4 ms·

> Rehabilitation basically doesn't happen, in the sense that interventions don't seem to reduce recidivism rates. Sources? Here are some that confirm the effec

by 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.
  - Natsu 3y ago
    The problem with that is that when you have a situation where the punishment is known to be lenient and there's someone threatening your life, you might just be willing to pay the price for revenge. Yes, I'm aware that some places don't do life in prison or such. I'm pointing out the harms of that.
    - tfourb 3y ago
      What you are describing is the plot of a Liam Neeson action flick, and not how real life works. Revenge killings are not a thing or you’d read about them in societies with “lenient” punishments. And if someone threatens your life in the moment you are entitled to reasonable measures of self defense, including killing the attacker if you can not avoid harm to yourself or others in another way, that is a completely separate issue.

by tfourb 3y ago

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.
- Natsu 3y ago
  The problem with that is that when you have a situation where the punishment is known to be lenient and there's someone threatening your life, you might just be willing to pay the price for revenge. Yes, I'm aware that some places don't do life in prison or such. I'm pointing out the harms of that.
  - tfourb 3y ago
    What you are describing is the plot of a Liam Neeson action flick, and not how real life works. Revenge killings are not a thing or you’d read about them in societies with “lenient” punishments. And if someone threatens your life in the moment you are entitled to reasonable measures of self defense, including killing the attacker if you can not avoid harm to yourself or others in another way, that is a completely separate issue.