5 ms·

> 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 convic

> 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.
        Gordonjcp 4y ago
        The people who committed crimes weren't deterred by prison sentences. Once they're released from prison, they will continue to commit crimes. Prisons don't work. Let's put it this way - suppose someone is too illiterate to get a job (like a huge chunk of the prison population) and turns to theft to support themselves, possibly because they have a drug habit. Does locking them in prison make them any more less addicted to drugs, or any more able to get a job? Does it actually solve the underlying problem?
    - kaibee 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. The only thing that is actually a deterrent is actually catching criminals [1]. No criminal does what they do expecting that they'll get caught and then weighing the crime against the potential sentence. > Of course it does. To say it doesn’t is fallacious. "trust me bro, its common sense" [1] https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-best-way-to-end-mass-incarceration https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-best-way-to-end-mass-incarc...
      - dinkumthinkum 4y ago
        You can use this “trust me bro” nonsense but it is obvious to anyone that can think clearly that the threat of prison time deters crime. It is not 100% effective, obviously but it deters potential criminals. People do make risk based decisions based on the possibility of getting caught and facing prison. I don’t know what it says that you think this obvious fact is some kind hand waving.
- _zn02 4y ago
  Yes, I think that non-violent offenders should not be sent to jail, and I think that we should only punish people for what we can prove in a court of law.
  - dinkumthinkum 4y ago
    What do you think should happen to non-violent criminals? How would you enforce laws pertaining to non-violent crimes or are such acts by definition non-crimes under your worldview?
    - _zn02 4y ago
      I mean...surely you're aware that, at this time, already, there are many people committing non-violent crimes, and being sentenced, and not being incarcerated, right? Punishments include fines, travel restrictions, wage garnishment, loss of license or ability to hold certain types of position, monitoring of movement, there's quite a list. Unless you think "all people convicted of a crime go to jail" is already true- and it is not- the answer to your question is "what we're already doing".
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  Could you answer the question you were asked instead of haranguing the person who asked it?

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.
      - Gordonjcp 4y ago
        The people who committed crimes weren't deterred by prison sentences. Once they're released from prison, they will continue to commit crimes. Prisons don't work. Let's put it this way - suppose someone is too illiterate to get a job (like a huge chunk of the prison population) and turns to theft to support themselves, possibly because they have a drug habit. Does locking them in prison make them any more less addicted to drugs, or any more able to get a job? Does it actually solve the underlying problem?
  - kaibee 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. The only thing that is actually a deterrent is actually catching criminals [1]. No criminal does what they do expecting that they'll get caught and then weighing the crime against the potential sentence. > Of course it does. To say it doesn’t is fallacious. "trust me bro, its common sense" [1] https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-best-way-to-end-mass-incarceration https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-best-way-to-end-mass-incarc...
    - dinkumthinkum 4y ago
      You can use this “trust me bro” nonsense but it is obvious to anyone that can think clearly that the threat of prison time deters crime. It is not 100% effective, obviously but it deters potential criminals. People do make risk based decisions based on the possibility of getting caught and facing prison. I don’t know what it says that you think this obvious fact is some kind hand waving.
_zn02 4y ago
Yes, I think that non-violent offenders should not be sent to jail, and I think that we should only punish people for what we can prove in a court of law.
- dinkumthinkum 4y ago
  What do you think should happen to non-violent criminals? How would you enforce laws pertaining to non-violent crimes or are such acts by definition non-crimes under your worldview?
  - _zn02 4y ago
    I mean...surely you're aware that, at this time, already, there are many people committing non-violent crimes, and being sentenced, and not being incarcerated, right? Punishments include fines, travel restrictions, wage garnishment, loss of license or ability to hold certain types of position, monitoring of movement, there's quite a list. Unless you think "all people convicted of a crime go to jail" is already true- and it is not- the answer to your question is "what we're already doing".
anigbrowl 4y ago
Could you answer the question you were asked instead of haranguing the person who asked it?