4 ms·

This is just called house arrest. It’s not really prison or punishment if I’m comfortable at home.

1123581321 4y ago
House arrest serves one of prison’s purposes, reduction of danger to others. It may also be a suitable place from which to rehabilitate.
noduerme 4y ago
It's still punishment to not be allowed to leave your home. Not as uncomfortable as prison, obviously. But this gets into whether the main goal of prison is to cause physical discomfort as punishment or to protect society. When you look at the routine nature of beatings and rape in prisons, whether or not you are okay with people receiving that as punishment you have to admit that those aren't the punishments prescribed by law. The law doesn't say that a prison must make the prisoner suffer physically (in fact, it mostly says the opposite, but that's generally ignored). And one man's punishment is another's delight. There are criminals who thrive all too well in prison at the expense of others less well connected. For them, being locked at home might be the greater punishment.
- ericmay 4y ago
  Prison reform is possible. While I certainly sympathize with the aspect of reform for prison, it seems unpalatable to me to not punish, say, someone who rapes a child or with complete disrespect for the law and other people and breaks into homes or smashes car windows to basically be told to hang out and watch TV and “reform” at home with pamphlets or asinine internet courses from a state-provided computer. Parole, probation, house arrest, etc. are tools we have to provide more leniency at the discretion of a judge as appropriate. And there are different levels of prisons to be considered here as well. Rehab can occur while in prison too. But in addition to reforming prisons, we need to solve the problem at its core. Why do people do things that land them in prison in the first place? This is where healthcare, education, and other projects can stop the problem before it starts.
  - ALittleLight 4y ago
    Personally, I think corporal punishment and fines should play a much larger role. Someone who is basically a nuisance, like, a vandal, or a thief, should be dealt with via fines or community service and a punitive flogging. There is no need to incarcerate such a person for extended time at high cost to society and to the individual being punished. Criminals who are deranged, either in the sense of committing especially heinous crimes (e.g. child rape) or in the sense of repeatedly committing serious crimes without evidence that they are able to reform should be humanely executed the same way we put down problematic animals.
    - maroonblazer 4y ago
      Vandals and thieves, if it's their first offense, sure, fines and community service are fine. If they're repeat offenders then they need to be locked up. For the "deranged", I prefer imprisonment for at least two reasons: 1. They may have friends/relatives who would be harmed by them no longer existing. Why punish them? 2. Death is too easy an 'out'. If I had no other tether to society, then choosing a peaceful sleep vs a daily reminder of my actions is an easy choice; put me to sleep.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      is there any evidence to backup the approached you propose as effective, efficient, or desirable in any way? Especially since you seem to advocate flogging, which is a form of torture. And advocate executions, which grants the government ultinate tyranical power over a citizen. And when a mistake is made, and the innocent is executed, this mistake can never be corrected. Such mistakes are quite conmon, as apparently in America police will lie in counrt, claim that their dog can smell a body that was in a particular location years ago, but now cannot be found and jurors will convict based on testimony of a dog.
      - ALittleLight 4y ago
        I don't believe our current system (in the US) is based on evidence, so I see no reason to limit alternatives to being backed by evidence. I've never had the opportunity to run my own justice system, so no, I can't say how well it works. I think corporal punishment is vastly more humane and prefer it largely for humanitarian reasons. If we were torturing prisoners, and I proposed we stopped, would you ask for the evidence to back up the idea that cutting out torture was a good idea? There needs to be some deterrent, but taking years from a person's life, and forcing them to live in squalid conditions and in close proximity to violent criminals, is not a humane deterrent, it is not an effective deterrent (as evidenced by recidivism rates), and it is not an effective deterrent in terms of either dollars or time. Flogging, by contrast, can be executed quickly and cheaply, and, while the injury might stay with you for weeks, doesn't take a large quantity of your life. Flogging is also visually impressive and likely to be something that most people want to avoid. Flogging has a long history of use as a punishment too - suggesting it would have a useful deterrent effect. Regarding execution - no mistakes can ever be corrected. If you send a person to prison and they commit suicide, die of disease, or are killed by another inmate, all of which are vastly more common in prison than in the general population, you can't undo your mistake should you discover that the person sentenced was wrongfully convicted. Likewise, even if you sentence someone for five years, discover after two it was a mistake, they do not get their life back. Does this mean we should never imprison people? It's fine to say there should be a higher bar of proof required for execution, but the finality of the sentence is not a reason not to employ it. There are people who have committed heinous crimes caught on video, attested to by witnesses, placed at the scene by evidence, and who have confessed their own guilt, and who have no plausible defense. In such a scenario why should we stay punishment out of a paranoia that maybe, despite all evidence, we might be wrong and might one day want to release this horrible criminal back to the general population?
WalterBright 4y ago
House arrest is a reasonable solution for nonviolent offenders. If they violate the house arrest, then they go to an actual prison.
petesergeant 4y ago
> It’s not really prison or punishment if I’m comfortable at home Strong disagree. As many of us found out during Covid (depending on your country), being restricted from seeing loved ones and not being allowed to leave your house is absolutely punishment. House Arrest is much preferable to actual prison, but is still absolutely punishment. I went to a boarding school, and the strongest punishment you'd get before suspension/expulsion was "gating" - you had to stay in your room except for lessons and meals, and you had to report in to a teacher very regularly. It was a strong deterrent, 'cuz it sucked. In almost any case where society is mad at someone, rather than scared of someone (re-offending), House Arrest would be cheaper, more humane, but still absolutely a punishment.
- ericmay 4y ago
  Compared to a jail cell? I think your perspective is wildly off. COVID “lockdown” would be a paradise in comparison.

House arrest serves one of prison’s purposes, reduction of danger to others. It may also be a suitable place from which to rehabilitate.

noduerme 4y ago

It's still punishment to not be allowed to leave your home. Not as uncomfortable as prison, obviously. But this gets into whether the main goal of prison is to cause physical discomfort as punishment or to protect society. When you look at the routine nature of beatings and rape in prisons, whether or not you are okay with people receiving that as punishment you have to admit that those aren't the punishments prescribed by law. The law doesn't say that a prison must make the prisoner suffer physically (in fact, it mostly says the opposite, but that's generally ignored). And one man's punishment is another's delight. There are criminals who thrive all too well in prison at the expense of others less well connected. For them, being locked at home might be the greater punishment.

ericmay 4y ago
Prison reform is possible. While I certainly sympathize with the aspect of reform for prison, it seems unpalatable to me to not punish, say, someone who rapes a child or with complete disrespect for the law and other people and breaks into homes or smashes car windows to basically be told to hang out and watch TV and “reform” at home with pamphlets or asinine internet courses from a state-provided computer. Parole, probation, house arrest, etc. are tools we have to provide more leniency at the discretion of a judge as appropriate. And there are different levels of prisons to be considered here as well. Rehab can occur while in prison too. But in addition to reforming prisons, we need to solve the problem at its core. Why do people do things that land them in prison in the first place? This is where healthcare, education, and other projects can stop the problem before it starts.
- ALittleLight 4y ago
  Personally, I think corporal punishment and fines should play a much larger role. Someone who is basically a nuisance, like, a vandal, or a thief, should be dealt with via fines or community service and a punitive flogging. There is no need to incarcerate such a person for extended time at high cost to society and to the individual being punished. Criminals who are deranged, either in the sense of committing especially heinous crimes (e.g. child rape) or in the sense of repeatedly committing serious crimes without evidence that they are able to reform should be humanely executed the same way we put down problematic animals.
  - maroonblazer 4y ago
    Vandals and thieves, if it's their first offense, sure, fines and community service are fine. If they're repeat offenders then they need to be locked up. For the "deranged", I prefer imprisonment for at least two reasons: 1. They may have friends/relatives who would be harmed by them no longer existing. Why punish them? 2. Death is too easy an 'out'. If I had no other tether to society, then choosing a peaceful sleep vs a daily reminder of my actions is an easy choice; put me to sleep.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    is there any evidence to backup the approached you propose as effective, efficient, or desirable in any way? Especially since you seem to advocate flogging, which is a form of torture. And advocate executions, which grants the government ultinate tyranical power over a citizen. And when a mistake is made, and the innocent is executed, this mistake can never be corrected. Such mistakes are quite conmon, as apparently in America police will lie in counrt, claim that their dog can smell a body that was in a particular location years ago, but now cannot be found and jurors will convict based on testimony of a dog.
    - ALittleLight 4y ago
      I don't believe our current system (in the US) is based on evidence, so I see no reason to limit alternatives to being backed by evidence. I've never had the opportunity to run my own justice system, so no, I can't say how well it works. I think corporal punishment is vastly more humane and prefer it largely for humanitarian reasons. If we were torturing prisoners, and I proposed we stopped, would you ask for the evidence to back up the idea that cutting out torture was a good idea? There needs to be some deterrent, but taking years from a person's life, and forcing them to live in squalid conditions and in close proximity to violent criminals, is not a humane deterrent, it is not an effective deterrent (as evidenced by recidivism rates), and it is not an effective deterrent in terms of either dollars or time. Flogging, by contrast, can be executed quickly and cheaply, and, while the injury might stay with you for weeks, doesn't take a large quantity of your life. Flogging is also visually impressive and likely to be something that most people want to avoid. Flogging has a long history of use as a punishment too - suggesting it would have a useful deterrent effect. Regarding execution - no mistakes can ever be corrected. If you send a person to prison and they commit suicide, die of disease, or are killed by another inmate, all of which are vastly more common in prison than in the general population, you can't undo your mistake should you discover that the person sentenced was wrongfully convicted. Likewise, even if you sentence someone for five years, discover after two it was a mistake, they do not get their life back. Does this mean we should never imprison people? It's fine to say there should be a higher bar of proof required for execution, but the finality of the sentence is not a reason not to employ it. There are people who have committed heinous crimes caught on video, attested to by witnesses, placed at the scene by evidence, and who have confessed their own guilt, and who have no plausible defense. In such a scenario why should we stay punishment out of a paranoia that maybe, despite all evidence, we might be wrong and might one day want to release this horrible criminal back to the general population?

WalterBright 4y ago

House arrest is a reasonable solution for nonviolent offenders. If they violate the house arrest, then they go to an actual prison.

petesergeant 4y ago

> It’s not really prison or punishment if I’m comfortable at home Strong disagree. As many of us found out during Covid (depending on your country), being restricted from seeing loved ones and not being allowed to leave your house is absolutely punishment. House Arrest is much preferable to actual prison, but is still absolutely punishment. I went to a boarding school, and the strongest punishment you'd get before suspension/expulsion was "gating" - you had to stay in your room except for lessons and meals, and you had to report in to a teacher very regularly. It was a strong deterrent, 'cuz it sucked. In almost any case where society is mad at someone, rather than scared of someone (re-offending), House Arrest would be cheaper, more humane, but still absolutely a punishment.

ericmay 4y ago
Compared to a jail cell? I think your perspective is wildly off. COVID “lockdown” would be a paradise in comparison.