4 ms·

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

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?
int_19h 4y ago
Prison is a very poor choice of punishment (no surprise there, since the original intent for prisons was to replace punishments with rehabilitation!). First, the punitive aspect of confinement varies greatly from person to person. But also, long-term isolation is a great way to ruin the person's economic prospects of honest living after prison while at the same time putting them into the environment that often encourages "learning crime" (and the associated attitudes), so to speak. (I'm not saying that isolation is never necessary. But it should be clearly separated from punishment.)
noduerme 4y ago
I don't know how we get to fixing the problems that land people in prison in the first place. All I'm saying is pick a logical position and stick with it. If it's reforming people, put them on a farm. If it's punishment, put them in a gulag. To me, reform (lefty) and punishment (righty) are just hot topic culture war footballs. Both sides like to kick them around. The real issue is what is the point of this prison institution? No one seems to know. If there's any logic, it should be to protect society from your murderers and rapists. What happens to them after that can be argued by every liberal and conservative on the planet, but I think it's important to delineate clean goals first.

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?

int_19h 4y ago

Prison is a very poor choice of punishment (no surprise there, since the original intent for prisons was to replace punishments with rehabilitation!). First, the punitive aspect of confinement varies greatly from person to person. But also, long-term isolation is a great way to ruin the person's economic prospects of honest living after prison while at the same time putting them into the environment that often encourages "learning crime" (and the associated attitudes), so to speak. (I'm not saying that isolation is never necessary. But it should be clearly separated from punishment.)

noduerme 4y ago

I don't know how we get to fixing the problems that land people in prison in the first place. All I'm saying is pick a logical position and stick with it. If it's reforming people, put them on a farm. If it's punishment, put them in a gulag. To me, reform (lefty) and punishment (righty) are just hot topic culture war footballs. Both sides like to kick them around. The real issue is what is the point of this prison institution? No one seems to know. If there's any logic, it should be to protect society from your murderers and rapists. What happens to them after that can be argued by every liberal and conservative on the planet, but I think it's important to delineate clean goals first.