5 ms·

Even if jail were completely ineffective as a deterrent (which isn't true), it would still prevent crime, since the rest of the world is safe from prisoners whi

Even if jail were completely ineffective as a deterrent (which isn't true), it would still prevent crime, since the rest of the world is safe from prisoners while they're in jail.

misnome 4y ago
Only if you never release anyone, because otherwise there is the possibility that it would increase instances of crime _more than if they had never gone to jail_ after release.
- UIUC_06 4y ago
  Actually, that's provably false: older people commit fewer crimes.
  - BigRedDog1669 4y ago
    In general, yes they commit less crimes. But does a 45yo person who was caged for 5 years and neglected commit less crimes than a 40yo free person?
    - UIUC_06 4y ago
      You could research that; of course you'd have to control for "having committed a crime in the first place."
schwartzworld 4y ago
> since the rest of the world is safe from prisoners while they're in jail. Does this mean you would be in favor of judicial reform that prevented those convicted of non-violent crimes from going to prison? No reason to keep someone locked up on a petty possession charge if our concern is safety of others.
- kube-system 4y ago
  "safety" in this context need not mean solely physical safety.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  Do you think we shouldn't send people like SBF, Elizabeth Holmes, and Bernie Madoff to jail, since their crimes were non-violent? And what about Al Capone, who was responsible for a bunch of violence, but the only crime we could get a conviction for was tax evasion, which is non-violent?
  - Gordonjcp 4y ago
    Would jailing them fix the mess they made? Would making them work to fix the mess they made be more effective? Locking people up only prevents them committing crime while they're locked up. It doesn't do anything to solve the actual problem.
    - dinkumthinkum 4y ago
      It is a deterrent. You could pretend it’s not but that doesn’t make it less true. When more crypto scammers go to jail, it has an effect on people’s risk taking behavior. Of course it does. To say it doesn’t is fallacious.
      - Gordonjcp 4y ago
        It's not a deterrent, though, because they're still doing it. Does it fix the problem? Does it get the people they scammed their money back?
        dinkumthinkum 4y ago
        It is very clearly a deterrent. So you think anyone who ever considered committing a crime was never deterred by the possibility of prison? People say all the time “I was going to do X but I didn’t want to go to prison” that prima facia is an example of deterrence to the extent that many such people were serious. Honestly, I shouldn’t need to use such a banal example for something so obvious. Furthermore, you are therefore implying that if we did not issue any prison sentences then we would have the same amount of crime as we do now (or possibly you think it would be less) because the threat of prison has no effect of deterrence. That is unbelievably ridiculous.
giraffe_lady 4y ago
This assumes that a person is either a criminal who will do crimes, or is not and won't. What studies show about this over and over is that being in certain situations increases the likelihood of a given person committing a certain crime. If you remove them from the situation, but now someone else is in that situation, the likelihood of the crime is being committed is unchanged. Now people there is variance in how resistant people are to the influences of those situations, and it varies both by individual and by the specific crime. It's possible that eventually you will have imprisoned everyone who would ever commit a crime under any circumstances, or at least under the current ones. I don't find the costs of that acceptable, both financially and in terms of human suffering. But if you do you should argue for that, rather than lean on the implicit point that some people are inherently criminal by their natures and so should be isolated for it.
- cmeacham98 4y ago
  > there is variance in how resistant people are to the influences of those situations, and it varies both by individual and by the specific crime How is this not just another way of saying "some people are inherently criminal by their nature"?
  - kayodelycaon 4y ago
    Not OP, but it's about the situation, not something fundamental to the person. I'd also add there is nuance here. Not everyone in a situation will behave the same way. What's changing is the tendency towards behavior due to environment.
    - cmeacham98 4y ago
      So you believe that in the same situation all people are equally likely of committing a crime? So everybody in the US just has a random small chance of becoming a school shooter or serial killer? I assume you support complete elimination of the criminal justice system and courts then, because in your worldview it seems criminals have no agency and the chance of them committing a crime is 100% a function of their environment.
BizarroLand 4y ago
I think imprisonment needs to be rethought if it's not used for rehabilitation purposes. I believe that if you CAN be rehabilitated into society, you SHOULD be, and any imprisonment should be used for that purpose and that purpose alone. If you CANNOT be rehabilitated into society, you shouldn't be imprisoned with the other people who can be, but should be put off in a group of your other "irredeemable" peers or something. I think anyone CAN be rehabilitated, by the way, but not everyone will want to.
iudqnolq 4y ago
But prison makes people more violent, and people tend to be released eventually. Unless you're willing to imprison everyone forever, the calculus isn't that simple.

Even if jail were completely ineffective as a deterrent (which isn't true), it would still prevent crime, since the rest of the world is safe from prisoners while they're in jail.

misnome 4y ago

Only if you never release anyone, because otherwise there is the possibility that it would increase instances of crime _more than if they had never gone to jail_ after release.

UIUC_06 4y ago
Actually, that's provably false: older people commit fewer crimes.
- BigRedDog1669 4y ago
  In general, yes they commit less crimes. But does a 45yo person who was caged for 5 years and neglected commit less crimes than a 40yo free person?
  - UIUC_06 4y ago
    You could research that; of course you'd have to control for "having committed a crime in the first place."

schwartzworld 4y ago

> since the rest of the world is safe from prisoners while they're in jail. Does this mean you would be in favor of judicial reform that prevented those convicted of non-violent crimes from going to prison? No reason to keep someone locked up on a petty possession charge if our concern is safety of others.

kube-system 4y ago
"safety" in this context need not mean solely physical safety.
josephcsible 4y ago
Do you think we shouldn't send people like SBF, Elizabeth Holmes, and Bernie Madoff to jail, since their crimes were non-violent? And what about Al Capone, who was responsible for a bunch of violence, but the only crime we could get a conviction for was tax evasion, which is non-violent?
- Gordonjcp 4y ago
  Would jailing them fix the mess they made? Would making them work to fix the mess they made be more effective? Locking people up only prevents them committing crime while they're locked up. It doesn't do anything to solve the actual problem.
  - dinkumthinkum 4y ago
    It is a deterrent. You could pretend it’s not but that doesn’t make it less true. When more crypto scammers go to jail, it has an effect on people’s risk taking behavior. Of course it does. To say it doesn’t is fallacious.
    - Gordonjcp 4y ago
      It's not a deterrent, though, because they're still doing it. Does it fix the problem? Does it get the people they scammed their money back?
      - dinkumthinkum 4y ago
        It is very clearly a deterrent. So you think anyone who ever considered committing a crime was never deterred by the possibility of prison? People say all the time “I was going to do X but I didn’t want to go to prison” that prima facia is an example of deterrence to the extent that many such people were serious. Honestly, I shouldn’t need to use such a banal example for something so obvious. Furthermore, you are therefore implying that if we did not issue any prison sentences then we would have the same amount of crime as we do now (or possibly you think it would be less) because the threat of prison has no effect of deterrence. That is unbelievably ridiculous.

giraffe_lady 4y ago

This assumes that a person is either a criminal who will do crimes, or is not and won't. What studies show about this over and over is that being in certain situations increases the likelihood of a given person committing a certain crime. If you remove them from the situation, but now someone else is in that situation, the likelihood of the crime is being committed is unchanged. Now people there is variance in how resistant people are to the influences of those situations, and it varies both by individual and by the specific crime. It's possible that eventually you will have imprisoned everyone who would ever commit a crime under any circumstances, or at least under the current ones. I don't find the costs of that acceptable, both financially and in terms of human suffering. But if you do you should argue for that, rather than lean on the implicit point that some people are inherently criminal by their natures and so should be isolated for it.

cmeacham98 4y ago
> there is variance in how resistant people are to the influences of those situations, and it varies both by individual and by the specific crime How is this not just another way of saying "some people are inherently criminal by their nature"?
- kayodelycaon 4y ago
  Not OP, but it's about the situation, not something fundamental to the person. I'd also add there is nuance here. Not everyone in a situation will behave the same way. What's changing is the tendency towards behavior due to environment.
  - cmeacham98 4y ago
    So you believe that in the same situation all people are equally likely of committing a crime? So everybody in the US just has a random small chance of becoming a school shooter or serial killer? I assume you support complete elimination of the criminal justice system and courts then, because in your worldview it seems criminals have no agency and the chance of them committing a crime is 100% a function of their environment.

BizarroLand 4y ago

I think imprisonment needs to be rethought if it's not used for rehabilitation purposes. I believe that if you CAN be rehabilitated into society, you SHOULD be, and any imprisonment should be used for that purpose and that purpose alone. If you CANNOT be rehabilitated into society, you shouldn't be imprisoned with the other people who can be, but should be put off in a group of your other "irredeemable" peers or something. I think anyone CAN be rehabilitated, by the way, but not everyone will want to.

iudqnolq 4y ago

But prison makes people more violent, and people tend to be released eventually. Unless you're willing to imprison everyone forever, the calculus isn't that simple.