because we think prisoners don't deserve better. Maybe that isn't "vindictiveness", but it's damned close. It certainly isn't "I want to make sure my tax dollars being used effectively", or "I want the best outcomes from prisons", or even "I want to make sure they're only getting what they need to serve their time and then be able to come out and rejoin society". It very much is "Damn the consequences, and how much it costs, I want them to have the worst possible experience".

tristor 5y ago
> It very much is "Damn the consequences, and how much it costs, I want them to have the worst possible experience". To be clear, I am not agreeing with the position I am describing. Rather, I am trying to very specifically say that it is NOT "very much... I want them to have the worst possible experience." If anything, I think the attitude I described may be more reflective of the overall poor quality of life (relative to the possibilities) that the majority of Americans enjoy in their day-to-day lives due to the widening wealthy inequality. For many people, who can't even afford access to entertainment like "gaming consoles", providing such to prisoners out of the taxpayer's till makes them question why their life is so hard and what they're working for if they could just become anti-social and get enjoyment beyond "three hots and a cot". Granted, perhaps it would be useful if more people questioned their lot in life and how we got here, but the result of that questioning for many is not high-minded ideals and calls for more equality. You seem to be reiterating the idea of vindictiveness in your conclusion, while acknowledging that something akin to spite might be more causative earlier on in your response. I am not sure I'd classify exactly what I'm describing as either spite or vindictiveness, but it's certainly a dark feeling. What I'm observing is that many people are uncomfortable with the idea of prisoners having an enjoyable enough quality of life such that their own non-prison life seems worse by comparison, it creates feelings of futility towards life and engenders a certain type of nihilism. I think considering that people are merely vindictive or spiteful is an oversimplification that does not fully encompass the complexity of the human experience. You should also consider that many people who are in the bottom half of American society /know/ someone who's been in prison, or may have been in prison themselves, so it is not as if the realities of the prison experience have escaped these people. As you rightly point out, the US has the highest incarceration and recidivism rates in the world, and it's predominantly people who are "lower class" ending up there, mostly from a demographic standpoint the same folks who hold the viewpoint I'm trying to point out.
PeterisP 5y ago
IMHO the appropriate focus there is that whatever argument you can make in the form that "criminals should get a standard of life of at least X" would also imply that non-criminals also should get at least the same standard of life. Prisoners do deserve all kinds of things, but to be fair, everyone else does as well. And if you assert that a certain thing should be provided for criminals but you already have a non-trivial underclass who can't afford these things and have no plans to provide those things to the non-criminals, then it is a reasonable source of frustration for a honest poor individual who is being denied that opportunity - why is society abandoning them and is literally treating them worse than criminals, if they have done nothing wrong? And it acts as an anti-deterrent if someone sees that they would improve their material conditions by doing harmful things and going to prison. There's nothing wrong with ensuring good prison conditions, but it has to go hand in hand with ensuring equally good non-prison conditions for poor people.

tristor 5y ago

> It very much is "Damn the consequences, and how much it costs, I want them to have the worst possible experience". To be clear, I am not agreeing with the position I am describing. Rather, I am trying to very specifically say that it is NOT "very much... I want them to have the worst possible experience." If anything, I think the attitude I described may be more reflective of the overall poor quality of life (relative to the possibilities) that the majority of Americans enjoy in their day-to-day lives due to the widening wealthy inequality. For many people, who can't even afford access to entertainment like "gaming consoles", providing such to prisoners out of the taxpayer's till makes them question why their life is so hard and what they're working for if they could just become anti-social and get enjoyment beyond "three hots and a cot". Granted, perhaps it would be useful if more people questioned their lot in life and how we got here, but the result of that questioning for many is not high-minded ideals and calls for more equality. You seem to be reiterating the idea of vindictiveness in your conclusion, while acknowledging that something akin to spite might be more causative earlier on in your response. I am not sure I'd classify exactly what I'm describing as either spite or vindictiveness, but it's certainly a dark feeling. What I'm observing is that many people are uncomfortable with the idea of prisoners having an enjoyable enough quality of life such that their own non-prison life seems worse by comparison, it creates feelings of futility towards life and engenders a certain type of nihilism. I think considering that people are merely vindictive or spiteful is an oversimplification that does not fully encompass the complexity of the human experience. You should also consider that many people who are in the bottom half of American society /know/ someone who's been in prison, or may have been in prison themselves, so it is not as if the realities of the prison experience have escaped these people. As you rightly point out, the US has the highest incarceration and recidivism rates in the world, and it's predominantly people who are "lower class" ending up there, mostly from a demographic standpoint the same folks who hold the viewpoint I'm trying to point out.

PeterisP 5y ago

IMHO the appropriate focus there is that whatever argument you can make in the form that "criminals should get a standard of life of at least X" would also imply that non-criminals also should get at least the same standard of life. Prisoners do deserve all kinds of things, but to be fair, everyone else does as well. And if you assert that a certain thing should be provided for criminals but you already have a non-trivial underclass who can't afford these things and have no plans to provide those things to the non-criminals, then it is a reasonable source of frustration for a honest poor individual who is being denied that opportunity - why is society abandoning them and is literally treating them worse than criminals, if they have done nothing wrong? And it acts as an anti-deterrent if someone sees that they would improve their material conditions by doing harmful things and going to prison. There's nothing wrong with ensuring good prison conditions, but it has to go hand in hand with ensuring equally good non-prison conditions for poor people.