4 ms·

How does the (in democratic societies) generally accepted principle in dubio pro reo fit into this? Your assumption would predict that societies that adhere to

• Natsu 3y ago
  Rehabilitation basically doesn't happen, in the sense that interventions don't seem to reduce recidivism rates. Now there are a group of people who basically made one bad mistake due to negligence or other circumstances who don't go back, but this isn't generally what one would consider "reform" and it kinda ignores that we can't seem to do much for the people who continually return to prison after committing new crimes. That said, there may be some limited cases where we can do some good, such as identifying and treating people with pyschosis. > I think this idea of required punishment to retain social stability is stupid and is not relevant in praxis. You've never seen mom's brain matter staining the basement walls, or heard that her killer had grandma on same hit list that mom was crossed off of. If the state had not intervened, what do you think would have happened there? This is not a hypothetical situation.
  • tfourb 3y ago
    > Rehabilitation basically doesn't happen, in the sense that interventions don't seem to reduce recidivism rates. Sources? Here are some that confirm the effectiveness of various interventions/approaches: - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11292-020-09420-3 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11292-020-09420-3 - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31548680/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31548680/ - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315907207_Reducing_Crime_and_Violence_Experimental_Evidence_from_Cognitive_Behavioral_Therapy_in_Liberia https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315907207_Reducing_... > You've never seen mom's brain matter staining the basement walls […] What? First, contract killing (which is what you seem to describe here) is exceptionally rare in most societies and second, rehabilitation does not preclude police from interfering with crime. Of course you stop a killing if you have prior knowledge of it, if necessary by restraining/incarcerating the alleged killer. Rehabilitation is implemented once guilt has been established to allow a convicted criminal to re-enter society as a productive individual as soon as possible while minimizing the risk to other members of society.
    • Natsu 3y ago
      That was not a contract killing, rather it was a far more common type of murder. The list was something like an enemies list. I have no idea why he kept one, mind you, but the police showed it at trial and it freaked out grandma and some other family who were on there. I'd imagine his former boss wasn't any too happy to realize how easily it could've been him, either, for that matter. I think you underestimate the revenge cycle that might occur if society wanted to be more lenient than life in prison, which was the result here. The state can't reasonably be more lenient than the average person, or the average person is going to decide that the cost of a few years is worth the revenge. You're already looking at a lifetime of pain for losing someone dear to you, what's a couple of years if you admit your guilt and surrender quietly? And that's before we get into "hey, this guy made a hit list with my name on it, and we have to take that seriously because the person at the top of the list was already murdered." For the rest, one of your studies says "There was no evidence of significant differences on rearrest or reconviction. Moderator analysis showed no significant moderating effect for risk score, age, or sex." and "the results would be considered mixed, at best." Which... yeah, is pretty much what I've seen for the most part. Maybe I'm not communicating what I think accurately enough, but this sort of result pretty much exactly what I have in mind. You find studies with promising numbers that still turn out to be meh and don't leave you convinced that the intervention is actually changing what the people are capable of. Importantly, I do not say that nothing shows some promise, or that we shouldn't keep trying, I'm just saying we don't have anything that looks like it can be scaled up to have big impact. And I get that it's hard to measure when plenty of people will do maybe one crime due to some big mistake and had no intention of doing more. I have some small hope that maybe intervening for psychosis could help with violent offenses, but that might assume too much about people taking their meds, unless they're willing and able to use long-lasting injections.
      • tfourb 3y ago
        > I think you underestimate the revenge cycle that might occur if society wanted to be more lenient than life in prison, which was the result here. […] My guess is you are writing from a U.S. point of view. You are severely underestimating how much of an outlier the U.S. is in terms of its justice system when compared to other democracies. Germany, not exactly known for its historical social cuddliness, for example doesn't even allow "life in prison" sentences. Our constitution guarantees the possibility for every convicted, no matter the crime, to regain their freedom. Even people convicted of multiple murders will get their first parole hearing after 15 years and while a court can order their detention beyond this, this is technically no longer a prison sentence and only allowable if there is a high likelihood that the person in question will cause additional harm if released. This assessment is checked every few years with the goal that no one will spend more time in prison than necessary. This approach to criminal justice enjoys broad support in Germany and most western European societies. All of these societies are also considerably more safe than the U.S. and many other places that put an explicit emphasis on retributive justice. I'm not aware of notable cases of revenge violence due to this. Retributive justice is an outdated philosophy that only sounds reasonable when you assume the worst in people and ignore the effects of the intergenerational trauma that it produces.
• ozr 3y ago
  > How does the (in democratic societies) generally accepted principle in dubio pro reo fit into this? By creating a society that, on balance, trusts the state and it's institutions to enact justice (apply suffering, in context). It will fail to be perfect, same as any other system. But it just needs to work well enough that a sufficient mass of citizens don't lose faith in it and try to enact their own forms of justice. We can all point to cases where murderers got away with it, or someone who was ruled guilty received a sentence we think is wrong, but _overall_, we're ok with the state managing violence on our behalf. > In terms of practical social functioning, rehabilitation of criminals is much more valuable than punishment, which is why most democracies at least aspire to this ideal. There is little evidence that any rehabilitation schemes are particularly successful, with the gaps between the most- and least- effective not being particularly meaningful. You prevent crimes by removing people that commit them from society.
  • tfourb 3y ago
    > You prevent crimes by removing people that commit them from society. By that logic the U.S. should be among the least crime-ridden societies in the world, having an incarceration rate of 531 people per 100,000 compared to 67 per 100,000 in i.e. Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarcera... But in reality, Germany experiences significantly less crime than the U.S.: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/crime-rate-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/crime-rat... In fact, only about a third of convicted criminals in Germany will be convicted again to a prison term after serving their sentence/paying their fines: https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/kriminalitaetsstudie-von-drei-straftaetern-wird-einer-rueckfaellig-a-953533.html https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/kriminalitaetsstudie-... This is similar in the U.S.: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/recidivism-rates-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/recidivis... A "removal from society" of people that engage in crime previously thus does not seem to be a prerequisite for preventing crime. Especially murderers seem to experience quite low recidivism rates, likely owing to the fact that murders tend to be highly personal affairs and/or highly dependent on the the availability of a significant motive and opportunity. The lesson here seems to be that you prevent crime by limiting the situations that would give people the opportunity or require them to commit it. I.e. you provide a social safety net, limit access to firearms, require transparency in financial transactions, etc. And if someone commits a crime, you invest specifically in that person's ability and commitment to not engage in further crime in the future or put differently, you rehabilitate them. That will of course vary from person to person and for some a release back into society might not be an option. But putting people into prison without investing in rehabilitation will just create the conditions to put more (or the same) people into prison (again).