3 ms·

The inmates don't receive 100k/year. If we didn't have prisons would we punish criminals in a different way or just let criminal commit as many crimes as they'

The inmates don't receive 100k/year. If we didn't have prisons would we punish criminals in a different way or just let criminal commit as many crimes as they'd like? I guess taking a hand or a foot is cheaper than a prison but most people think prison is more human.

Spivak 4y ago
Does the difference matter? You're still out $100k/yr. If you pay for my rent, food, clothes, electricity, heat, water, gym membership, healthcare, internet, and a one person subscription to rent-a-prison-guard the fact that I'm not seeing the cash is immaterial. > would we punish criminals in a different way Yes, this is implied. The most popular alternative is "house arrest" (i.e "adult grounding") where you're monitored but allowed to go to work, school, and essential places like the doctor, grocery store, etc.. If you need more we can keep stacking on things like garnished wages, daily detention, mandatory community service. I think that's way more human. The number of people that, for the safety of others, need to be separated from society I think it's vanishingly small, and smaller than that the number who are such a danger that they require confinement in cells.
- JamesBarney 4y ago
  State prisons are 60% violent offences. Robbery, assault, rape, and murder. Another ~8% are burglaries which have a high likelihood of leading to violence.
  - Spivak 4y ago
    Well let the other 40% out and then we can start looking at the 60%. This kind of thinking makes no sense in a world where prison sentences are finite. If you think being arrested for a “violent” offense means you are such a danger to others you have to be physically separated from society then you might as well make all prison sentences for life. “But people can reform” — Great then let them out the moment that happens. Get rid of minimum sentencing. The thing I care about when it comes to “violent” offenses isn’t what they did but why. If I had an oracle that could see into their soul and know with certainty they would never reoffend I wouldn’t even bother locking them up at all. And if their offense was situational I want to see that corrected first. For $100k/yr we can be a lot more creative about setting people up for success. That kind of money is at the level of send them off to college or trade school, full time caretaker, the very best psych care, rehab, full-on relocation, or pulling them entirely out of poverty. Prison being the place where people with issues society has decided we don’t want to deal with is heartbreaking. If we have any other option we should take it.
    - JamesBarney 4y ago
      > The thing I care about when it comes to “violent” offenses isn’t what they did but why. If I had an oracle that could see into their soul and know with certainty they would never reoffend I wouldn’t even bother locking them up at all. Business man built a giant company and is about to get divorced. Wife is about to get half of everything because he got married before he had any success. He likes her to keep it. Highly situational murder, zero risk to reoffend. You're saying because he had a zero recidivism rate we shouldn't jail him?
      - Spivak 4y ago
        Definitely, what is even the point of jailing him? You want him jailed as punishment not for anyone’s actual safety. To me that is exceedingly cruel and a waste of a human life. We can do better than that. - Instead of losing half his money he now loses 75% of it. - Instead of alimony 40% of his earnings and appreciation of assets are garnished. All the money gets split between the wife’s family and a charity that financially supports the victims of violent crime. - He loses all stake in the company he built and can’t hold any position in the company or a position the company contracts with. All his shares get returned to the company itself like a buyback (that he doesn’t benefit from). - He is not allowed to remarry. - He will get tattooed with a symbol people will recognize as a domestic abuser on his pelvis. It won’t show in normal circumstances but any intimate partner will know and he’ll have to explain it for the rest of his life. If that’s not punishment enough for you then come up with your own scheme. Just so long as it’s not torture and he can continue living a semi-normal life among the rest of society since he’s not actually a danger to anyone. Bet our hypothetical homeboy will regret his murder a million times more than sitting in a luxury prison for rich people while his stocks appreciate.

Spivak 4y ago

Does the difference matter? You're still out $100k/yr. If you pay for my rent, food, clothes, electricity, heat, water, gym membership, healthcare, internet, and a one person subscription to rent-a-prison-guard the fact that I'm not seeing the cash is immaterial. > would we punish criminals in a different way Yes, this is implied. The most popular alternative is "house arrest" (i.e "adult grounding") where you're monitored but allowed to go to work, school, and essential places like the doctor, grocery store, etc.. If you need more we can keep stacking on things like garnished wages, daily detention, mandatory community service. I think that's way more human. The number of people that, for the safety of others, need to be separated from society I think it's vanishingly small, and smaller than that the number who are such a danger that they require confinement in cells.

JamesBarney 4y ago
State prisons are 60% violent offences. Robbery, assault, rape, and murder. Another ~8% are burglaries which have a high likelihood of leading to violence.
- Spivak 4y ago
  Well let the other 40% out and then we can start looking at the 60%. This kind of thinking makes no sense in a world where prison sentences are finite. If you think being arrested for a “violent” offense means you are such a danger to others you have to be physically separated from society then you might as well make all prison sentences for life. “But people can reform” — Great then let them out the moment that happens. Get rid of minimum sentencing. The thing I care about when it comes to “violent” offenses isn’t what they did but why. If I had an oracle that could see into their soul and know with certainty they would never reoffend I wouldn’t even bother locking them up at all. And if their offense was situational I want to see that corrected first. For $100k/yr we can be a lot more creative about setting people up for success. That kind of money is at the level of send them off to college or trade school, full time caretaker, the very best psych care, rehab, full-on relocation, or pulling them entirely out of poverty. Prison being the place where people with issues society has decided we don’t want to deal with is heartbreaking. If we have any other option we should take it.
  - JamesBarney 4y ago
    > The thing I care about when it comes to “violent” offenses isn’t what they did but why. If I had an oracle that could see into their soul and know with certainty they would never reoffend I wouldn’t even bother locking them up at all. Business man built a giant company and is about to get divorced. Wife is about to get half of everything because he got married before he had any success. He likes her to keep it. Highly situational murder, zero risk to reoffend. You're saying because he had a zero recidivism rate we shouldn't jail him?
    - Spivak 4y ago
      Definitely, what is even the point of jailing him? You want him jailed as punishment not for anyone’s actual safety. To me that is exceedingly cruel and a waste of a human life. We can do better than that. - Instead of losing half his money he now loses 75% of it. - Instead of alimony 40% of his earnings and appreciation of assets are garnished. All the money gets split between the wife’s family and a charity that financially supports the victims of violent crime. - He loses all stake in the company he built and can’t hold any position in the company or a position the company contracts with. All his shares get returned to the company itself like a buyback (that he doesn’t benefit from). - He is not allowed to remarry. - He will get tattooed with a symbol people will recognize as a domestic abuser on his pelvis. It won’t show in normal circumstances but any intimate partner will know and he’ll have to explain it for the rest of his life. If that’s not punishment enough for you then come up with your own scheme. Just so long as it’s not torture and he can continue living a semi-normal life among the rest of society since he’s not actually a danger to anyone. Bet our hypothetical homeboy will regret his murder a million times more than sitting in a luxury prison for rich people while his stocks appreciate.